LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE AUGUST 21, 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 August 7, and August 14, 2015 meeting 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on on-bill repayment and financing arrangements b. Discussion and possible action on amendments to the multifamily energy efficiency program c. Discussion and possible action on low income energy efficiency program design including but not limited to cost effectiveness of energy efficiency measures, one-stop weatherization, program goals, and heating and cooling equipment repair and replacement d. Discussion and possible action on ECAD (Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure) including but not limited to enforcement and expanding scope of disclosure requirements to small rental properties e. Discussion and possible action on energy efficiency rate true-up proceeding. f. Discussion and possible action on final report 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on the low income weatherization budget. b. Discussion and possible action on definition of multi-family properties serving low and low moderate income customers c. 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. d. Discussion and possible action on Building Codes e. Discussion and possible action on audit of the billing system. 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 f. Discussion and possible action on the need for a task force after October 1, 2015. 5. BRIEFINGS & REPORTS a. Austin Energy staff update on the weatherization program job status b. Status of data …
Page 1 of 2 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2015 The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force convened in a Special-Called meeting at Town Lake Center, 721 Barton Springs Road, Room 100, in Austin, Texas. Chairperson, Carol Biedrzycki called the meeting to order at 11:02 a.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Carol Biedrzycki (Chair), Tim Arndt (Vice Chair), Lanetta Cooper, Richard Halpin, Dan Pruett, Cyrus Reed, and Michael Wong. Karen Hadden was not present at the call to order, but arrived later. Chris Strand was absent. Staff in Attendance: Austin Energy (AE) staff included Debbie Kimberly, Liz Jambor, Denise Kuehn, Ronnie Mendoza, and Toye Goodson. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department staff included Cara Welch. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL No citizens signed up to speak. 2. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion of low income weatherization program, including but not limited to heating and cooling equipment repair and replacement. Members reviewed and made changes to the draft backup document created by Ms. Biedrzycki, “Low-Income Weatherization Program Goals” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting). At 11:30 a.m., the meeting was recessed. At 11:40 a.m., the meeting was reconvened. Members continued discussion regarding weatherization program goals. An amended version of the document will be distributed at the next meeting. Members reviewed and discussed additional backup documents submitted by members and staff including: “Green Building Pre-Submittal Worksheet” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from Mr. Wong; “A Proposed Weatherization Program” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from Mr. Reed; “8/12/2015 Draft Recommendation – Repair and Replacement of Furnaces and Air Conditioners in Low Income Weatherization Program” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from Ms. Biedrzycki; and “AE Weatherization Program Job Status as of August 11, 2015” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from staff. Each member was encouraged to comment on topics and issues related to the goals of the program as well as issues raised during the review of these documents. 3. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Discussion regarding future agenda items including a schedule of topics. Ms. Biedrzycki distributed a draft agenda for the August 21 meeting and requested input from members regarding the agenda items. Page 2 of 2 Members also discussed including a recommendation in the final report suggesting the work of the task force continue past the October 1, 2015 date included in the Council resolution. ADJOURNMENT The Chair adjourned the …
Page 1 of 3 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 7, 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 9:00 a.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Carol Biedrzycki (Chair), Tim Arndt (Vice Chair), Lanetta Cooper, Richard Halpin, Cyrus Reed, and Michael Wong. Karen Hadden was not present at the call to order, but arrived later. Chris Strand and Dan Pruett were absent. Staff in Attendance: Austin Energy (AE) staff included Debbie Kimberly, Liz Jambor, Stacy Lewis, Kurt Stogdill, John Umphress, Michael Husted, and Hayden Migl. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department (NHCD) staff included Letitia Brown. Debbie Kimberly introduced Hayden Migl as the new staff liaison to the Task Force. Chair Carol Biedrzycki stated that the City Council appointed Michael Wong to the Task Force at its August 6 meeting. Members and staff in attendance introduced themselves. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL Scott Johnson spoke regarding the accessibility and user-friendly nature of the CPS Energy website. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve minutes from July 17, 2015 meeting- A motion was made by Member Lanetta Cooper to approve the July 17, 2015 meeting minutes and seconded by Vice Chair Tim Arndt. Amendments were proposed. Under Old Business Item 3c, end of 1st paragraph: Add “The revised motion was not approved.” Under New Business, Item 4d, second sentence: Edit to read, “Employees of approximately…” Member Cooper and Vice Chair Arndt accepted the amendments and all members approved on a 7-0 vote. 3. OLD BUSINESS The Chair discussed the order items would be taken up in the meeting, and members distributed late back-up for various items. a. Discussion and possible action on on-bill repayment and financing arrangements - Member Karen Hadden introduced the document “Proposal for On Bill Repayment with Rebates” (Back-up Item 3a, August 7, 2015 meeting). Member Cyrus Reed motioned approval of the recommendation, and Member Richard Halpin seconded. Discussion included concerns of this program for the rental market, consequences if someone cannot pay their bill, target audience and designating it only for solar. The item was tabled until the next meeting. Page 2 of 3 b. Discussion and possible action on amendments to the multifamily energy efficiency program - This item was not discussed. c. Discussion and possible action on …
On-Bill Repayment Recommendation Recommendation: Austin Energy would allow for repayment for energy efficiency retrofits on a customer’s monthly utility bill. Rebates would also be provided for qualifying measures. Description: The utility assists customers in attaining cost-effective energy upgrades at customer sites – like better building efficiency, more efficient appliances, HVAC systems and rooftop solar through on-bill repayment. The customer pays nothing upfront for the upgrades they choose because the utility pays the installer. Using a tariff, 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 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 depend on a consumer loan, 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 On-bill Repayment 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, which is 5 times the typical rate. 3. When customers do accept, the projects they undertake are much larger because the terms are more attractive. Precedents: States with utilities conducting some type of OBR program include AR, CA, CT, HI, KS, KY, NJ, NY, and SC. In Texas, Guadalupe Valley Electric Coop uses OBR to collect air conditioning service charges on the monthly bill. The Pedernales Electric Coop is developing an OBR program to finance PVs. Austin Energy’s “Nightwatchman” program that leases lighting equipment as part of a security lighting electric rate goes back to 1979. This rate and program are similar to a number of utilities around the country. Estimated Cost: Depending on how the financing is structured, the cost effectiveness should be less than or equal to AE’s current financing program for home efficiency. Initial capital must be provided; $500,000 is suggested …
