Created by Juli Fellows, Diane Miller, Pat Korbus January 15, 2016 Task Force on Community Engagement Meeting Notes: January 14, 2016 1 1/20/2016 TFCE1.14.16Notes_V2.docx Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Member Attendance List ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Action Items ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Meeting Notes ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Citizen input ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Consensus Process Used by the Group .............................................................................................................................. 3 Global Criteria for Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 3 Consensus Recommendations for Theme #1 .................................................................................................................... 3 Timeline ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Meeting Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 2 1/20/2016 TFCE1.14.16Notes_V2.docx Executive Summary On January 14, 2016 ten of the thirteen members of the Task Force on Community Engagement (TFCE) attended the meeting at the Street-Jones Building. Citizen comment was provided by John Wooley. The group approved the December 17, 2015 minutes with no changes. The group identified global criteria they wanted ALL consensus recommendations to meet. These included: • It’s legal. • It’s an improvement. • It’s easy enough to implement (in our view). • Whenever possible, it addresses a problem presented to the TF. • The City has the resources to do it (money, staff, skills, etc.) The group can ask for reallocation of resources. • The recommendation is quantifiable, measurable. • It produces a good return on investment. • It’s based on data. They decided to begin discussion of recommendations around theme #1 “Make information clear, relevant and easily accessible”. Each member proposed his or her top recommendation that he/she felt met the global criteria. These proposals could be something proposed on Bloomfire or a new idea. Using these as a starting place, the group sought consensus, applying the process shown on page four. The TF was able to reach consensus on seven recommendations for theme #1 (page 3). Consensus recommendations may be prioritized in some way once all the recommendations have been agreed on. The group may also use a legend or other way to categorize the recommendations, to make them easier to understand. They agreed that there were three categories in their recommendations for theme #1 – accessibility, digital communication and the notification system. They discussed the timeline and remaining steps to complete their work. They will meet on January 28, February 11 and February 25 to finalize recommendations. March 10 and March 24 will be held in reserve as meeting dates, if the group agrees that they are needed in order to finish their work. CPIO staff will provide a written update to advise City Council on the …
Task Force on Community Engagement Ninth Meeting January 28, 2016 6-9 p.m. Street Jones Bldg, 4th fl conference room 1/20/2016. Created by Diane Miller and Juli Fellows EleventhMeetingDetailsV1.docx Meeting Goals 1. Identify potential recommendations by topic. 2. Seek consensus on recommendations. Agenda 6:00 Overview – review goals, agenda and discussion guidelines 6:03 Citizen Input 6:10 Approve Minutes 6:15 Seek consensus on recommendations by topic 7:30 Break 7:40 Continue working on recommendations 8:55 Discuss next steps and evaluate the meeting 9:00 Adjourn
TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT JANUARY 14, 2016, 6:00 – 9:00 PM STREET-JONES BUILDING, ROOM 400A 1000 E. 11th STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78702 CURRENT TASK FORCE MEMBERS: Celso Baez III Michael Clark-Madison Margarita Decierdo Richard Fonte Joe Green Andrea Hamilton Claudia Herrington Chris Howe Christopher Ledesma Koreena Malone Ken Rigsbee Irfan Syed Navvab Taylor Sara Torres AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 PM 1. OPENING REMARKS a. Diane Miller, Task Force Facilitator with Civic Collaboration, will discuss the outline of the meeting. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL a. Citizens wishing to speak will need to sign up ten minutes before the meeting is called to order. Citizen communications will be limited to the first five (5) speakers and each citizen communicator will be given three (3) minutes to speak. Everyone will provide a sticky note to write their input which will later be sent to all of the Task Force members. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Consider approving the minutes from the Task Force on Community Engagement (TFCE) regular meeting on December 17, 2015. b. Review notes from the December 17, 2015 TFCE Regular Meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion and possible action on the following items a. Discussion and possible action on global criteria for recommendations to Council b. Seek consensus on recommendations to Council by topic. c. Discuss next steps, update to Council, timeline and drafting of report. 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Discussion of topics for future TFCE Meetings. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Matthew Chustz at the Communications & Public Information Office, at (512) 974-7270, Matthew.Chustz@austintexas.gov, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Task Force on Community Engagement, please contact Matthew Chustz at (512) 974-7270, Matthew.Chustz@austintexas.gov.
TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING MINUTES (January 14, 2015) 1 Task Force on Community Engagement REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 14, 2016 The Task Force on Community Engagement convened in a regular meeting on January 14, 2016 at the Street-Jones Building, 1000 E 11th Street, Room 400A, in Austin, Texas. Facilitator Diane Miller, with Civic Collaboration, called the Task Force Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Celso Baez III, Michael Clark-Madison, Andrea Hamilton, Claudia Herrington, Chris Howe, Christopher Ledesma, Koreena Malone, Ken Rigsbee, Navvab Taylor, Sara Torres Staff in Attendance: Matthew Chustz, Doug Matthews Facilitators in Attendance: Diane Miller, Julie Fellows 1. OPENING REMARKS a. Diane Miller provided an overview of the meeting agenda. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICTION: GENERAL a. One citizen spoke. John Woodley, advocate for Americans with disabilities, addressed the group. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. The Task Force approved, by consensus, the minutes from the December 17, 2015 Task Force on Community Engagement (TFCE) Regular Meeting. b. The Task Force reviewed the December 17, 2015 TFCE Regular Meeting notes provided by the facilitator. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Global criteria for recommendations to Council. The Task Force members came to consensus on global criteria for their recommendations to Council. The addition of further criteria will be discussed at subsequent meetings. b. Seek consensus on recommendations to Council by topic. Task Force members reached consensus on the recommendations to Council for one (1) of the five (5) main themes/topics identified in the needs assessment. The group will continue to develop recommendations on the themes/topics at the next Task Force Meeting on January 28, 2016. c. Discuss next steps, update to Council, timeline and drafting of report The group developed a final plan of action for the remainder of the Task Force Meetings and agreed to prioritize the recommendations once all recommendations have been developed. The Task Force came to consensus and scheduled four (4) more meetings taking place at the same interval as previous meetings – every other week on Thursday. The additional meeting dates are: TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING MINUTES (January 14, 2015) 2 February 11, 2016 – 6:00 – 9:00 pm February 25, 2016 – 6:00 – 9:00 pm March 10, 2016 – 6:00 – 9:00 pm March 24, 2016 – 6:00 – 9:00 pm d. Meeting Evaluation (standing agenda item) The facilitators lead the TFCE members in an evaluation of …
Task Force on Community Engagement Ninth Meeting January 14, 2016 6-9 p.m. Street Jones Bldg, 4th fl conference room 1/6/2016. Created by Diane Miller and Juli Fellows TenthMeetingDetailsV1.docx Meeting Goals 1. Identify global criteria the group wants to use to help choose quality recommendations. 2. Begin identifying potential recommendations, by topic. 3. Seek consensus on recommendations. 4. Agree on update to Council, whether to ask for a time extension, and how to write the draft final report. Agenda 6:00 Overview – review goals, agenda and discussion guidelines 6:03 Citizen Input 6:10 Approve Minutes 6:15 Explore global criteria for recommendations 6:30 Seek consensus on recommendations by topic 7:30 Break 7:40 Continue working on recommendations 8:35 Discuss next steps, update to City Council, timeline and drafting of report 8:55 Evaluate the meeting 9:00 Adjourn
TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING MINUTES (December 17, 2015) 1 Task Force on Community Engagement REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 17, 2015 The Task Force on Community Engagement convened in a regular meeting on December 17, 2015 at the Street-Jones Building, 1000 E 11th Street, Room 400A, in Austin, Texas. Facilitator Diane Miller, with Civic Collaboration, called the Task Force Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Celso Baez III, Michael Clark-Madison, Richard Fonte, Andrea Hamilton, Claudia Herrington, Chris Howe, Ken Rigsbee, Navvab Taylor, Sara Torres Staff in Attendance: Matthew Chustz, Larry Schooler, Facilitators in Attendance: Diane Miller 1. OPENING REMARKS a. Diane Miller provided an overview of the meeting agenda. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICTION: GENERAL a. One citizen spoke. Natalie Gauldin, Director of Friends of Austin Neighborhoods (FAN) addressed the group and encouraged the Task Force to continue to distribute the Community Engagement Survey to renters and other underrepresented populations so that the results more fully represent the diversity of Austin. She advised that FAN would assist the Task Force in the distribution of the survey to attempt to gather a more representative sample of voices. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. The Task Force approved, by consensus, the minutes from the November 19, 2015 Task Force on Community Engagement (TFCE) Regular Meeting. b. The Task Force reviewed the November 19, 2015 TFCE Regular Meeting notes provided by the facilitator. 4. OLD BUSINESS a. Mike Clark-Madison reported on the preliminary results of the English-language community engagement survey, including toplines from all respondents and cross-tabs for each of the stakeholder groups identified in question one. Task Force members reviewed and discussed the survey data and identified the specific needs that the responses revealed. TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING MINUTES (December 17, 2015) 2 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Workgroups report on what interests and unmet needs were heard. Each of the Task Force Workgroups then provided a summary of the methods used and the input gathered from their specific focus area groups, which included business, civic and nonprofit groups, under-represented populations, neighborhoods, city department staff and Boards and Commissions. b. Review survey data and identification of unmet needs. The group discussed their major take-aways from this input process and identified the needs that should be addressed to improve the City’s community engagement efforts. The group decided to extend all of the online surveys to allow for further distribution …
