1. On-Bill Repayment Recommendation: Austin Energy would allow for repayment for energy efficiency retrofits on a customer’s monthly utility bill. Financing Would Come from a third-party not from the utility itself. Rebates would also be provided for qualifying measures. Targeted Group: Middle and Moderate Income Residential Customers Time Schedule: Not Determined Estimated Cost: Depending on how the financing is structured, the cost effectiveness should be less than or equal to Austin Energy’s current financing program for home efficiency. Initial capital must be provided; $500,000 is suggested for a pilot project either from Austin Energy directly or a third party. Money could also to be be utilized for a loan-loss guarantee or as a guarantor on a vendor note. There could also be some cost involved for the redesign of the bill to include the tariff or payment arrangement for repaying the loan. This does not include staff time. Description: Through on bill repayment, Tthe utility assists customers in attaining cost-effective energy upgrades at customer sites – like better building efficiency, more efficient appliances, HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) systems and rooftop solar through on-bill repayment. The customer pays nothing upfront for the upgrades they choose because the third party lender or vendor pays the installer. Using a tariff payment arrangement, the utility puts a fixed charge on the customer’s monthly bill that is less than the estimated savings generated by the upgrade – so the customer enjoys immediate and sustained cash flow. Until the investment is recovered, the tariff payment arrangement for the improvement charge automatically transfers to future customers at that site. Transparency would be assured by requiring building owners to inform future buyers or renters of the property of the on-bill repayment in place. On-Bill Repayment (OBR) clears the biggest barriers to financing because it does not necessarily depend on a traditional consumer loan,. Nor is it characterized as a long-term lease, or a lien on the value of the property. Renters and lower-income households have faced barriers to accessing investment capital for cost-effective energy upgrades, and similar financing challenges have stumped credit-strained companies and local governments. Compared to typical debt-based programs, experience shows that OBR has a bigger impact for these reasons: 1. First, the addressable market is double the size because nearly all customers are eligible. 2. When customers are offered upgrades with the OBR value proposition, they accept more than half of the time, …
MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force FROM: Debbie Kimberly, V.P. Customer Energy Solutions DATE: September 16, 2015 SUBJECT: Response to Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICATF) Final Report On September 14, 2015, the LICATF submitted the updated final draft (version 8) of its report to task force members and staff for review in preparation for task force votes on September 18. Austin Energy deeply appreciates the work of this group, and also acknowledges the support of many Austin Energy staff over the past 11 months, which entailed 25 meetings, numerous information requests and thousands of hours of work. With the final report totaling 60 pages, and in an effort to facilitate task force dialogue, this document is prepared in summary fashion, with further staff input on specific recommendations to be provided by September 25. In reviewing the task force report, we are encouraged by areas of agreement and would note that many of these initiatives have already been implemented and/or agreed to by staff. Examples include: 1) Increased detail and transparency in data reporting via monthly and annual reports. Monthly reports are posted online, and staff will continue to add detail (including monthly weatherization reporting shared with the task force). Requests for Council Approval (RCAs) have added significant explanatory detail. Staff prepared detail on the CES budget that expanded the high level information assembled by the City. Staff also agreed prospectively to prepare year-end reports that depict participation by Councilmember district (as well as for customers living outside the City of Austin). 2) Enhanced efficiencies in program administration. Reflective of program process improvements made this year, roughly 530 customer residences will be weatherized this year, a number that would have been higher were it not for issues beyond staff’s control associated with finalizing the new contract. Multifamily performance has exceeded budget and steps have been taken to ensure that the program is cost-effective in reaching this large, growing and hard-to-reach market. 3) Staff commissioned and distributed a report by GDS Associates to assess best practices and is continuing to explore ways to enhance and streamline program administration. 4) AE is coordinating with other City departments on focused outreach to select neighborhoods in 2016 – in particular, the Holly and Rundberg Lane communities. 5) Multifamily ECAD audits and disclosures are already available on the COA data mart. Staff is committed to further enhance outreach efforts that were expanded …
LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED Draft 09/14/15 Directive 1 Make recommendations regarding the development, design, and implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to meet the demand reduction goals of low income and low-moderate income residential customer programs. Recommendation that Austin Energy Should Improve and Make More Transparent the Tracking of its Energy Efficiency Programs. (A) All Austin Energy programs funded with revenues realized from the energy efficiency rate should be consistently reported to the public, the City’s advisory commissions and the Council. (B) All program costs funded with energy efficiency dollars should be consistently reported and the operations and maintenance costs should be separated out from the rebates and other direct costs of the programs. (C) In any budget presentation to support its energy efficiency rate proposal, Austin Energy should not include any energy efficiency program costs funded with Customer Assistance Program revenues. (D) Austin Energy should develop better tracking data by city council district to: measure energy and demand savings, including consumption data measuring the actual customer usage both before and after the customer benefited from an energy efficiency program; analyze the demographics of program participation while protecting privacy data; and demonstrate coordination with other publically funded programs. (E) Austin Energy should provide monthly, quarterly and annual reports to the Resource Management Commission, Electric Utility Commission and City Council indicating energy efficiency, Customer Assistance Program (CAP) Weatherization, Demand Response, Green Building and Solar activities and City Council should establish accountability procedures. (Adopted 06/05/15 - 7 yes, 0 no) LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED Draft 09/14/15 Recommendation for Weatherization Program Cost Reduction Study. The City Council should direct the City Manager to investigate operating practices that could potentially increase the cost effectiveness of the low income weatherization program while maintaining all program services and standards and report back to city council in six months with a strategy for implementation. (Adopted 09/04/15 - 7 yes, 0 no) Recommendation for an Annual Energy Efficiency True-up. The City Council should establish a true up proceeding for the energy efficiency rates within six months after the close of each fiscal year to reconcile any over or under recovery of the utility’s energy efficiency revenues, realized and imputed, attributable to the energy efficiency rate for that recently closed fiscal year with that fiscal year’s energy efficiency expenses, including operations and maintenance, …
Amend Section III (A)(5)(d) by adding the term “energy efficiency program and by” between the words “better tracking data by” and “city council” in the sub paragraph heading and amending the first full paragraph on p. 23 of the 8th draft final report to state as follows: Tracking energy use and demand before and after energy efficiency improvements are installed by program will ensure all demand and energy savings are captured when Austin Energy leverages its resources with other funds. One example is Austin Energy leveraging its weatherization program with the home repairs funded by the city and implemented through Neighborhood Housing. Energy and demand savings realized from home repairs which are not currently captured would be credited to the energy efficiency program. Data tracked by program can also be used to serve as a check on the reasonableness of deemed savings assumptions that are in general use to estimate program savings. For instance, AE has informed the Task Force that its deemed savings assumptions for its Multi-family program overstated actual bill savings.1 Austin Energy’s success of partnership with the city’s affordable housing programs should be tracked to ensure that the city and Austin Energy maximize the effect public and utility resources can have when merged. 1 July 17, 2015 Task Force Meeting, AE response to question on Multi-family Retrofit Report (Audio at 85:09 minuites).