The Clean Power Plan incentivizes low-income efficiency plans - page 864 onward. A key piece of this section is at the end of this email. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule.pdf ——————————— Dr. Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, based in Takoma Park, Maryland. Below is an excerpt from his comments on the Clean Power Plan. (They’re numbered differently here than they are on the website) http://ieer.org/news/clean-power-plan-step-direction/ 1. New natural gas plants are not part of the best system of emission reductions: This is perhaps the best and most solid indication that the Obama administration takes long-term reductions seriously. New natural gas combined cycle plants, even though they have lower CO2emissions per megawatt-hour (using EPA leak rates and global warming potential for methane), will not be part of the BSER even though they meet the cost test and emission rate test. The reason: they will be emitting CO2 for decades (p. 346, italics added): However, our determination not to include new construction and operation of new NGCC capacity in the BSER in this final rule rests primarily on the achievable magnitude of emission reductions rather than costs. Unlike emission reductions achieved through the use of any of the building blocks, emission reductions achieved through the use of new NGCC capacity require the construction of additional CO2-emitting generating capacity, a consequence that is inconsistent with the long-term need to continue reducing CO2emissions beyond the reductions that will be achieved through this rule. New generating assets are planned and built for long lifetimes –- frequently 40 years or more –-that are likely longer than the expected remaining lifetimes of the steam EGUs whose CO2 emissions would initially be displaced be the generation from the new NGCC units. The new capacity is likely to continue to emit CO2 throughout these longer lifetimes…. 2. Increased capacity factor of existing natural gas plants is BSER: The EPA is still allowing increased capacity factor of existing natural gas combined cycle power plants to displace coal. This is the result of its estimate of methane leak rates and global warming potential. So long as new central station natural gas plants are not encouraged, the rate of use of existing plants is a problem that can be sorted out in the coming years. It would have been very difficult to argue only on the grounds of the BSER rules and existing methane leaks estimates that increasing capacity …
Recommendation Number _____ Recommendation for Contractor Rebates in conjunction with affordable housing projects August 21, 2015 Recommendation: In addition to a stand-alone low income weatherization energy efficiency program approach, a residential low income weatherization rebate program should be implemented in conjunction with the affordable housing programs administered by the City’s Neighborhood Housing and Community Development department to obtain efficiencies of scope. Because of the leveraging of the weatherization program into the affordable housing programs, AE will be able to capture the additional demand and energy savings arising from the affordable housing programs. The provision of energy efficient appliances through bulk purchasing would be part of this program. The department would serve as a case manager to ensure AE is brought into the process. Targeted Underserved Group: Low income Homeowners with Incomes between 0 and 250%% of the Federal Poverty Guideline. Time Schedule: Begin plan to implement in 2016 and implement by 2017. Brief Description: Provide rebates to contractors on AE’s list of eligible energy efficiency contractors for performing weatherization services and installing energy efficiency appliances purchased in bulk by AE as part of a customer’s participation in an affordable housing program. Community Need: According to the January 2015 Updated Energy Burden Tables for Austin Energy, 28% of all residential customers have family incomes between 0 and 200% of the Federal Poverty Guideline.1 Low income consumers do not have the disposable income to obtain weatherization services nor to purchase energy efficient appliance that would provide demand and energy savings to Austin Energy as well as bill savings to the low-income households. During the task force process, comments were presented by nonprofit service providers that the current program is cumbersome for the service providers and the clients obtaining home repairs though the providers work with the home repair coalition.i Program Description: When a home is evaluated for participation in an affordable housing program, as part of that process, AE would be contacted to evaluate for the applicant’s participation in AE’s weatherization program. If eligible, the residence will also receive an energy audit to identify energy efficiency improvements that can be made through the weatherization program. Instead of referring a client to the weatherization program after the completion of an affordable housing program project, the weatherization services and appliance installations provided by the Austin Energy rebate program would be incorporated into the home repair process. This allows for more contractor efficiency and should …
1 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: aged 62 or older, disabled, or a child who is 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 qualifies for the emergency home repair program provided by the City of Austin Neighborhood Housing & Community Development 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 in conjunction with the City of Austin’s emergency Home Repair Program which is part of the City of Austin’s Neighborhood Housing & Community Development Client Service’s Programs. 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 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 loan program taking into consideration storage and refurbishing issues involved in a loan program and the experience of other jurisdictions in the loaning of air conditioner units. Budget: There are two funding components to this proposed program: 2 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; and 2. Funding for rebates.
Recommendation No. ___ Recommend AE leverage with Austin Housing Authority Recommendation: AE should leverage its EE programs with Austin Housing Authority rehab and building programs. The council may need to enter into a memorandum of understanding to establish the relationship with Austin Housing Authority. Reasoning One of the problems AE faces with providing EE to low income tenants involving multi-family units is determining income eligibility. For the most part, AE utilizes third sources for eligibility determinations in its residential low income program. This recommendation would allow AE to utilize third party determination for income eligibility for tenants. Public housing’s tenants are all low income. Consequently, AE will be assured that it is using EE funds to low income tenants through the provision of EE services to public housing multi-family housing stock .
