REACH GRANT NARRATIVE
SEGMENT ONE Element I: Organizational Experience and Capability Sub-Element 1(a) Agency's Experience and Commitment in Program Area The Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) intends to subcontract with A World Institute for Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H) as the Community Based Organization (CBO) that will implement the activities described in this grant application. A W.I.S.H. is an international non-profit organization whose mission is to provide models and support for life-sustaining activities. A W.I.S.H serves as an "umbrella" organization assisting local, regional, national, and international sustainable projects to achieve their goals. The organization was founded in Bellingham, Washington in March of 1995, and is a tax exempt 501(c)(3) Corporation. A W.I.S.H. is also incorporated as a non governmental organization (NGO) in Germany, Bolivia, Uruguay and Alaska. The A W.I.S.H Board, including ex-officio members, represents nine different countries and has projects throughout the world. A W.I.S.H. is the founder of the National Low-Income Energy Peer Exchange and is collaborating with the National Consumer Law Center to coordinate the activities. Funded by the Energy Foundation for five years, this peer exchange brings together low-income energy advocates to exchange information twice a year. This group includes community-based organizations, state and federal staff, consultants, legal service attorneys and has been considered the "brain trust" of low-income energy thinking in the country. A Sampling of Current A W.I.S.H. Projects: Sustainable Energy Project: A W.I.S.H. represents small consumer interests by promoting environmentally benign electric generation that is affordable and reliable as the electric industry engages in restructuring throughout the United States. A W.I.S.H. has provided training and technical assistance, expert witnesses, program design, strategic planning and advocacy for public interest clients across the nation. People For Salmon Project: A W.I.S.H. administers this multi-million dollar project for the State of Washington Conservation Commission. The project's goal is to recruit and train community-based salmon restoration volunteers and enlist landowners statewide to assist in carrying out salmon recovery efforts. This collaborative effort includes Washington's Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, the Association of General Contractors Education Foundation, Pierce County Conservation District, the YMCA of Snohomish County and others. Due to the success of this project, Alaska is considering replicating it. A W.I.S.H. Training And Technical Assistance A W.I.S.H. conducts workshops on a broad array of sustainability topics including sustainable agriculture, energy, housing, health care, poverty solutions and economic development. A W.I.S.H also offers introductory presentations on sustainability, using best practices currently available. Workshops have been presented to corporations, non-profits, government, business and educational institutions. Bolivian Rainforest Project A W.I.S.H is the umbrella organization to model preservation of the rainforest by supporting economic development for indigenous Bolivians by replacing slash and burn destructive logging practices with native sustainable fruit and fruit products for international trade. This is a collaboration between German, Bolivian, and Costa Rican organizations, and directed by A W.I.S.H. board member Dr. Hans Glasmeier. Other Projects: A complete list of projects are on the A W.I.S.H. web-site at: www.awish.net. These projects include the Sustainable Banana Project in Costa Rica; Sustainable Connections; the National Information Center for Ecology ; the Global Living Project from Canada; the Galilee Restoration Project in Israel; and so forth. In its contract with the Washington Conservation Commission, A W.I.S.H. is required to collect and analyze data to perform an evaluation. A W.I.S.H. board members and officers (see attached resumes) have a wealth of experience among them in both evaluation and data collection. Together the Board brings over one hundred years of experience in administering public programs (worth hundreds of millions of dollars), including state, federal, and private funds, all of which required data collection and evaluation. Few organizations in the country, if any, have boards with the caliber of leadership in low-income energy issues (see attached resumes) as A W.I.S.H. This is small and cohesive Board that is very excited and committed to the goals and purpose of the REACH program. As such, they will be very engaged in ensuring the success of the project. Because of the unique experience and affinity the A W.I.S.H. Board has with low-income energy programs, this REACH project will be given top priority. A special sub-committee of the Board will be formed specifically to track and provide advice on this project. The agency is structured to meet the demands of the program and has the necessary resources, including computers, scanners, copiers, phones, etc. Accounting, auditing, and all other facets needed for effective program administration and coordination are currently in place. The Washington State Association of Community Action Agencies is also partnering with A W.I.S.H. and the State of Washington for purposes of this project. The thirty member organization of public and private anti-poverty agencies will be sub-contracting with A W.I.S.H. to perform activities in their local communities. These agencies all have over twenty years experience in delivering low-income energy services to the poor. Many have been recognized nationally over the years for their creative approaches for energy assistance and weatherization. These partners are critical because Washington State is unique in having over sixty electric utilities in the State. The great majority of these are public utility districts, co-ops, municipal utility districts . . . . and to effect their policies for low income assistance, one has to be at the local level, in the community, with a track record and trust . . . to be known by the utility decision makers. This is the case and the role for the Community Action Agency partners in this project. The State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development will also be actively involved in the project with oversight, monitoring and assistance with strategic planning. DCTED has an excellent reputation with both utilities and Community Action Agencies across the state. Sub-Element 1(b) Staff Skills, Resources and Responsibilities Will Graham – State Contact and Grant Monitor