Amend Section III (C)(3) at pp 33 and 34 by making the following changes: 1. Universal Application with Automatic Referral Process Recommendation: The City departments that provide services to low and low-moderate income customers based on income eligibility should use a universal application form that is not only processed by the receiving department but is also immediately referred to the other respective departments and the Health and Human Services Department should be the residual department to screen low income energy efficiency program applicants for income eligibility. Targeted Group: Low and low-moderate income Austin Energy customers. Variations in income eligibility requirements will be considered. Time Schedule: Implement in FY 2016 Community Need: Various City of Austin (“COA”) departments rely upon an income-determinative process for providing services to low and low-moderate income Austin Energy customers. The processes do not readily translate to qualifying criteria for Austin Energy low and low-moderate income energy efficiency programs and other city programs. Nor does that application necessarily get referred to Austin Energy or any other city departments providing services to low and low-moderate income households. Austin Energy does not independently verify income for purposes of qualifying Austin Energy customers for low and low-moderate income energy efficiency programs. Customer Assistance Program (CAP) income verification is carried out by a third party vendor who identifies AE customers that participate in governmental programs whose eligibility in household-income based. the administrators of the programs (such as Health and Human Services Commission for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program – SNAP) which automatically qualify a customer for the CAP rate discount. Consequently, non-CAP low income customers will also have access to the weatherization and other low-income programs through the universal application process. The lack of an interdepartmental referral process leaves AE Ccustomers have with barriers to accessing the utility’s low and low-moderate income programs. Because AE relies on referrals for its low income energy efficiency program, AE customers do not have the ability to directly apply for the program. Concern has been expressed by the Council and by groups testifying before the Task Force that there is not enough coordination among the various departments. Variations in income eligibility requirements will be considered. The cost saving benefit of the program individually can be $1,000 per home. Program Description: The following steps are recommended: A universal application should be created, consistent with confidentiality and privacy concerns, and used by all City of Austin departments …
1 Amend No. 7 of the Residential recommendations to replace it with the following recommendation. Reason: The recommendation below is what the Task Force voted on. Proposed Recommendation Number _____ Recommendation for Vulnerable Populations August 21, 2015 Recommendation: A residential low income energy efficiency program should be created to provide window heating and/or cooling units including installation to low income families served by Austin Energy with at least one member who is: aged 62 or older, disabled, or a child six years of age or younger. This program would be implemented through the use of contractor rebates and the provision of energy efficient window cooling and/or heating units purchased by AE achieving discounts through the use of commitments to purchase a minimum number of appliances from one to three retailers in the Austin area. Targeted Underserved Group: Homeowners and tenants whose household income is between 0 and 250% federal poverty guidelines and who meet the qualifications stated above. Time Schedule: Implement in 2016. Brief Description: Provide emergency heating and/or cooling relief to vulnerable populations through the provision of energy efficiency cooling and/or heating window units. Program Description: This program would be provided through the use of contractor rebates and window cooling and heating units purchased at a discount through agreements with one to three retailers in the Austin area to purchases a minimum number of units. Contractors certified by Austin Energy would perform the work. Austin Energy would certify that the window unit(s) is (are) needed before the window unit is installed. Once that determination is made, Austin Energy would provide the window unit(s). After installation, Austin Energy would review the household to ensure the window unit was installed and installed properly. A rebate 2 check issued to the contractor to cover the cost of installation would be provided after the final Austin Energy review. As part of implementing this program, AE should consider providing the air conditioner units through a lending program taking into consideration storage and refurbishing issues involved in a lending program and the experience of other jurisdictions in the lending of air conditioner units. Budget: There are three funding components to this proposed program: 1. One-time funding to establish a contingency reserve to provide payment to the manufacturer-retailer if the guaranteed minimum level of cooling and/or heating appliances are not purchased; 2. Funding for rebates; and 3. The cost of the cooling and/or heating window units
AE Weatherization Program job status as of September 18, 2015 1 ReferralsDuplicates Loaded to SFHomeownersRentersUnable to ServeUnable to Contact Able to ServeTotal ScreenedReferralsUnscreenedScreenedAE Weatherization ContractorsClients AssignedAssessments in Process and CompletedInspections PassedInspections FailedHomes Invoiced YTDHomes with DOAmt Obligated YTDAmt Paid YTDAirtech66665585566$234,814$142,905American Conservation101101821571101$456,616$292,562American Youth Works22221241022$71,278$28,144City Conservation 106106962395106$405,543$303,115Climate Mechanical222217111522$81,280$46,592Conservation Specialist43434304343$164,913$160,507Go Green818174177181$283,742$223,103McCullough60602461460$245,803$49,979Valdez30302671930$98,905$63,161Total53153142991393531$2,042,893$1,310,066Note 1: Of the 531 homes, 46 are rentersNote 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.”