RECOMMENDATION NO.___ Recommend Austin Housing Finance Corporation to condition financing on applicant request for EE services Recommendation: Austin Housing Finance Corporation should condition financing approval to applicants involved with affordable housing with a condition that applicant seek energy efficiency services from AE, including solar for new construction financing. Higher rebates should be offered to these applicants. Reasoning: Austin Housing Finance Corporation provides low cost financing to builders and developers who construct affordable housing. For many applicants, the housing corporation requires them to apply for tax credits, which further ensures low and low-moderate income households will have access to the housing being constructed. Adding a requirement that the applicant seek energy efficiency services from AE, particularly solar will provide greater housing affordability to the tenants. AE funding of energy efficiency programs to these applicants will greater assure that EE funding to going to low and low-moderate income AE customers.
8/19/2015 Draft Recommendation Number ____ Provision of Air Conditioners in Low Income Weatherization Program Recommendation: To make window unit air conditioners the standard air conditioning application in the low income weatherization program and to include under limited circumstances, repair and replacement of central air conditioners. Targeted Underserved Group: Low income customers Time Schedule: Implementation in 2016 Budget Impact: Accomplish within current budget. Brief Description: To make window unit air conditioners the standard air conditioning application in the low income weatherization program and to include under limited circumstances, repair and replacement of central air conditioners Community need: The summer weather in Austin is extremely hot for certain periods of time. When the heat index reaches 102, Austin Energy, is prohibited from disconnecting a customer’s service1 because air conditioning is necessary to protect a resident’s health and safety especially the elderly and young children.2 While it is possible to live through an Austin summer with no air conditioning, people without air conditioning in their homes are encouraged to take shelter in public buildings with air conditioning during the hottest times of the day. Over one-fourth (118,241) of Austin Energy’s residential customers have incomes that qualify for Free Weatherization.3 Customers living with income below 50% of the Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG) spend 37.6% of household income on electricity. Those at 51 to 100% of FPG spend 11.3% and those at 101 to 200% FPG spend 5.9%. Those above 400% of the FPG spend 1.6%4. As utility bills increase because of higher rates and the pass through surcharges for regulatory costs, community benefit charge and other charges, low income customers are the most profoundly impacted by increases. As utility bills rise, the energy burden becomes an even higher percentage of those households on fixed and low incomes. There are large numbers of households in the Austin Energy service area with low income, high utility bills and very few energy efficiency program resources. 1 Austin City Code §15-9-109. 2 Sweating out a Texas heat wave, A guide to preventing hot weather illness. 3 Memorandum from Liz Jambor, EdD, Manager, to Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force 01//5/15., p 5. 4 Ibid. In Texas, 26% of all home energy use is attributable to central air conditioning, 11% to the refrigerator, 9% to space heating, 7% to water heating and 2% to room air conditioning.5 Under the current program, a customer can participate in the low income …
DRAFT AUGUST 19, 2015 PROGRAM GOALS The City of Austin Sustainability Office uses a matrix of energy and non-energy benefits for evaluating its purchasing recommendations. The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force adopted this matrix for evaluating energy efficiency programs for customer households with low and low-moderate incomes. The Task Force included the additional consideration of program impacts to Austin Energy’s bad debt and collection costs. As a further refinement the Task Force adopted the goals listed below. The order in which the goals are listed does not indicate their order of importance. To evaluate the program in consideration of the triple bottom line of sustainability equity (people), economy (prosperity) and environment (planet). To achieve greenhouse gas reductions to support the city’s climate protection goals. To assure that the programs contribute to Austin Energy’s overall peak demand reduction goals of 800 MWs by 2020 and at least 900 MWs by the end of 2024, as well as to contributing to associated energy saving targets. To utilize the low-income energy efficiency programs in a way that helps contribute to compliance with the Clean Power Plan rule, and specifically, take advantage of the opportunities present under the Clean Energy Incentive Program, which gives enhanced credits to utilities and states to implement low-income efficiency and renewable energy programs. To fully utilize incentives and opportunities presented by federal and state programs and policies, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Energy Incentive Program. To defer or avoid the need for capital investment in new generating facilities and to reduce the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation and end use applications such as space and water heating and cooking. To assure that an equitable level of program benefits is delivered to low-income customers. To reduce bad debt and collection costs to the utility. To provide for a continuing dialogue within a new task force with a focus on low-income energy efficiency issues and solutions. LOW-INCOME WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM GOALS In light of the public disagreement over the value of the now completed ARRA program the Task Force recommends that the utility move forward with a program designed to meet specific goals and to evaluate the program in accordance with those goals. In addition to and in accordance with the program goals presented earlier the Task Force adopted the following goals for the low-income weatherization program. To …
Recommendation Number ____ Recommendation for ECAD enforcement 08.21.2015 Recommendation: Austin Energy should develop a plan for fully enforcing the entire ECAD ordinance, especially for those multi-family facilities whose electric cost is 150% of average electrical cost, and should present that plan to the Electric Utility Commission, the Resource Management Commission and the City Council for approval. Austin Energy should include funding for full enforcement of ECAD, according to the approved plan in its FY 2017 budget proposal Targeted Underserved Group: Low and moderate-income renters Time Schedule: Implement in 2015 (requirement) and 2016 (funding for enforcement) Budget Impact: cost of enforcement Brief Description: Create an action plan to enforce the ECAD ordinance, particularly the provision mandating Landlords whose facilities incur electric costs greater than 150% of the average cost to make energy efficient improvements to reduce usage by 20%. Community Need: A majority of Austin residents rent and renters as a class have disproportionally lower incomes than homeowners. Rental properties, particularly those with lower rents are often not very energy efficient. Landlords have little incentive to