Created by Diane Miller December 21, 2015 Task Force on Community Engagement Meeting Notes: December 17, 2015 1 12/23/2015 TFCE12.17.15Notes_V1.docx Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Members in Attendance .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Decisions Made ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Action Items ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Citizen Comment ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Themes/Discussion of Survey Data ................................................................................................................................... 3 Themes/Discussion of Workgroup Input ........................................................................................................................... 4 Additional reflections on potential recommendations ..................................................................................................... 6 Meeting Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 2 12/23/2015 TFCE12.17.15Notes_V1.docx Executive Summary On December 17, 2015 nine of the currently 12 appointed members of the Task Force on Community Engagement (TFCE) members attended the regularly scheduled TF meeting at the Street-Jones Building. Natalie Gauldin, Director of Friends of Austin Neighborhoods (FAN) addressed the group and encouraged the Task Force to continue to distribute the Community Engagement Survey to renters and other underrepresented populations so that the results more fully represent the diversity of Austin. She advised that FAN would assist the Task Force in the distribution of the survey to attempt to gather a more representative sample of voices. The group approved the November 19, 2015 meeting minutes. Mike Clark-Madison reported on the preliminary results of the English-language community engagement survey, including toplines from all respondents and cross-tabs for each of the stakeholder groups identified in question one, plus for respondents whose race/ethnicity is not “Caucasian or White” and those under 45. He also presented the data from the coding of responses to open-text questions based on “nodes” identified in the Task Force’s key elements of effective community engagement “bridge” diagram. Additional nodes were created to capture other recurring themes in the data and in total, 15 were used. The group reviewed and discussed the survey data and identified the specific needs that the responses revealed. Each of the Task Force Workgroups then provided a summary of the methods used and the input gathered from their specific focus area groups, which included business, civic and nonprofit groups, under-represented populations, neighborhoods, city department staff and Boards and Commissions. The group discussed their major take-aways from this input process and identified the needs identified through this process. Based on Task Force review of the input gathered, to follow are the major themes of the needs that should be addressed to improve the City’s community engagement efforts: 1) Make information clear, relevant and easily accessible. 2) Make it easier for people to give input in ways that are convenient, accessible and appropriate for them. 3) …
Summary of TFCE Needs Assessment Discussions Needs assessment summary.docx Compiled from TFCE Discussions by D Miller 12-22-15 1) Make information clear, relevant and easily accessible. a. Disability accommodations i. Make the information accessible to those with special needs. b. Foreign-language access c. Notification of public hearings at Council meetings d. District / Neighborhood-centered engagement alternatives. i. People want information about what is happening in their district or what directly affects them. e. Virtual/online participation i. There is not an online tool that meets everyone’s needs and the City’s website is not meeting needs. f. People are not aware of communication and engagement tools. g. People want multiple channels and the City as a whole needs to provide multiple channels. h. Being able to filter for information on issues you care about, having curated information, not a “fire hose”. i. Find ways to maximize the impact of City communication that is put out by our strategic partners, e.g. neighbors and other organizations j. A decentralized system results in inconsistency, information being scattered and hard to find, reinventing the wheel each time and no city-wide database of people who engage and what they care about. k. There is a need for localization of information and sources need to be trustworthy. l. There is an issue with the timeliness, consistency and accuracy of information. m. The community registry could be a good tool but it is not. 2) Make it easier for people to give input in ways that are convenient, accessible and appropriate for them. a. Disability accommodations b. Foreign-language access i. Spanish translation needs vary – need to train more people so there is more capacity for translation and interpretation. ii. Use culturally relevant methods including multiple language access c. District / Neighborhood-centered engagement alternatives. i. Every district is different. District-based outreach plans would help. d. Virtual/online participation i. Create opportunities for participation that don’t require people to physically attend meetings and events. e. Need to meet people where they are at and with groups they are already involved with. a. Shouldn’t always have to have them come to the City. f. We need to offer a variety of methods and times for people to engage. i. In some cultures, the mom needs to be home in the evening. ii. It takes too much time to participate, especially for those with families. g. Choose tools and techniques that fit the norms, …