1 MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force FROM: Liz Jambor, Customer Energy Solutions DATE: September 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Response to Task Force Question During the September 4th Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force meeting, a question was asked regarding the load factors across all programs. This memo serves as the response. The discussion during the meeting centered on energy savings and load factor as measured by the rebate programs. While we capture the kW and kWh per program, the number of hours, specific to the energy and demand savings, is a bit more a challenge. Based on the method by which meter data is collected, there are very few programs from which we have a load factor or a load shape. Interval meters are needed to capture the fluctuations in use over the hours of the day, typically read in 15-minute increments. The vast majority of our residential meters are read daily as well as most of our commercial meters. Additionally, formulas that do use the interval meter data, thus producing a load factor and load shape, are based on the “average” customer and would not represent all customers across all energy efficiency programs. Savings for our residential energy efficiency programs were originally based on the DOE-2 model (Department of Energy) and have been modified with subsequent bill analysis. We focus on the kW savings by measure and by program as an indication of the savings generated by the energy efficiency measures. We report this as part of our monthly and annual reports of savings by program. Typically, the benefit of the savings over the expenditure is viewed in terms of the benefit/cost ratio of the Total Resource Cost test, the Utility test or the Participant test. Each test is deemed as a positive benefit to cost ratio if the result is 1.0 or greater. Table 1 below provides the results of the FY14 programs and the corresponding Benefit/Cost Ratio tests. As the table indicates, a majority of the residential programs exceed 1.0 across all three tests. Another way we measure the impact of the programs (in the absence of load factors) is assessing the dollars per kW, or the rebate plus 65% O&M dollars spent to gain a kW of savings. The residential programs range from $542/kW to $5,003/kW for FY14. The low income weatherization program had the highest rebate dollars spent per kW realized. Table 1 …
From: Jambor, Liz (Elizabeth) [mailto:Elizabeth.Jambor@austinenergy.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 5:19 PM To: Lanetta Cooper; Kuehn, Denise; Kimberly, Deborah (Debbie) Subject: RE: history of multi-family ee program Lanetta: Given that Debbie and Denise are both away on work-related business, please let me provide you some information. The Austin Energy Multi-Family Program had its beginnings in 1986 with an energy audit of 145 properties that were considered for a pilot program that was yet to be defined. After several years of trials and tribulations, the Multi-Family Incentive Pilot Program launched October 1, 1989. The pilot was successful and the Multi-Family Program soon became a standard rebate offering, helping residents of multi-family communities in Austin save on their energy bills while enjoying more comfortable apartment homes. With little exception, the bulk of the program as it was originally designed has remained unchanged. More details of the FY14 and FY15 programs can be found in our annual report at https://austinenergy.com/wps/wcm/connect/3c27e063-b577-4a6f-835a-4338db2c1401/5-7-15+CES+Spreads+ReportReduced.pdf?MOD=AJPERES . The multifamily program is found on pages 12-13 (page 7 in the downloaded version), with detailed tables on pages 26-30 (pages 14-16 on the downloaded version). You can also find details about the current program at https://powersaver.austinenergy.com/wps/portal/psp/multifamily/ . Thanks. Liz Liz Jambor, Ed.D. | Manager, Data Analytics & Business Intelligence | Austin Energy 811 Barton Springs Rd. | 512-322-6353 (ofc) 512-663-1103 (cell) From: Lanetta Cooper [mailto:lcooper@tlsc.org] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:24 PM To: Kuehn, Denise; Jambor, Liz (Elizabeth); Kimberly, Deborah (Debbie) Subject: history of multi-family ee program Hey guys. I called Ms. Kuehn’s number and a message said that she was out of town. I am reviewing the report and we do not have a history of the multi-family ee program: when did it start; what did it first offer; how and when did it change; have costs of the program increased. How was program eligibility established to ensure funding was going to low and low-moderate income customers? In other words, something along what we discuss involving the history of the low income weatherization program. Lanetta M. Cooper
LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE SEPTEMBER 4, 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 August 21, 2015 meeting 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on the low income weatherization budget. (25 min.) b. Discussion and possible action on Austin Energy’s overall energy (kWh) and demand (KW) goals and kWh and KW goals for programs for low income and low moderate income customers. (25 min.) c. Discussion and possible action on ECAD (Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure) online audit and disclosure postings and expanding the scope of disclosure requirements. (10 min.) d. Discussion and possible action on energy efficiency rate true-up proceeding. (10 min.) e. Discussion and possible action on Building Codes. (10 min.) f. Discussion and possible action on audit of the billing system. (5 min.) g. Discussion and possible action on final report. (90 min.) 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 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 ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 4 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 21, 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), Lanetta Cooper, Richard Halpin, Dan Pruett, Cyrus Reed, Chris Strand, and Michael Wong. Tim Arndt (Vice Chair) and Karen Hadden were not present at the call to order, but arrived later. Staff in Attendance: Austin Energy (AE) staff included Debbie Kimberly, Mark Dreyfus, Liz Jambor, Denise Kuehn, Ronnie Mendoza, and Hayden Migl. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department (NHCD) staff included Cara Welch. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL There were no citizens signed up for Citizen Communications. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve minutes from August 7, and August 14, 2015 meeting- A motion was made by Member Dan Pruett to approve the August 7, 2015 meeting minutes and seconded by Member Richard Halpin. All members approved on a 7-0 vote. A motion was made by Member Michael Wong to approve the August 14, 2015 meeting minutes and seconded by Member Richard Halpin. One amendment was proposed. Under Future Agenda Items, second sentence: Edit to read, “…suggesting that a new group be formed by the 10-1 Council to continue the work…” Member Wong and Member Halpin accepted the amendment and all members approved on a 7-0 vote. 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on on-bill repayment and financing arrangements - Member Cyrus Reed introduced the document “On-Bill Repayment Recommendation” (Back-up Item 3a, August 21, 2015 meeting) and highlighted changes since the previous meeting. Member Lanetta Cooper distributed the document “Customer Protections” (Back-up Item 3a, August 21, 2015 meeting) to be associated with this recommendation. Member Richard Halpin motioned approval of the recommendation, and Member Chris Strand seconded. Discussion included concerns regarding the target market and customer protections. An amendment was proposed and accepted to include “as the program is developed, the following customer protections are to be considered,” in the recommendation. The motion passed 6-2 with Chair Biedrzycki and Member Cooper voting against and Vice Chair Arndt not yet in attendance. b. Discussion and possible action on amendments to the multifamily energy efficiency program - This item was not discussed. Page 2 of 4 c. Discussion and possible action on …
RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: The City Council should set a goal that a minimum of 20% of the Energy Efficiency Services budget should be spent on programs that help low and low-moderate income residential customers, with roughly half of this dedicated to a free weatherization program serving those at 200 percent or less of the federal poverty level. Reasoning: The current low and low to moderate income energy efficiency programs consist of a free weatherization program as well as a Multifamily program that is believed to serve many low and low-to-moderate customers. In addition, a relatively small amount of AE energy efficiency expenditures have been made to provide solar incentives on multi-family properties. The residential program is the low income weatherization program. AE’s energy efficiency funding for this program is transparent; that is, the monies did actually get spent for the direct benefit of low-income customers with a small amount paid for administration of the program. The multi-family weatherization program is not so transparent. While it appears that AE invested energy efficiency dollars for the most part in multi-family properties located in zip codes where incomes show low and low to moderate households reside, there is not a direct accountability that a significant number of low and low-moderate income tenants reside in the multi-family properties where AE spent the EE dollars. Nonetheless, the Task Force reasonably assumes that some low and low to moderate income customers were tenants of multi-family properties in which AE invested energy efficiency dollars. Lastly, the Task Force did not receive any energy efficiency dollar amount that AE invested in solar programs for low and low to moderate income customers during any of the fiscal years; although we were made aware of solar projects such as those run by Foundation Communities. We are also aware of individual “Green Building” projects that benefit low-income and low-moderate income individuals such as the Guadalupe-Saldaña net-zero home project. Still, the Task Force finds that funding for designated low-income and low-moderate income residents has made up a relatively small part of the energy efficiency budget. An energy efficiency budget goal of twenty per cent to be spent on low and low-moderate income energy efficiency programs is reasonable for a number of reasons. The first is that the amount of energy efficiency revenues AE receives from its low and low-moderate income customers is higher. For fiscal year 2014, assuming an average monthly use of …
RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: The City Council should direct the City Manager to investigate operating practices that could potentially reduce the costs of the low income weatherization program and report back to the council in six months with a strategy for implementation. Reasoning: Several of our recommendations have included changes in current program costs that should reduce the costs of the low income weatherization program. While the current contract is averaging roughly $4,000 per home, we believe that long-term this cost could be reduced substantially. One of our recommendations is having AE obtain price discounts through commitments to purchase a minimum number of window air conditioning and/or heating units from retailer/manufacturers. The Task Force has assumed a twenty percent discount. This would provide 100 units for the costs it currently incurs for eighty. Another recommendation the Task Force has made is to leverage the low income weatherization program with the various affordable housing programs the City of Austin offers thereby providing some efficiencies in scope. An additional advantage of the leverage program is that AE will realize the additional energy and demand savings attributable to the affordable housing services such as home repair and will thereby drive down the dollar per KW savings investment attributable to the low income weatherization program. The Task Force believes that there are several avenues of cost reduction that should be explored. These avenues include: Obtaining price discounts by offering to do sole business with a solar screen manufacturer (local to ensure quick delivery) or from a few solar screen manufacturers. This is the same concept with the window units. Obtaining price discounts for any product that is being purchased for the low income weatherization program; Using a local geographic approach such as neighborhood by neighborhood approach to minimize the travel between jobs; Consider whether some or all of the current contract work for the low income weatherization program could be takin internally. Consider whether AE leveraging its low income weatherization services with nonprofits and other entities engaged in providing funding or services involving affordable housing projects achieve economies of scope as well as provide additional demand and energy savings. Using a “voucher” or “rebate” system with a wider universe of contractors at least for a portion of the weatherization program rather than relying on set contracts with a relatively small number of contractors. Considering a more limited pilot project …
Overall Demand and Energy Savings Goals for Austin Energy Recommendation: The Low-Income Consumer Task Force reaffirms the goal adopted by City Council that Austin Energy continue to meet its 800 MW peak reduction goal by 2020, and recommends that Austin Energy pursue achieving at least another 200 MWs of peak reduction by the beginning of 2025, subject to availability of technology, programs and budgets. Thus, the Task Force believes assuming adequate support from council this goal of achieving 1,000 MWs by the beginning of 2025 is readily achievable. In addition, Austin Energy should continue to study achieving an even greater level of peak reduction, such as 1200 MWs by the beginning of 2025. Expanded loan programs and the availability of PACE may allow the utility to achieve this ambitious goal or at least get nearer to this ambitious goal. Background. On December 11th, 2014, the City Council established a new demand reduction goal for Austin Energy, reaffirming the goal of reaching 800 MWs of peak demand between 2007 and the end of 2020, and requiring at least an additional 100 MWs of peak demand reduction by 2025. As part of this new overall 900 MW goal, Council required that at least an additional 100 MWs out of the 900 MWs be acquired from demand response. Although the Council set the new 900 MWs of demand reduction goal, Council was careful to direct Austin Energy to view this goal as a minimum, and therefore established two additional “targets.” First, City Council told Austin Energy to seek to achieve a greater amount of demand reduction, by stating that subject to further study, technological development, progress toward goals and rate and budget considerations, Austin Energy should consider the potential to reduce an additional 100 MWs of demand reduction through additional energy efficiency and demand response programs by the end of 2024. Secondly, City Council directed Austin Energy to study whether an even more ambitious goal of 1,200 MWs by the end of 2024 was economically and technically achievable. The Low Income Task Force believes that assuming improved technologies, programs and a budget commitment roughly consistent with current budgets in the $40 million range, achieving 1,000 MWs by the end of 2024 is readily achievable. Further study and analysis of course is needed. In addition, with the development of new programs like PACE, improved loan opportunities, and potentially other financial mechanisms like On-Bill Repayment, …
RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: The Council should direct Austin Energy to set an annual demand saving goal for AE’s energy efficiency programs targeting low and low-moderate income customer of no less than 5% of the utility’s annual peak demand savings and furthermore set a goal of achieving at least 10% of the utility’s annual peak demand savings by 2021 by annually raising the demand goal by one percent. While AE has set over-all demand savings goals on an annual basis, it has not done so for specific programs. Setting a demand savings goal for low and low-moderate income energy efficiency programs is one of the tasks assigned the Task Force by the Council. Austin Energy should also set corresponding energy savings goals associated with the demand goals. As an example every 1 MW of demand reduced through a low-income weatherization program should correspond to roughly 1,000 MWhs of energy saving based upon past data provided by Austin Energy. Multi-family programs, on the other hand, have generally had more success saving energy on a per unit basis, and a 1 MW of demand saved should correspond to roughly 2,000 MWhs of savings. A 5% demand savings goal for low and low-moderate income energy efficiency programs is readily achievable thereby justifying the demand savings goal be increased from 5% to 10% over the next five years. The table below presents a reasonable example of how Austin Energy might meet such a demand goal. It is meant for illustrative purposes only, but contemplates that through the two main energy efficiency programs that serve low-income residents, Austin Energy should be able to achieve a five percent goal in the short-term and a 10 percent goal within five years. Table. Illustrative Example of How Austin Energy Might Meet a Short-Term Demand Goal of 5% of Annual Demand Goals and a longer-term Demand Goal of 10% of Annual Demand Goals Low-Income Weatherization Multifamily Programs Serving Low and Low-to-Moderate Total of Two Main Programs All Demand Side Programs 2016 Demand Goal 1 MW 2 MW 3 MW 60 MWs 2016 Units Served 1,000 Homes 10,000 Units 11,000 Units 2016 Energy Saved 1,000 MWhs 4,000 MWhs 5,000 MWhs 2021 Demand Goal 2 MW 4 MW 6 MWs 60 MWs 2021 Units Served 2,000 Homes 20,000 Units 22,000 Units 2021 Energy Saved 2,000 MWhs 8,000 MWhs 10,000 MWhs The low income weatherization budget of $4 million recommended by the Task Force …
Recommendation Number _____1 Online Access of ECAD Results Targeted Underserved Group: All Renters Recommendation: Make the results of ECAD audits and disclosure forms for multi-family properties available on the city’s website. Time Schedule: Implementation in 2016 Budget Impact: The budget impact is unknown at this time. It is anticipated that the posting of documents on a website should be achievable at a reasonable cost and may therefore be possible within the current ECAD budget allocation. Community Need: The ECAD ordinance was adopted in 2008 and amended in 2011. In 2013, 54.9%2 of all households in Austin were renters. The survey further shows that 32.8% of renter households have annual income under $25,000 and another 31.1% have income between $25,000 and $49,999. Thus, 63.9% of renter households have income under $50,000 per year.3 Median household income for renters is $37,538 compared to $85,246 for homeowners. As utilities become a more significant part of the affordable housing equation ECAD can provide important guidance to consumers choosing a different apartment to rent. The problem is that the average consumer is unaware of ECAD and the information it provides. At the July 17, 2015 Austin Energy Affordable Energy Summit, and informal poll taken by hand indicated that 4 attendees knew about the program. Program Description: Under the city’s Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure (ECAD) ordinance, apartments with 5 or more units were required to have an energy audit conducted by June 1, 2011. The results are to be made available in three ways. 1) the results must be prominently displayed in facility common areas where public and legal notices are regularly posted, 2) copies of the audit must be available for review at the leasing or manager’s office, and 3) the standardized audit disclosure form must be provided to a prospective tenant prior to the tenant’s signing of a lease application or if no application is required prior to the signing of a lease. Searching the Internet for information about rental properties is a common practice. Having the ECAD documents posted on the city’s website would give consumers the ability to access and compare the documents early in the process of searching for housing. 1 Number will be assigned in final report. 2 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder , S2503 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 3 Ibid.