improve energy efficiency at their properties because it’s the tenants who pay the electric bills. Although landlords of multifamily properties (excluding duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and units designated as condominiums) are required to have energy audits conducted on buildings that are at least 10 years old and are required to disclose the results compliance is spotty at best. The status quo is that renters are often blindsided by high electric bills after signing a lease. In some cases, a rental property with higher rent, but lower electric bills would be more affordable overall. Consumers should be provided the information they need to make an educated decision about where to live. Enforcing the ordinance would ensure that prospective tenants would receive the energy guide and audit required under the ECAD ordinance before they decide to rent. Moreover, greater enforcement of the required improvements for multi-family facilities with high electric costs would result in greater energy efficiency, thereby resulting in reduced electric bills. Program Description Austin Energy should develop a plan for fully enforcing the entire ECAD ordinance and present that plan to the Electric Utility Commission, the Resource Management Commission and the City Council for approval. Actions recommended include: creating a marketing campaign to educate the community and community activists; investigating the multi-family facilities to verify whether the elements of the ECAD ordinance are being carried out; …
STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATION NO.______ Recommendation for an annual energy efficiency true-up 08.21.2015 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 the FY. A time lag of six months between close of fiscal year and audited data for that FY 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 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 the utility’s operations and not on the EE programs.
Austin Energy Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force Energy Efficiency Equitable Budget Resolution Recommendation: Funding levels for low-income energy efficiency programs should be made proportionate to what these customers are paying into the programs. Austin Energy 2014 Electric Rates include $0.004 per / kWh for energy efficiency programs.[1] The 182,200 customers currently at or below 301% of federal poverty guidelines paid over $9.3 million for energy efficiency programs in 2014, but often they are not the recipients of program rebates.[2] In FY 2014, Austin Energy spent $729,547 out of $32,745,229 in energy efficiency expenditures on the low income weatherization program, just over 2% of the total expenditure.[3] Description: In order to be more equitable, low income customers should receive more direct benefits from the money they pay into efficiency programs. There should be an emphasis on serving as many customers as possible, as economically as possible. An equitable budget can and should be developed. This is how $9.3 million for low-income efficiency programs might be spent: Proposed Equitable Spending Budget $ Million Program 5.4 Weatherization, with the previously used $500 incidental repair cap be more realistic @ $1500 repair cap. 1 Up to 2 window units per household, professionally installed, depending upon need, assessed on a case-by-case basis. Prioritize homes with elderly or children, or special health needs. 1.5 Rebates to incentivize solar installation on new multifamily affordable housing construction, working with Housing Finance Construction 1.4 Multifamily affordable housing efficiency / weatherization 9.3 Equitable funding total - balances out money paid into programs by 182,200 low-income customers - up to 301% of federal poverty guidelines [1] Austin Energy Residential Electric Rates, Effective November 2014, Austin Energy website [2] Calculated by Lanetta Cooper, using data provided by Austin Energy in response to a public information request (June 4, 2015 and May 22, 2015) [3] Based on data provided by Austin Energy in response to a public in response to a public information request (June 4, 2015 and May 22, 2015)
RECOMMENDATION NO.____ Recommend that the CAP program no longer fund weatherization Recommendation: The CAP program should no longer fund a weatherization program. Reasoning: The CAP program provides billing assistance through the use of a waiver of certain utility charges and a 10% discount on the remainder of the electric utility bill. There is a waiting list of AE customers whose household incomes are at 200% or below federal poverty guidelines for that program. Removing the economic burden of the weatherization program from the CAP program would free up monies to provide bill assistance to more AE’s low and low-moderate income customers in need. Further, the weatherization program has consistently been characterized by AE as an energy efficiency program. As such, it should be in the energy efficiency program funded with EE rates.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION Recommendation: Amend the June 12, 2015 interim report recommendation referring to rental properties that serve low and moderate income customers as follows: Change: “Earmarking Specific Funding from Multi-Family Energy Reduction Program on Low and Moderate Income Customers -- Utilize at least 50% of Austin Energy’s multi-family budget to incentivize energy efficiency retrofits on multi-family properties where at least 50% of the households have low and low-moderate incomes.” To the following: “Earmarking Specific Funding from Multi-Family Energy Reduction Program on Low and Moderate Income Customers Utilize at least 50% of Austin Energy’s multi-family budget to incentivize energy efficiency retrofits on multi-family properties that receive affordable housing subsidies from the federal, state, city, or county government or properties where housing choice vouchers are accepted as a form of payment. Explanation: The wording of the current recommendation stating that 50% of the units must be occupied by low income customers is a standard that may be difficult to document. By establishing readily identifiable types of affordable housing as categorically qualifying as low and moderate income the administrative burden is greatly reduced. The City of Austin is home to 186 publicly subsidized apartment properties, providing approximately 18,500 rental units with affordability requirements. These requirements are triggered by federal, state, and/or local funding sources, including Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Project Based Rental Assistance, HUD Direct Loans (Section 202 or Section 811), and HUD insurance.1 In addition, there are approximately 6,200 housing choice vouchers available.2 Including subsidized housing and those that accept housing choice vouchers provides a substantial target market and focuses limited resources for multifamily energy efficiency benefits to low and moderate income consumers. By working with the Housing Authority, the Housing Finance Corporation and other affordable housing administration offices Austin Energy can closely coordinate its energy efficiency programs with affordable housing renovation schedules and reach out to private properties that accept housing choice vouchers. 1 Taking Action: Preservation of Affordable Housing in the City of Austin, July 2014, Prepared by: HousingWorks Austin, Prepared for: Austin Housing Finance Corporation, City of Austin p. 8. 2 Ibid.