1 Created by Juli Fellows, 1/14/2016 Initial summary on Recommendations from Bloomfire.docx Brief Summaries of Initial Thinking on Recommendations as of Jan 13, 2016 Theme 1: Make information clear… 1. Redesign the City website to make it easier to find information, including working well in a mobile interface. Improve the search function. Perhaps Salt Lake could be a model. 2. Move the "connect with the city" tab on the front page to the top right, and get rid of the "best managed city" tab. Add City Council tab. 3. Improve the community registry - work with Code for America volunteer brigade to develop a better interface for this data. 4. Provide closed captioning for ATXN (public access tv) live streaming service. Make ATXN available on an over-the-air channel. 5. Real website translation into Spanish. Set an appropriate population percentage threshold for translating the main pages of the website into other languages. Documents posted to website could be translated on request. Promote Austin311 heavier in Spanish speaking neighborhoods, 6. Expand the role of neighborhoods in City Government, perhaps making a Department of Neighborhoods, like Seattle. 7. Utilize re-usable meeting signs to get the word out, where there is a community meeting. 8. Designate public places in each community where public meetings can be held, that are properly equipped for such the purpose. Whenever possible, these locations should have bus service. 9. Introduction to Austin City Government for newcomers, perhaps a "Welcome to Austin" video that is easy to find on the website. 10. The map of agenda items prototype posted to Bloomfire could be really cool and useful, but more physical addresses would have to be included to make it really useful. It would be cool if the map generated emails to the Community Registry, using a similar radius as the Public Notices require. 11. Expand CityWorks Academy to include online and virtual classes and modules. Request each department that participates in the program to do a video presentation for their department, or perhaps film the presentations at CityWorks 2016. 12. City staff who deal with the public should also be more familiar with how the city works. 13. Develop a Community Engagement Handbook for both staff and residents to use. Clearly outline when community engagement is needed, provide guidelines to set expectations for both sides, and help ensure more consistency and measurable results across departments . 14. Create a central …
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Liz Jambor at Austin Energy Department, 513-322-6353, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force, please contact Liz Jambor at 512-322-6353 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 9:00AM – 12:00 PM TOWN LAKE CENTER – ROOM 100 721 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704 For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/low-income-consumer-advisory-task- force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS The first 5 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve minutes from the September 18, 2015 meeting 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on final report. 4. BRIEFINGS & REPORTS a. Austin Energy staff update on the weatherization program job status b. Status of data requests c. Committee Reports – possible reports from the Low Income Energy Efficiency Program Committee, Low-Moderate Income Energy Efficiency Program Committee, and/or Affordable Rental Property Committee 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Discussion regarding future agenda items including a schedule of topics and issues and topics raised during briefings and citizen communications ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Liz Jambor at Austin Energy Department, 513-322-6353, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force, please contact Liz Jambor at 512-322-6353
LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT Council Resolution No. 20140828-158 Submitted to the City Council by: Carol Biedrzycki, Chair Timothy Arndt, Vice Chair Lanetta Cooper Karen Hadden Richard Halpin Dan Pruett Cyrus Reed Chris Strand Michael WongSeptember 30, 2015 i Executive Summary This is the final report of The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force, created in November 2014 by the seven member at-large Austin City Council. The focus of the Task Force was directed at making recommendations to improve energy efficiency programs for low and low moderate income households served by Austin Energy. Over half of Austin households have low and low moderate incomes. Over a majority of Austin households live in rental property and census data show that renters have lower incomes than homeowners. Therefore, programs for multifamily properties are essential to serving the low and low moderate income community. In our many meetings we never failed to hear comments about the prevalence of high unaffordable utility bills renters struggle to pay. Low and low moderate income customers contribute to the support and financial stability of our utility to a greater degree than they are credited. At the request of the Task Force Austin Energy estimated the amount paid by Customer Assistance Program (CAP) customers in Fiscal Year 2014 to be $52.2 million. CAP customers, a small portion of the low and low moderate income customers and renters served by Austin Energy, paid nearly $1.6 million toward the total costs of energy efficiency and solar programs. The Task Force estimates that together CAP and non-CAP low and low moderate income customers contribute about $10 million a year toward the programs. Thus, equity is an issue that has inspired our recommendations to City Council. In the eleven months the Task Force was convened we did our best to focus on needs and solutions to better serve the broad base of customers we were assigned. Austin Energy has worked diligently with us embracing some of our ideas that are already moving forward while others are still being studied. Overall, while Austin Energy is making efforts to reach low and low moderate income customers, the information and data reviewed by the Task Force shows that more can be done to deliver energy efficiency benefits to these customer groups. We believe our recommendations would improve the delivery of services and hope the City Council finds merit in them. The following …
Page 1 of 2 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force convened in a regular meeting at Town Lake Center, 721 Barton Springs Road, Room 100, in Austin, Texas. Chairperson, Carol Biedrzycki called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Carol Biedrzycki (Chair), Tim Arndt (Vice Chair), Lanetta Cooper, Richard Halpin, Dan Pruett, Cyrus Reed, and Chris Strand. Karen Hadden was not present at the call to order, but arrived later. Michael Wong was absent. Staff in Attendance: Austin Energy (AE) staff included Debbie Kimberly, Liz Jambor, Denise Kuehn (by phone), and Hayden Migl. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department (NHCD) staff included Letitia Brown. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL There were no citizens signed up for Citizen Communications. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve minutes from the September 4, 2015 meeting- A motion was made by Member Richard Halpin to approve the September 4, 2015 meeting minutes and seconded by Member Dan Pruett. Two amendments were proposed: Under Item 3a, add the phrase, “”At least 15% of the solar budget for new projects should be….” Under Item 3c, add the phrase, “Member Cyrus Reed withdrew sections regarding the demand reduction goal, and Member Dan Pruett moved…” Member Halpin and Member Pruett accepted the amendments and the motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote, with Vice Chair Tim Arndt abstaining and Member Karen Hadden not yet in attendance. 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on final report. - Members went through the draft of the final report page by page, discussed the sections of the document amongst themselves and with Austin Energy staff, and suggested revisions that were accepted and will be reflected in the next draft of the report. The final vote on the report is scheduled to take place at a special called meeting on September 25, 2015. 4. BRIEFINGS & REPORTS a. Austin Energy staff update on the weatherization program job status – This item was not discussed. b. Status of data requests – This item was not discussed. c. Committee Reports – possible reports from the Low Income Energy Efficiency Program Committee, Low-Moderate Income Energy Efficiency Program Committee, and/or Affordable Rental Property Committee - This item was not discussed. Page 2 of 2 5. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Discussion regarding future agenda items including a schedule of topics and issues …
ENERGY EFFICIENCY EQUALS ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTThe Economics of Public Utility System Benefit Funds:Jerrold OppenheimTheo MacGregorJune 2008ABOUT THE AUTHORSJerrold Oppenheim and Theo MacGregor are the co-authors of a comprehensiveexamination of the benefits of early childhood education, published in 2002. Thatdocument has been used extensively to inform policy makers about the needs and valuesof investments made in Pre-K and other early childhood programs. In 2006, Entergyagain turned to Oppenheim and MacGregor for the answer to another critical question—that of “What is the business case for investing in low-income programs?”For 2008, Entergy asked Oppenheim and MacGregor to examine more deeply theeconomics of investing in low-income programs that focus on energy use.A graduate of Harvard College and Boston College Law School (Juris Doctor), JerroldOppenheim directed energy and utility litigation for the Attorneys General of New Yorkand Massachusetts. In his 35+-year career, he has played a key role in the development ofregulatory policy in US states as legal counsel and advisor for state governments,consumer organizations, low-income advocates, labor unions, environmental interests,industrial customers, and utilities.Theo MacGregor founded MacGregor Energy Consultancy in 1998, specializing inelectric industry consumer, low-income, and energy efficiency issues. Prior to foundingher own firm, Ms. MacGregor spent more than ten years with the Electric Power Divisionof the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU), most recently as actingdirector. Ms. MacGregor holds an MBA from Simmons School of Management inBoston, Massachusetts.Together, they are co-authors, with Greg Palast, ofDemocracy And Regulation(PlutoPress, 2002), winner of the American Civil Liberties Union Upton Sinclair Freedom ofExpression Award. Much of their recent work is posted onwww.DemocracyAndRegulation.com. ENERGY EFFICIENCY EQUALS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTFOREWORDPublic investments in low-income energy efficiency are an extraordinarily potent sourceof economic