Michael Karp – Project Director and Coordinator
Chuck Eberdt – Contracts Officer
Robert Maxwell – Project Evaluator
Element II: Theory, Design and Plan Sub-element II(a) Description of Target Population, Analysis of Need, and Project Assumptions The project goal is to reduce the electric costs of low-income households in Washington State thereby moving them off LIHEAP assistance by integrating energy assistance (via a rate discount or Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) program) with targeted weatherization, in conjunction with a strong energy education program. This collaborative effort will build on the best CAA and utility designs to take advantage of the ongoing restructuring occurring within the electric industry. Our proposed strategy will permanently impact the biggest energy problem low-income households have: Energy costs rising at a higher rate than the household incomes of LIHEAP clients. This scenario means that no amount of federal assistance will ever be enough to help low-income households make regular payments for home energy bills. Our approach will help stabilize low-income households' energy costs and increase their ability to make regular payments. This project will address the inequitable energy burden of low-income households in the state, especially LIHEAP clients, compared to other segments of the population, as well as increase their comfort, health and safety. The target populations for this project are low-income households in Washington State that are at the lowest end of the federal poverty guidelines. We feel our best strategy for serving them is to first move those nearest the higher end of the guidelines up and away from LIHEAP by receiving a substantial reduction on their energy bills from rate discounts. Washington State does a great job in serving those, on average, at the lower end of the poverty guidelines. However, too many that are at the higher end of the guidelines still get served, as there are only enough funds to serve approximately 17% of the eligible households with LIHEAP. We can move households at the higher end of the spectrum off of LIHEAP by obtaining rate discounts for them, thus meeting their need while displacing them with others at the lower end of the guidelines. Additionally, those at the lowest end will receive a rate discount as well. We are targeting LIHEAP clients but by doing so, all low-income in the state may benefit from this program. Though we are especially interested in those LIHEAP clients at the higher end of the eligibility guidelines (as they are most likely not to need LIHEAP if they save significant dollars on their energy bills by rate reductions and targeted weatherization and efficiency retrofits), we are most definitely designing this program to benefit those at the lowest end of the income scale. By targeting the full spectrum of utilities serving that population with a comprehensive plan to encourage them to adopt rate discounts or PIPPs that are needs based, we can successfully begin to address the moving target of unaffordable bills for the entire state low-income population. By focusing electric utility dollars in this way, it frees up LIHEAP funds to better meet the need of those households that heat with propane, oil, natural gas and wood. This project's target population is 68,000 of the LIHEAP-eligible households in Washington State; a participation rate of 50% of half of the number of low-income households in the State. There are 2,608,030 electric utility consumers in the State. Deducting the number of consumers in the three utilities already offering low-income assistance through rate discounts or PIPP programs, leaves 1,896,397 electric customers. The number of those customers who are residential and low-income is 136,541. These low-income electric consumers do not presently have access to discounts or PIPP programs. Assuming a penetration rate of 50 percent, a goal of the project, leaves 68,000 LIHEAP-eligible consumers to target for this program. According to the Washington State Electric System Study done in 1998 for the Washington State Legislature, low-income households in the state spend 14.9 percent of their income on home energy, compared to 3.6 percent for non low-income households. Low-income households are likely to have young children (50 percent of the households had children under 6 years of age) or be seniors (25 percent of the weatherization households had seniors over 60 years old). Washington is unique in the in that 60 percent of low-income households heat with electricity as opposed to 10 percent in other states. Thus, obtaining a rate discount or PIPP for them can dramatically affect their heating bills, versus other areas of the country where a rate discount affects only lighting and some appliances. There are 290,000 households at or below 125 percent of federal poverty guidelines in Washington. In 1990, DCTED provided 96,000 households