1 I. Demand and Energy Savings Goals for Austin Energy Recommendation: The Low-Income Consumer Task Force reaffirms the goal 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 in the next four fiscal years (2021-24), subject to availability of technology, programs and budgets. Thus, the Task Force believes assuming adequate support from council this goal 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 end of 2024. Expanded loan programs and the availability of PACE may allow the utility to achieve this ambitious goal or at least get nearer to these ambitious goals. Backgrond. 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 the end of 2024. As part of this new overall 900 MW goal, Council required that at least an additional 100 MWs be acquired from demand response. Although the Council set the new 900 MWs of demand reduction by the end of 2024, 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 $30 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, Austin Energy should study the potential to achieve …
Recommendation on Building Codes – Revised Version August 10, 15 The Task Force finds that continued improvement in base energy codes to reduce peak and overall energy use is of benefit to low-income and middle-income residents and to Austin Energy overall. Austin Energy has consistently worked with the City and its departments to improve base energy codes every three years, making new homes and remodeled homes and other buildings more energy efficient. By reducing the energy use of new and rehabilitated buildings Austin can lower emissions and water use from existing fossil fuel plants, reduce the need to buy expensive peak power off the market and potentially provide demand response capabilities to meet peak demand or even participate in energy markets. The Task Force reaffirms the goal of making new home construction in Austin, Texas to be net-zero energy capable by the end of 2015, while recognizing the challenges with fully meeting this goal. We recommend in 2015 that Austin Energy work with the relevant advisory committees, city departments and city council to adopt: 1. The 2015 IECC codes for residential construction, including local amendments to reach the net-zero-energy capable homes approved by City Council in 2007. The Task Force believes that the net-zero-energy capable home goal is achievable, but recognizes that certain homes will be unable to meet this goal in 2015 depending on whether the home is all-electric or includes gas heating and gas water heating, the size of the home and other issues like orientation of the design and the behavior of occupants. Assuming Austin Energy recommends and city council approves an updated more energy efficient code for new and remodeled homes, Austin Energy should continue to consider other amendments and programs to fully realize the net-zero capable homes goal beyond 2015; 2. To further the goal of net-zero energy capable home, Austin Energy should consider local amendments to the energy code and suggest amendments to other building codes to encourage the adoption of new technologies like solar PV, demand response, energy storage and electric vehicle charging technologies as appropriate. As an example, Austin Energy should work with the electrical code to assure that there is sufficient panel capacity to allow for EV charging stations. 3. Encourage the widespread adoption of solar PV technology by: a. Adopting a version of Appendix RB of the 2015 IECC which requires that all new homes be “solar-ready.” Austin Energy should …
AE Weatherization Program job status as of August 18, 2015 1 ReferralsDuplicates Loaded to SFHomeownersRentersUnable to ServeUnable to Contact Able to ServeTotal Screened11,2412,0379,2043,9621,3642,3678416703,878ReferralsUnscreenedScreenedAE Weatherization ContractorsClients AssignedAssessments in Process and CompletedInspections PassedInspections FailedHomes Invoiced YTDHomes with DOAmt Obligated YTDAmt Paid YTDAirtech66663973966$228,670$73,954American Conservation101101631151101$456,616$215,098American Youth Works22221141022$71,278$28,144City Conservation 106106772075106$404,970$227,267Climate Mechanical222217111522$81,280$38,434Conservation Specialist43433703743$164,921$126,032Go Green818163145881$283,013$170,361McCullough60601741260$247,424$49,979Valdez30302471630$98,905$36,844Total53153134878313531$2,037,078$966,113Note: Of the 531 homes, 46 are rentersThe report includes all contractor payments and encumbrances. The report excludes Un-vouchered Accounts Payable, Journal Voucher, Refrigerator Recycling charges and Austin Water Utilities reimbursement transactions.