development, including jobs. To make this point we used conventionalUnited States Commerce Department multiplier data to determine the effect of low-income energy efficiency in a manner not done before: we analyzed the multiplier effectof the investment, as many others have done, but we also analyzed the multiplier effect ofa comprehensive menu of economic benefits of thus directing resources to reducepoverty. To make the point in an unmistakable way, we compared our results with themultiplier effect of a public investment that is widely agreed (including by us) to besocially and economically productive – public incentives for manufacturing. Ifinvestments in low-income energy efficiency were as economically productive asinvestments to attract manufacturing, then such investments would be very productiveindeed.We favor the development of domestic manufacturing because it provides well-payingjobs and increases economic activity in …
APPENDIX ADDITION – Budget Example Example of Proposed Budget The Task Force adopted a recommendation that at least 25 percent of the entire Energy Efficiency Services budget should be dedicated to programs that serve low-income and low-to-moderate income residents. We consider the budget to include the direct rebates and incentives programs often referred to as Conservation Rebates and Incentives Programs (CRIP), as well as programs like the Greenbuilding Program, which is paid for by the EES fee but does not directly pay out incentives, and administrative and contract expenses sometimes placed in a separate budget category known as Demand Side Management. As part of the 25 percent recommendation, the Task Force also endorsed a recommendation that at least 10 percent of the total EES budget pay for the free weatherization program, and at least 15 percent of any solar budget for new solar projects be dedicated to homes or buildings that help low or low-to-moderate income residents. An example of such a proposed budget can be found below. This is meant to be illustrative of what an overall $42 million dollar budget might look like. Obviously, the exact figures would need to be carefully surmised based upon administrative expenses, existing contracts, demand goals and other factors, but the example shows how 25 percent of a total $42,000,000 budget could be spent on low and low-to-moderate customers, including at least $4,200,000 on the free weatherization program. The solar numbers assume that a small part (less than 5 percent) of the solar rebates could serve homes where low-to-moderate income dwellers reside, and that a more substantial part – some 20 percent -- of the solar incentive budget for commercial entities could be earmarked for Multi-family buildings that serve low-income residents. The table assumes that some of the appliance, lighting and Energy Star rebates – approximately – would reach low-to-moderate income dwellers, but this could be assured through marketing and surveying customers. Category Amount Serving Low-Income Customers Amount Serving Low to Low-Moderate Income Customers Other Customers Total Weatherization $4,200,000 $0 $0 $4,200,000 Multi-Family EES $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $4,200,000 Loan Program Expenses $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 Solar Home Rebates $200,000 $5,000,000 $5,200,000 Solar Commercial Rebates $400,000 $1,200,000 $1,600,000 Green-Building Ratings and Codes $500,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 Emergency Air-Conditioning Program $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 Commercial Rebates and Incentives (not including Multi-Family) $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Demand Response $300,000 $1,600,000 $1,900,000 Thermal Storage $800,000 $800,000 Category Amount Serving Low-Income Customers Amount Serving …
LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT DRAFT 10 FOR ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 Submitted to the City Council by: Carol Biedrzycki, Chair Timothy Arndt, Vice Chair Lanetta Cooper Karen Hadden Richard Halpin Dan Pruett Cyrus Reed Chris Strand Michael Wong September 30, 2015 i Executive Summary This is the final report of The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force, created in November 2014 by the seven member at-large Austin City Council. The focus of the Task Force was directed at making recommendations to improve energy efficiency programs for low and low moderate income households served by Austin Energy. Over half of Austin Energy’s residential customers have low and low moderate incomes. Over a majority of Austin households live in rental property and census data show that renters have lower incomes than homeowners. Therefore, programs for multifamily properties are essential to serving the low and low moderate income community. In our many meetings we never failed to hear comments about the prevalence of high unaffordable utility bills renters struggle to pay. Low and low moderate income customers contribute to the support and financial stability of our utility to a greater degree than they are credited. At the request of the Task Force Austin Energy estimated the amount paid by Customer Assistance Program (CAP) customers in 2014 to be $52.2 million. CAP customers, a small portion of the low and low moderate income customers and renters served by Austin Energy, paid nearly $1.6 million toward the total costs of energy efficiency and solar programs. The Task Force estimates that together CAP and non-CAP low and low moderate income customers contribute about $11 million a year toward the programs. In the eleven months the Task Force was convened we did our best to focus on needs and solutions to better serve the broad base of customers we were assigned. Austin Energy has worked diligently with us embracing some of our ideas that are already moving forward while others are still being studied. Overall, while Austin Energy is making efforts to reach low and low moderate income customers, the information and data reviewed by the Task Force shows that more can be done to deliver energy efficiency benefits to these customer groups. We believe our recommendations would improve the delivery of services and hope the City Council finds merit in them. The following lists the six directives given in the resolution …