Recommendation Number ____ Amend the ECAD ordinance to include small rental properties Recommendation: Amend Austin City Code Chapter 6-7 and Austin Energy Rule R161-11.32 to provide the Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure to renters of single family homes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. Targeted Underserved Group: All renters Time Schedule: Enact the expanded scope in 2015 and begin enforcement in 2016. Budget Impact: Accomplish within current budget for 2015 and proposed budget for 2016 Brief Description: Amend the ECAD ordinance to add a category for rental properties not exceeding four dwelling units. Moreover amend the ECAD rules to require landlords to provide energy audit disclosure information to prospective tenants in the same or similar manner as the energy audit information is disclosed tor renters in large apartment complexes.. Community Need: Consumers should be provided the information they need to make an educated decision about where to live. The ECAD ordinance was adopted with provisions to better inform families entering into leases in apartments of how the utility bills of current residents compare with the bills of other renters in the city. The status quo is that renters are often blindsided by high electric bills after signing a lease. After an exhaustive search for an affordable unit or a unit that accepts housing vouchers what appears to be affordable is not because of unexpectedly high utility bills. In some cases, a rental property with higher rent, but lower electric bills would be more affordable overall. In 2013, 54.9%1 of all households in Austin were renters. According to U.S. census data, 44% of renter-occupied housing units are in complexes that contain between 5 and 50 units. The remaining 37% of housing units are single-family, attached, duplex, triplex and four-plex structures.2 Data further show that 32.8% of renter households have annual income under $25,000 and another 31.1% have income between $25,000 and $49,999. Thus, 63.9% of renter households have income under $50,000 per year.3 Median household income for renters is $37,538 compared to $85,246 for homeowners.4 Program Description: The proposed amendment to the ECAD ordinance would provide the energy audit information to all renters, not just those in large apartment complexes. Landlords of single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and units designated as condominiums won’t be required to make energy efficiency upgrades, but will have to get energy audits done on 1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder , S2503 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS, 2009-2013 American Community Survey …
STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATION NO.______ Recommendation for an annual energy efficiency true-up 08.21.2015 Resubmit 09.01.15 1 Recommendation: The City Council should establish a true up proceeding for the energy efficiency rates within six months after the close of each fiscal year to reconcile any over or under recovery of AE energy efficiency revenues, realized and imputed, attributable to the energy efficiency rate for that recently closed fiscal year with that fiscal year’s energy efficiency expenses, including operations and maintenance, incurred by AE. The true up proceeding may result in no further action, a reduction or increase in the energy efficiency rate, and/or an amendment to the then-current energy efficiency budget, including the transfer of funds from one program to another to increase the effectiveness of the programs. Reasoning: Energy efficiency rates were separated out of base rates in the last contested rate case based in part on the advocacy of the environmental community. A primary concern from that community was that funding for the energy efficiency program was diverted to other utility operations. A separate rate they argued should promote greater accountability ensuring funds realized from energy efficiency rates would be spent on energy efficiency programs or refunded back to the customers. This recommendation is responsive to this public policy concern. According to Austin Energy in its response to the Task Force’s Interim Recommendations, audited data on the current FY energy efficiency revenues and expenses will not be available until some six months after the close of this fiscal year. This time lag between the end of fiscal year and having audited data available proved to be the case for the FY 2014 energy efficiency data. At last year’s budget and rate hearings, Austin Energy informed the council that true ups of the then-current FY should not occur until the FY’s data was audited. Consequently, the first opportunity the council has to correct any imbalances between revenues realized and expenses incurred in the energy efficiency program is six months after the close of the FY, mid-way into the next 1 Austin Energy, “Response to the Low Income Consumer Task Force’s Interim Report” (August 7, 2015), p.2. year’s FY’s operations. A true up proceeding at this time would provide up to date adjustments to the then current FY EE programs and/or rates in a timely manner. Without this true-up the regulatory risk increases that funds collected with EE rates are spent elsewhere in …