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
MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICATF) FROM: Denise Kuehn, Energy Efficiency Services Director DATE: August 7, 2015 SUBJECT: Response to Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICATF) posting. Cooper Request Concerning AE Response to Background Portion of the LICATF Final Report In a follow up to the July 17 meeting, Lanetta Cooper provided the Background portion of the final report: 1. AE has provided FY14 audited financial information and the associated data associated with the Weatherization program. 2. For this draft, Lanetta has requested the FY 2014 weatherization program data funded by the Customer Benefit Charge broken out by Energy Efficiency Services and Customer Assistance Program. For the report, AE will provide both. 3. See answer to #2. 4. All population data is based on Census data (http://www.census.gov/), using 2010 and 2013 data. Data is based on Travis county Ms. Cooper also asked for a review of the Background portion of the report. That is provided below. As part of the edits, an error was found in the section regarding the 301-400% of federal poverty guidelines. The table below is from the report reference in the Background section. It is provided for additional support. The edits are provided as support to Ms. Cooper’s request and should not be viewed as the final edits or comments made by AE. Table 1a: Household Income and Electricity Burden Measures by Area (2010-2012) Measure Austin Brownsville Corpus Christi Dallas El Paso Houston San Antonio Texas Total Households 421,129 118,446 152,670 2,047,328 256,149 1,783,863 602,599 8,852,444 Households Below Poverty 55,841 36,627 24,678 257,433 57,514 248,758 93,035 1,333,625 % of all Households 13% 31% 16% 13% 22% 14% 15% 15% Households by Percent of Poverty Num (000s) Pct of Total Num (000s) Pct of Total Num (000s) Pct of Total Num (000s) Pct of Total Num (000s) Pct of Total Num (000s) Pct of Total Num (000s) Pct of Total Num (000s) Pct of Total 0-100% 55.8 13.3% 36.6 30.9% 24.7 16.2% 257.4 12.6% 57.5 22.4% 248.8 13.9% 93 15.4% 1333.6 15.1% 101-200% 62.4 14.8% 31.4 26.5% 33.9 22.2% 367.4 17.9% 66.8 26.1% 324.1 18.2% 121.3 20.1% 1744.1 19.7% 201-300% 64.0 15.2% 18.2 15.4% 27.0 17.7% 318.6 15.6% 43.6 17.0% 272.8 15.3% 109.1 18.1% 1453.7 16.4% 301-400% 53.9 12.8% 11.8 10.0% 19.7 12.9% 268.5 13.1% 29.3 11.4% 221 12.4% 77.8 12.9% 1142.4 12.9% 401+% 184.9 43.9% 20.4 17.2% 47.4 31.0% 835.3 40.8% 58.9 …
TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICATF) FROM: Denise Kuehn, Energy Efficiency Services Director DATE: August 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Questions Concerning Questions Submitted by Lanetta Cooper in July 17, 2015 Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force 1. The 2012 GDS report provided the Task Force stated at p. 2 that AE uses “Salesforce.com” to store data. a. Please explain how AE uses “Salesforce.com” including an explanation of what data is stored and how it is stored. Answer: Salesforce.com is a customer relationship management tool. It allows data to be accessed by certified and verified users as needed for their roles. Data is stored via a secure cloud service monitored in real time by Symantec and verified by TRUSTe. These storage protocols meet or exceed City protocols. Access is available to only those with authorized user names and passwords who have completed Salesforce training. b. How does, if at all, AE track pre and post weatherization installations consumption involving its customers (include energy performance star) Answer: Consumption analysis is based on one of two methods: billing data or daily data. The option of which data source is used is dependent on data availability and the transitory nature of the customers. c. Has AE formatted its billing histories so that it can pull up by energy efficiency program pre and post EE program installations consumptions? If not, why not and what would AE need to do to be able to create a data base that could be accessible by EE program. (I am assuming the use of billing data aggregated by EE program and not individual customer data). Answer: AE is currently developing a data warehouse and related data structures to meet reporting needs. Data for energy efficiency analysis will reside in this data warehouse for ease of reporting. The data warehouse is in its initial stages of development. The goal is that all program data will be housed and available for analysis in this centralized location by FY2017. Reports will also be available using the new Direct Technology rebate processing tool in which the before and after usage of the customer receiving the rebate will be available allowing AE to verify the cost benefit effectively. The Direct Technology tool will process and track the energy, demand reduction savings and rebates for sixteen Customer Energy Solutions programs scheduled to be implemented fall 2015. 2. Please verify that the attached documents were …
Austin Energy Low Income Weatherization – Costs and Participation 1996-2015 1Averages based on audited yearly values and additional grant funding for contract years 2008-2009 and 2010-2012 2A total of 17,160 homes have been weatherized since 1982. The 2013-2014 CES Annual Progress Report references totals for FY 1996-2008 displayed as FY 1982-2008 3 A grant was received in FY2008 to replace refrigerators for low income residences that are a part of the COA Housing Authority. In FY 2009, a grant was received to install CFLs, Window A/C units, dishwashers, washing machines and refrigerators. In FY2002-2012 the ARRA grant was received for low income weatherization 4During FY2013 a new contract format was initiated with AE working in conjunction with the Construction Management department. Due to extended administrative time it took to implement this new format, a delay in weatherizing homes occurred. 5Values posted on the green line are for the number of homes weatherized 6Based 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 72015 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 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015(Unaudited)Grant Funds (ARRA & Energy Star)$119,984$258,283$881,529$5,269,995$3,452,135CBC - Cap Fund Money Spent$75,728$1,374,646$1,593,854CBC - AEWX Money Spent (Audited)$1,216,728$1,033,044$698,284$752,359$807,844$877,559$1,114,932$735,003$668,690$762,192$785,392$220,532$658,207$744,238$488,213$6,291$567,662$233,139$729,547$531,634Homes Weatherized8267856656267607138626675654557206325055384561,044958155312531Avg Cost per Home$1,473$1,316$1,050$1,202$1,063$1,231$1,293$1,102$1,184$1,675$1,091$349$1,541$1,863$3,004$5,054$4,196$1,993$6,744$4,003 826 785 665 626 760 713 862 667 565 455 720 632 505 538 456 1,044 958 155 312 531 $1$10$100$1,000$10,000 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000Avg Cost per Home Dollars Spent
MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICATF) FROM: Denise Kuehn, Energy Efficiency Services Director DATE: August 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Response to Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICTF) Question Regarding Number of AEP Rebates paid to Multifamily Units in FY14 Question: “How many AEP central system rebates are going to multifamily properties?” Answer: A review of the FY14 data indicated that 19 AEP rebates went to multifamily properties. or roughly 0.3% of AEP rebates.