1 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT DRAFT 9 DRAFT 9 FOR ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 September 21, 2015 This Draft 9 is the final draft report with changes agreed to by the full task force on September 18. The purpose of this draft is to have all the task force members check the changes to make sure they are made as you anticipated. Therefore, this is a redlined document. The next version will be cleaned up and ready for a final review and a vote on September 25th. this will be posted on Wednesday September 25th. Formatted: SuperscriptFormatted: Font: CalibriFormatted: List Paragraph i Executive Summary This is the final report of The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force, created in November 2014 by the seven member at-large Austin City Council. The focus of the Task Force was directed at making recommendations to improve energy efficiency programs for low and low moderate income households served by Austin Energy. Over half of Austin Energy’s residential customers have low and low moderate incomes. Over a majority of Austin households live in rental property and census data show that renters have lower incomes than homeowners. Therefore, programs for multifamily properties are essential to serving the low and low moderate income community. In our many meetings we never failed to hear comments about the prevalence of high unaffordable utility bills renters struggle to pay. Low and low moderate income customers contribute to the support and financial stability of or utility to a greater degree than they are credited. At the request of the Task Force Austin Energy estimated the amount paid by Customer Assistance Program (CAP) customers in 2014 to be $52.2 million. CAP customers, a small portion of the low and low moderate income customers and renters served by Austin Energy, paid nearly $1.6 million toward the total costs of energy efficiency and solar programs. The Task Force estimates that together CAP and non CAP low and low moderate income customers contribute about $11 million a year toward the programs. . In the eleven months the Task Force was convened we did our best to focus on needs and solutions to better serve the broad base of customers we were assigned. Austin Energy has worked diligently with us embracing some of our ideas that are already moving forward while others are still being studied. Overall, while Austin Energy is making …
ORNL/CON-484NONENERGY BENEFITS FROM THE WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCEPROGRAM: A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE RECENTLITERATUREMartin SchweitzerBruce TonnOAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY DOCUMENT AVAILABILITYReports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Departmentof Energy (DOE) Information Bridge.Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public fromthe following source.National Technical Information Service5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847)TDD 703-487-4639Fax 703-605-6900E-mail info@ntis.fedworld.govWeb site http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htmReports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology DataExchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS)representatives from the following source.Office of Scientific and Technical InformationP.O. Box 62Oak Ridge, TN 37831Telephone 865-576-8401Fax 865-576-5728E-mail reports@adonis.osti.govWeb site http://www.osti.gov/contact.htmlThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United States Government. Neither theUnited States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any oftheir employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, orassumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,product, or process disclosed, or represents that its usewould not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein toany specific commercial product, process, or service by tradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does notnecessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation, or favoring by the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof. The views and opinionsof authors expressed herein do not necessarily state orreflect those of the United States Government or any agencythereof. ORNL/CON-484NONENERGY BENEFITS FROM THE WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCEPROGRAM: A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE RECENT LITERATUREMartin Schweitzer, Bruce TonnOAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORYDate Published: April 2002Prepared forU. S. Department of EnergyOffice of Building Technology AssistanceBudget Activity Number EC 17 01 00 0Prepared byOAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORYOak Ridge, Tennessee 37831managed byUT-BATTELLE, LLCfor theU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 ivTABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................vii1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................11.1 BACKGROUND....................................................11.2 METHODS.........................................................11.3 SCOPE OF REPORT.................................................32. RATEPAYER BENEFITS....................................................52.1 PAYMENT-RELATED BENEFITS.....................................62.2 SERVICE PROVISION BENEFITS......................................93. BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLDS..............................................113.1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING BENEFITS.................................123.2 SAFETY, HEALTH, AND COMFORT BENEFITS........................154. SOCIETAL BENEFITS.....................................................174.