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.”
MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICATF) FROM: Denise Kuehn, Energy Efficiency Services Director DATE: September 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Response to Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICTF) Question Regarding Number of Unable to Serve due to Structural Repair Limits Question: “In 2015, how many of the Unable to Serve customers were due to the structural repairs exceeding the $500 cap?” Answer: In 2015, forty one homes were forwarded to the Housing Repair Coalition as they were unable to be served due to the need to replace roofs or significant other repairs. Unable to Serve customers were also forwarded to other agencies. Other reasons for the Unable to Serve were the possible candidates included some multifamily, mobile homes, had been weatherized in the last ten years, and exceeded $250,000 without the land value or the landlord denied. Below are the approximate percentages for the screened customers: * The percentages are subject to change as Austin Energy continually vets customers resulting in changes.
1 MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force FROM: Denise Kuehn and Liz Jambor, Customer Energy Solutions DATE: September 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Response to Task Force Information Requests The following data and information requests were made during the September 18 Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force meeting. Staff responses follow each specific request. 1. Question: Provide number of customers in 2014, not population, broken out by residential, commercial, and industrial. AE Response: FY14 – 391,410 residential 45,436 commercial 151 industrial 2. Question: Review p. 3 of Lanetta’s handout – numbers should be based on burden study. Please provide updates if necessary. AE Response: The numbers should be: 0-200% = $4,516.186 201-300% = $2,445,312 301-400% = $2,059,411 Total = $9,020,909 Based on percentages form the burden study and the current energy efficiency portion of the CBC (0.4 cents) and the quoted average kwh of 955.2 kwh annually. 3. Question: Ask Ronnie how many payment arrangements are in apartments AE Response: Request has been made for updated data. 4. Question: Reviews numbers for Carol on p. 13 re: survey 2 AE Response: Annual household income for the weatherization survey participants ranged from under $10,000 to over $100,000 with 20% of the 86 survey respondents refusing to answer. Based on the answers provided, the average income was shown to be $31,100, under the median income for Austin. The average number of people in the home was 3.79. If we compared the two averages, we would find that the average reported income for a family of 3-4 was below 200% of poverty. Annual household income for the residential rebate survey participants ranged from under $10,000 to over $100,000 with 23% of the 465 survey respondents refusing to answer. Based on the answers provided, the average income was shown to be $94,000. The average number of people in the home was not collected for this survey but only 25% had children less than 18 years of age living in the home. This income is appropriate for these programs as the residential programs do not use income as a qualification for participation. 5. Question: Chris and Richard asked for the status on any bill analysis we have panned. AE Response: Bill analysis requires at a minimum 18 months of data to cover 2 summers, pre and post. Bill analysis also requires consistency in residency due to the behavioral impacts on energy savings. It is a …
Austin Energy Weatherization Program Average Cost Per Home (2005-2015) 1 Averages based on audited yearly values and additional grant funding for contract years 2008-2009 and 2010-2012 2 Based upon a $1400 per home pricing established in 1995 as a baseline along with the Calculated Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), the cost per home goal would be $2,527 in current dollars. 2015 price per home average is $4,003. AE is removing duct replacement and extensive structural home repair to meet the cost per home baseline of $2,527 32015 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 $978 $1,707 $4,339 $5,167 $4,003 $- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000Average Cost per Home2005-20072008-20092010-20122013-20142015 through JulyExample of AEWX Installed Measures Measures Quantity Installed 1. Attic Insulation (AE Installed 27R) 1,000 sq. ft. 2. Solar Screens (Minimum 60% Shading) 90 sq. ft. 3. Compact Fluorescents (14 Watt) 10 4. Smoke Alarms 1 5. Carbon Monoxide Detectors 1 6. Refrigerator Replacement Average Cost (Unit size varied by contract) 1 7. Central A/C Average Replacement Cost (Averaged cost of electric & gas 2 ton unit ) 1 Contract Legend Contract Year Contract Number Pricing 2005-2007 SLC04300008 (Weatherization) Contractor Bid 2008-2009 NA080000056 (Weatherization) Fixed 2010-2012 MA-11-NA100000072 ( HVAC, Refrigerator, Weatherization, Duct Replacement/Repair) Fixed 2013-2015 Tier 1 CA130000005 (Weatherization) Tier 2 CA130000006 ( HVAC, Refrigerator, Weatherization, Duct Replacement/Repair) *Material price increase in 2015 Averaged Coefficient Contract Years