1 TO: Low Income Advisory Task Force FROM: Denise Kuehn, Energy Efficiency Services Director DATE: August 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Questions Concerning the Changes of Costs Associated with AE Weatherization Program Over the past thirty years, Austin Energy has weatherized over 17,000 homes for low income customers. Cost of providing the weatherization program has changed due to two main contributing factors: the changes in the qualification criteria associated with resources available and the need of the community defining the type and costs of the measures provided. The qualification criteria of customers receiving low income weatherization has changed over the years based on federal and local influences. The federal government subsidizes many low income programs in conjunction with the City of Austin. This criterion has been based on the federal poverty rate which has varied from 100% to the current 200% and below in order to qualify. Additional criteria have been established for ensuring potential customers have not participated in the program over the past ten years. AE further qualifies based on the value and square footage of the home. In addition, AE partners with other city departments, utilities and non-profit organizations to reduce the costs in order to align resources. AE’s partnerships to address low income needs in the Austin area range from referrals and process enhancements to implementing home improvements for other entities. AE exchanges referrals with several entities such as Austin Water Utilities, Neighborhood Housing and Community Development (NHCD), Travis County, Housing Repair Coalition (collaboration of numerous non-profit and city organizations) and various other non-profit organizations. Over the past year, AE has worked with AWU, NHCD, Purchasing, Health and Human Services and non-profit agencies to develop a standard intake form and enhance communication. In addition to referrals, AE provides administrative support for AWU-provided water savings devices at no charge to AWU. AE provides energy saving weatherization while Neighborhood Housing provides structural repairs when federal grants are available. NHCD combines different grants to provide services such as lead removal and roof repairs to an average of 200-250 unique homes per year. NHCD receives a 10% administration fee to coordinate the in work for Austin Water on these homes. AWU provides the water saving devices and pays for the installation to NHCD. Weatherization is one of the many services the City of Austin provides low income customers. Basic services such as insulation and air infiltration are utility industry standard. As more …
1 MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force FROM: Liz Jambor, Customer Energy Solutions DATE: August 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Response to Lanetta Cooper’s Questions for August 7 Meeting During the August 7 Low Income Advisory Task Force (LICATF) meeting, Lanetta Cooper submitted questions for AE staff response. The questions and related responses follow. Please note that when mapping program data, premise addresses are used. Should a mailing address be captured that is outside of the AE service territory, it is not mapped. The majority of the responses are related to data provided to the Austin American Statesman in terms of program reach by zip code. Zip code data cannot be read in isolation because there are other factors to consider such as the overall population of the zip code, housing stock, and the percent of poverty per zip code. Statistically, many of the zip codes for population, percent poverty and rebates are within the norm. It is not a universality that “wealthier residents” get more in rebates than other customers. Additional factors, such as dwelling type, age of home and home ownership, play into the eventual participation in rebate programs. For example, a zip code dense with multifamily properties may “map” into a lower participation rate because the property with multiple apartment units is counted as one rebate (for a commercial customer) when the one rebate has actually served hundreds of residential customers. Overall, the programs are meeting the needs of our customers based on their ability and need to participate. 2 3 4 Reponses 1. The time periods varied by program but covered from program inception through 2014. Data was based on residential programs only. Please note that data provided on map may not be complete program data but only data that could be mapped accurately. 2. The map captured unaudited rebate data from program inceptions through 2014 and totaled $181,189,101. Please note that data provided on the map may not be complete program data but only data that could be mapped accurately and where financial records exist (for example, for the period 1982 – 1995, there is not separate accounting for low income weatherization, or other programs). 3. No non multifamily commercial rebates were included. 4. NA 5. See table of unaudited data below. Please note that data provided on the map may not be complete program data but only data that could be mapped accurately and …
MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force (LICATF) FROM: Denise Kuehn, Energy Efficiency Services Director DATE: August 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Questions Concerning Questions Submitted by Cyrus Reed for Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force The request was to provide the expenditures and results of the Austin Energy Low Income Weatherization program since 2009. Below is the information: CBC - AEWXCBC - CAP2009 538 511 588,030 $744,238 -$258,283$1,002,521$1,863$0.172010 456 433 498,410 $488,213 -$881,529$1,369,742$3,004$0.272011 1,044 992 1,141,090 $6,291 -$5,269,995$5,276,286$5,054$0.462012 958 910 1,047,090 $567,662 -$3,452,135$4,019,797$4,196$0.382013 155 186 192,360 $233,139$75,728 - $308,867$1,993$0.162014 312 374 387,190 $729,547$1,374,646 - $2,104,193$6,744$0.542015 (encumbered through August 3-includes test out)* 531 527 586,592 $531,634$1,593,854 -$2,125,488$4,003$0.36Total Spend$s/per Home-participant$s per Life-Cycle KWh ReducedAE Audited SpentYear# of ParticipantsKWs ReducedKwh Saved ARRA & Energy Star Grants