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS......................................174.2 SOCIAL BENEFITS................................................204.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS..............................................215. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................236. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................277. REFERENCES............................................................29 v vi1200110010009008007006005004003002001000Ratepayer Benefits: Payment-RelatedPoint Estimate (2001 $ per participating household: Net Present Value)Ratepayer Benefits: Service ProvisionHousehold Benefits: Affordable HousingHousehold Benefits: Safety,Health, and ComfortSocietal Benefits: EnvironmentalSocietal Benefits: SocialSocietal Benefits: Economic1811507831238691171123EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe purpose of this project is to summarize findings reported in the recent literature onnonenergy benefits attributable to the weatherizing of low income homes. This study is a follow-up to the seminal research conducted on the nonenergy benefits attributable to theDepartment of Energy’s national Weatherization Assistance Program by Brown et al. (1993). For …
and .The Economic Development Impacts of Home Energy Assistance:The Entergy StatesDeveloped for Entergy by:Roger D. ColtonFisher, Sheehan & ColtonAugust 2003 The Economic Development of Home Eneergy Assistance | The Energy States and .The Economic Development Impacts of Home Energy Assistance The Entergy States ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES - i CHAPTER ONE- Introduction 1 Energy and Weatherization in the Entergy States 1 Defining the Economic Impacts of Energy Assistance 3 CHAPTER TWO - The Economic Development Impacts of Cash Energy Assistance 5 The Benefit Impacts of Cash Energy Assistance 5 The Payment Impacts of Cash Energy Assistance 6 Changes in Payment Patterns 7 Household Level Impacts of Improved Payment Patterns 9 Statewide Impacts of Improved Payment Patterns 11 Summary of Payment Impacts 12 The Behavior Impacts of Cash Energy Assistance 13 Changes in Behavior Patterns 13 Household Level Impacts of Changed Behavior Patterns 15 Statewide Impacts of Changed Behavior Patterns 15 Summary of Behavior Impacts 16 Summary of Cash Assistance Economic Development Impacts 17 CHAPTER THREE - The Economic Development Impacts of Weatherization Assistance 18 The Benefit Impacts of Weatherization Assistance 18 The Payment Impacts of Weatherization Assistance 20 Process Issues with Quantifying Payment and Behavior Impacts 21 Quantifying the Weatherization Impacts 22 Summary of Payment Impacts 23 The Behavior Impacts of Weatherization Assistance 24 Summary of Behavior Impacts 25 Summary of Weatherization Assistance Economic Development Impacts 27 CHAPTER FOUR - The Particular Economic Development Benefits to the Low-Income Community 28On the Cover: Entergy employees volunteer their weekends to help senior citizens with safety and energy efficiency improvements. The Economic Development of Home Eneergy Assistance | The Energy States and .Executive Summary The delivery of low-income home energy assistance in the states served by Entergy operating companies provides a wide range of economic benefits to those states. Frequently thought of exclusively as a way to prevent unpaid utility bills, and to preserve service against termination for nonpayment, in fact, low-income energy assistance can also be viewed as a strategy to promote economic development and employment (particularly in low-income communities). The economic impacts that low-income energy assistance provides to the Entergy states are quantified below. For purposes of this analysis, the Entergy states include Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The Entergy jurisdictions within these states …
AE Weatherization Program job status as of September 21, 2015 1 ReferralsDuplicates Loaded to SFHomeownersRentersUnable to ServeUnable to Contact Able to ServeTotal Screened11,2672,0379,2303,9561,3582,3978396803,916ReferralsUnscreenedScreenedAE Weatherization Contractors Clients Assigned Assessments in Process and Completed Inspections Passed Inspections Failed Homes Invoiced YTD Homes with DO Amt Obligated YTD Amt Paid YTD Airtech 66 66 58 9 58 66 $234,814 $167,350 American Conservation 101 101 89 16 85 101 $456,616 $298,292 American Youth Works 22 22 14 9 10 22 $71,278 $28,144 City Conservation 106 106 101 24 100 106 $405,543 $321,984 Climate Mechanical 22 22 18 11 15 22 $81,280 $46,592 Conservation Specialist 43 43 43 0 43 43 $164,913 $160,507 Go Green 81 81 76 19 73 81 $283,742 $226,774 McCullough 60 60 28 13 14 60 $245,803 $49,979 Valdez 30 30 27 7 19 30 $98,905 $63,161 Total 531 531 454 108 417 531 $2,042,893 $1,362,782 Note 1: Of the 531 homes, 46 are renters Note 2: 2015 values will include costs incurred for AWU reimbursement of water related improvements, unvouchered AP transactions and Refrigerator Recycling costs. These values may change after final financial audited values are confirmed and may not be reflected in the weekly report generated by the department for the weatherization program.”