$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000$7,000,000$8,000,000<$26,000$26,000-$40,000$41,000-$60,000$61,000-$75,000$76,000-$100,000>$100,000CBC/Rebate/Incentive Dollars Average Annual Household Income Rebates/Incentives and CBC Contributions Residential Customers FY14 Data Solar IncentivesMF RebatesSF RebatesWeatherizationRebatesEE/CBCContributions
Minority Report of The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force Version 2 November 4, 2015 2 Dear Mayor and Council: The authors of this minority report would like to express our sincere appreciation for being allowed to be a part of a special group that has spent considerable time discussing ways to improve the plight of those that have shared less in the prosperity that Austin has experienced recently. While we supported many of the recommendations of the Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICA) that we served on, there are fundamental differences we have with the final report that compel us to write this minority opinion. We have organized our report with 12 succinct recommendations in an Executive Summary, followed by more detail on each of the recommendations. To introduce our perspective, we would like to begin with a few general observations. • The largest flaw with LICA was that the recommendations were not made in a holistic manner. We were only tasked to look at electricity cost for Austin Energy, which is typically a small portion of the budget for low- and moderate-income households. As such, the total impact of LICA’s work will have limited impact on a household’s budget. In fact, some of the recommendations, such as including air conditioners in the free weatherization program, could actually increase the amount spent on an electric bill, adversely affecting a low-income household. Why pay for someone’s free air conditioner if they cannot afford to run it? A better strategy would have been to create a task force that considers all of the challenges faced by low- and moderate-income customers: housing; food; medical care; child care; transportation; and all utilities (not just electricity). Creating a Low Income Committee in the format of Austin’s newly created Sustainability Committee would have been a more balanced approach. • There was very little acknowledgement of the goals of Austin Energy’s Demand Side programs, and how those goals contribute positively by lowering the energy expenditure of a low- and moderate-income household and create a better environment for all. These programs lower the cost of electricity to Austin Energy, making the utility more profitable, lowering rates for customers in all income brackets. • Very little time was spent looking at ways to broaden the effect of the limited resources of the program. In fact, some of the recommendations do the opposite by recommending that additional funding …
Minority Report of The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force 2 Dear Mayor and Council: The authors of this minority report would like to express our sincere appreciation for being allowed to be a part of a special group that has spent considerable time discussing ways to improve the plight of those that have shared less in the prosperity that Austin has experienced recently. While we supported many of the recommendations of the Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICA) that we served on, there are fundamental differences we have with the final report that compel us to write this minority opinion. We have organized our report with 12 succinct recommendations in an Executive Summary, followed by more detail on each of the recommendations. To introduce our perspective, we would like to begin with a few general observations. • The largest flaw with LICA was that the recommendations were not made in a holistic manner. We were only tasked to look at electricity cost for Austin Energy, which is typically a small portion of the budget for low- and moderate-income households. As such, the total impact of LICA’s work will have limited impact on a household’s budget. In fact, some of the recommendations, such as including air conditioners in the free weatherization program, could actually increase the amount spent on an electric bill, adversely affecting a low-income household. Why pay for someone’s free air conditioner if they cannot afford to run it? A better strategy would have been to create a task force that considers all of the challenges faced by low- and moderate-income customers: housing; food; medical care; child care; transportation; and all utilities (not just electricity). Creating a Low Income Committee in the format of Austin’s newly created Sustainability Committee would have been a more balanced approach. • There was very little acknowledgement of the goals of Austin Energy’s Demand Side programs, and how those goals contribute positively by lowering the energy expenditure of a low- and moderate-income household and create a better environment for all. These programs lower the cost of electricity to Austin Energy, making the utility more profitable, lowering rates for customers in all income brackets. • Very little time was spent looking at ways to broaden the effect of the limited resources of the program. In fact, some of the recommendations do the opposite by recommending that additional funding should be given to the …