4Number of units1Electricity Rate ($/kWh)$0.109Initial Cost per Unit (estimated retail price)$180$140Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER)11.28.0Cooling Capacity of Air Conditioner (Btu/hr)5,0005,000Annual Operating Costs*Energy cost$117$164$47Energy consumption (kWh)1,0771,508431Maintenance cost$0$0$0Total$117$164$47Life Cycle Costs*Operating costs (energy and maintenance)$872$1,221$349Energy costs$872$1,221$349Energy consumption (kWh)9,69113,5683,876Maintenance costs$0$0$0Purchase price for 1 unit(s)$180$140-$40Total$1,052$1,361$309Simple payback of initial additional cost (years)† 0.9 Initial cost difference$40Life cycle savings $349Net life cycle savings (life cycle savings - additional cost)$309Simple payback of additional cost (years)0.9Life cycle energy saved (kWh)3,876Life cycle air pollution reduction (lbs of CO2)5,970Air pollution reduction equivalence (number of cars removed from the road for a year)1Air pollution reduction equivalence (acres of forest) 1Savings as a percent of retail price172%ENERGY STAR Qualified UnitConventional UnitLife Cycle Cost Estimate for1 ENERGY STAR Qualified Room Air Conditioner(s)This energy savings calculator was developed by the U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE and is provided for estimating purposes only. Actual energy savings may vary based on use and other factors.Enter your own values in the gray boxes or use our default values.Annual and Life Cycle Costs and Savings for 1 Room Air Conditioner(s)† A simple payback period of zero years means that the payback is immediate.Summary of Benefits for 1 Room Air Conditioner(s)1 ENERGY STAR Qualified Unit(s)1 Conventional Unit(s) Savings with ENERGY STAR* Annual costs exclude the initial purchase price. All costs, except initial cost, are discounted over the products' lifetime using a real discount rate of 4%. See "Assumptions" to change factors including the discount rate.Choose your city from the menu at right
4Number of units1Electricity Rate ($/kWh)$0.109Initial Cost per Unit (estimated retail price)$275$225Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER)11.38.0Cooling Capacity of Air Conditioner (Btu/hr)8,0008,000Annual Operating Costs*Energy cost$186$263$77Energy consumption (kWh)1,7082,412704Maintenance cost$0$0$0Total$186$263$77Life Cycle Costs*Operating costs (energy and maintenance)$1,383$1,953$570Energy costs$1,383$1,953$570Energy consumption (kWh)15,36821,7086,340Maintenance costs$0$0$0Purchase price for 1 unit(s)$275$225-$50Total$1,658$2,178$520Simple payback of initial additional cost (years)† 0.7 Initial cost difference$50Life cycle savings $570Net life cycle savings (life cycle savings - additional cost)$520Simple payback of additional cost (years)0.7Life cycle energy saved (kWh)6,340Life cycle air pollution reduction (lbs of CO2)9,763Air pollution reduction equivalence (number of cars removed from the road for a year)1Air pollution reduction equivalence (acres of forest) 1Savings as a percent of retail price189%ENERGY STAR Qualified UnitConventional UnitLife Cycle Cost Estimate for1 ENERGY STAR Qualified Room Air Conditioner(s)This energy savings calculator was developed by the U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE and is provided for estimating purposes only. Actual energy savings may vary based on use and other factors.Enter your own values in the gray boxes or use our default values.Annual and Life Cycle Costs and Savings for 1 Room Air Conditioner(s)† A simple payback period of zero years means that the payback is immediate.Summary of Benefits for 1 Room Air Conditioner(s)1 ENERGY STAR Qualified Unit(s)1 Conventional Unit(s) Savings with ENERGY STAR* Annual costs exclude the initial purchase price. All costs, except initial cost, are discounted over the products' lifetime using a real discount rate of 4%. See "Assumptions" to change factors including the discount rate.Choose your city from the menu at right
1 MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force FROM: Liz Jambor, Customer Energy Solutions DATE: August 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Comparison of Energy Savings for AC versus No AC Replacement A question was posed by the Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force concerning the energy savings differences between weatherized homes that had the air conditioner (AC) replaced as compared to homes that did not. The table below compares homes completed in 2013 when AC replacement was part of the weatherization measures. The sample size is extremely small, given the transitory nature of the population. Any extrapolations beyond the current data should be made with extreme care. As indicated by the data in the table, there was greater savings for homes with an AC replacement. However, this savings came at a greater cost per kWh. For this small number of homes, there is greater savings for the customer at a greater cost to the utility. Number of Customers in Continuous Residence Mean kWh Saved Mean Improvement Cost Dollars per kWh Saved AC Replacement 5 1,666 $6,409.25 $3.85 No AC Replacement 15 1,201 $2,400.99 $2.00
1 MEMORANDUM TO: Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force FROM: John Umphress, Green Building & Sustainability Consultant, Sr. DATE: August 18, 2015 SUBJECT: Factors influencing decision to retrofit existing window units with central a/c Thank you for allowing Michael Husted and I the opportunity to come speak with the task force about energy code issues, hopefully you found it helpful. During the discussions that took place as part of that meeting the subject of the efficacy of window units for air conditioning was brought up. The discussion centered upon a narrowly defined example, and didn’t lead to a broad discussion of the factors contributing to a decision as to whether a given situation would merit replacing a window unit with another a/c option. It is fair to say that a split or central system is a better solution for new construction. The decision to “upgrade” a window unit with either a split or central system in an older building is much more complex, requiring a detailed analysis of each building, and weighing a number of potential factors to determine the most effective approach for the customer. Unfortunately, it is difficult to develop a prescriptive approach that appropriately addresses all of the potential variables that may need to be considered when looking at potential a/c upgrades. In general, weatherization looks at improving the building envelope and/or the mechanical systems. Each house presents its own unique situation, and striking the appropriate balance of investments between the two areas (envelope and mechanical) for the specific premise is paramount for reaching an optimal solution. In addition, we generally reach a point of rapidly diminishing returns, where additional money spent doesn’t result in correspondingly large savings for the customer. To the contrary, they often face the unintended consequence of spending more money. Anecdotal information derived from the low-income weatherization retrofits performed by Austin Energy showed that some residences experienced significantly higher energy bills after replacing window units with central systems. This led to higher bills, and also to higher demand for the premise. This was generally attributed to the central system cooling the whole house all of the time and having a higher overall cooling capacity, as opposed to window units generally cooling a smaller space and needing less energy, particularly if only one small system was running at any given time. There are a myriad of factors that should be considered when deciding which …