Item #Recommendations as Cited in LICATF FINALReportRecommendationCurrent StatusBudget ImpactFeasibilityAE ResponseRecommendation in Exec SummaryPageRecommendation in Body of FINAL doc1Austin Energy should develop better tracking data by energy efficiency program and 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 programsUnderwayModerateHighWith recently acquired Census data as well as a nascent data clearinghouse, we are now able to attach Census tract to premises. We will be able to report demographics without infringing on customers' privacy.Austin Energy should improve and make more transparent the tracking of its energy efficiency programs.21Austin Energy should improve and make more transparent the tracking of its energy efficiency programs.22All 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. (Current practice)22All 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 program (Current practice; but unable to allocate/track admin costs associated with specific programs due to accounting system limits)23In 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. (current practice)23Austin Energy should develop better tracking data by energy efficiency program and 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 (underway)24Austin Energy should provide monthly, quarterly and annual reports to the Resource Management Commission, Electric Utility Commission and City Council indicating energy efficiency, CAP Weatherization, Demand Response, Green Building and Solar activities and City Council should establish accountability procedures. (current practice)14Improving transparency, reporting and accountability for the energy efficiency, demand response and solar programs (current practice)21One key recommendation is requiring an improved annual report that would break out information not only by program but by City Council District. (underway - will report FY15 data accordingly)2Establish the long-term demand and energy saving goals for Austin Energy for its demand response and energy …
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 SEPTEMBER 18, 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 4, 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
Page 1 of 3 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 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 9:02 a.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Carol Biedrzycki (Chair), Lanetta Cooper, Richard Halpin, Dan Pruett, Cyrus Reed and Michael Wong. Chris Strand was not present at the call to order, but arrived later. Tim Arndt (Vice Chair) and Karen Hadden were absent. Staff in Attendance: Austin Energy (AE) staff included Debbie Kimberly, Liz Jambor, Denise Kuehn, Ronnie Mendoza, Stacy Lewis and Hayden Migl. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department (NHCD) staff included Letitia Brown. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL Kaiba White stated that money not expended in previous energy efficiency budgets should be rolled over. She stated her agreement that money collected for energy efficiency should be spent in that area, but a roll-over of unexpended funds is be simpler for this year. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve minutes from the August 21, 2015 meeting- A motion was made by Member Richard Halpin to approve the August 21, 2015 meeting minutes and seconded by Member Dan Pruett. One amendment was proposed: Under Item c3, delete the sentence, “PACE program opportunities should also be explored.” Member Halpin and Member Pruett accepted the amendment and all members approved on a 6-0 vote, with Member Chris Strand not yet in attendance. 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on the low income weatherization budget. - Member Cyrus Reed introduced the document “Recommendation Regarding Energy Efficiency Budget Goal for Low and Low-Moderate Income Residential Customers” (Back-up Item 3a, September 4, 2015 meeting) and described the groups addressed in the recommendation. Member Richard Halpin moved approval of the recommendation, seconded by Member Cyrus Reed. Discussion included the current percentage of the budget dedicated to programs, program effectiveness and cost of repairs. Member Richard Halpin motioned to change “20%” in the Recommendation to “25%”, seconded by Member Lanetta Cooper. The motion passed 4-3 with Members Chris Strand, Cyrus Reed, and Michael Wong voting against. Member Richard Halpin moved to add in the Recommendation “with at least 10% of the Energy Efficiency Services budget dedicated to free weatherization,” seconded by Member Cyrus Reed. The motion passed 6-1 with member Chris Strand voting against. Member Cyrus Reed …
Amend Section III(C)(4) by making the following changes to the Recommendation: 1. Provision of Air Conditioners in Low Income Weatherization Program Recommendation: To expand the income eligibility for the low income weatherization program to AE customers whose household incomes are 250% FPG or less , to make Energy Star window unit air conditioners the a standard energy efficiency services improvement option air conditioning application in the low income weatherization program, and to include under limited circumstances, repair and replacement of central air conditioners. Criteria should be developed to determine eligibility for window units and limited central air conditioning repair and replacement.