with energy assistance, or about one-third of the eligible population. By 1998, due to reduced funding, DCTED's assistance went to 48,000, only 16.5 percent of the eligible population. It is clear when you compare the number of low-income household who are eligible for LIHEAP to the number of those who receive LIHEAP, that current assistance programs are not meeting the energy needs of low-income households. There is a great need to help low-income households find a permanent way to reduce their energy costs and thus be able to move off LIHEAP. Because our approach permanently reduces the amount they pay, through either utility rate discounts or PIPP, low-income households will be paying less for energy costs. Implicit in the project's goal of reducing the electric costs of low-income households and enabling them to move off LIHEAP assistance, is becoming self-reliant and able to afford basic needs, such as heating, cooking, lighting, refrigeration, water heating and appliances. Wage earners and children cannot go off to school and work if they live in the dark, cannot cook food and have inadequate warmth. This project promotes self-reliance by ensuring those basic needs will be met by having affordable energy bills and energy efficient homes and appliances, coupled with an education component. The average low-income household spends $743 on home energy costs each year. The project's proposed interventions will reduce that energy cost permanently by 25 percent, thus allowing LIHEAP funds to be spread further and assist more low-income households. The difference of rate discount or PIPP program versus traditional energy assistance through LIHEAP is enormous. Rate discounts are designed to be needs based and therefore provide benefit for anyone who meets eligibility criteria. A rate discount program is also valuable; as it stays at least proportional to any new rate increases. Energy assistance funds are for home heating and are subject to appropriation levels each year, none of which have ever met the needs of all households who needed those services. LIHEAP is an excellent supplement to states whose utilities have adopted rate discount or PIPP programs. This project has been designed, from the beginning, as a collaborative project between DCTED, Washington State Association of Community Action Agencies, A W.I.S.H and utilities. Community involvement, including the direct involvement of low-income representatives, has been built into the project. The project Steering Committee has majority representation from Community Action Agencies, whose boards of directors are mandated to have one-third low-income membership. As members of the Steering Committee, low-income representatives will have an on-going role in developing the project and in recommending changes as necessary. Each of the thirty CAA's partnering on this project, under the coordination of A W.I.S.H, has reviewed the project proposal all the way through the process leading to submittal to HHS, and has had the opportunity to submit suggestions about the project design. Because the partner CAA's administer millions of dollars in low-income community programs such as low-income weatherization, home rehabilitation, Head Start, health clinics, homeless housing and senior services, integration of the REACH project with these other low-income services will be facilitated. There are several assumptions we have made about the needs of our target population in developing our proposed strategy. The first is that the LIHEAP-eligible population is not going to decline, in fact we assume that it will increase making the need to find a permanent solution for reducing the energy costs of low-income households even greater. Our second assumption is that the amount of money for federal and state energy assistance programs, both LIHEAP and weatherization programs, will decline, again increasing the need for our proposed approach. The third assumption that affects the need of our target population is that we assume energy costs will rise over time. Sub-element II(b) Project Strategy and Design Framework: Interventions, Outcomes and Goals One of our goals is to increase the number of utilities that offer rate discounts or PIPP to low-income customers in their service areas. These discounts, combined with targeted weatherization, including baseload measures and baseload customers, and consumer energy education, will lower energy costs for Washington's low-income citizens and serve as a model for replication elsewhere. Utility Rate Discounts and PIPPs In 1998, the Washington Legislature approved Senate Bill 6560 which allowed Public Utility Districts statewide to implement low-income rate discounts. Municipal utilities, such as Seattle City Light, have been offering these discounts, but investor-owned utilities do not currently offer a low-income discount. There has been interpretation of state statutes that define the terms "indigent" and "destitute" to mean those with zero income, which has been very problematic. With the passage of SB 6560, Snohomish PUD has taken advantage of the new language to adopt a low-income rate discount program for its customers. This rate discount will be available from October through March of each year and allow discounts of 30/50/70 percent, depending on the percentage of poverty under which the customer is eligible. This level of rate discount will have a positive effect upon the low-income participants in Snohomish PUD's service area, and along with the models of Seattle City Light (50% rate discount) and Clark County PUD (Customer Assistance Program) provide for the ability to implement these types of programs in other public and private utilities across the state. An analysis of the affect of Clark PUD's Guarantee of Service Plan (GOSP) demonstrates the cost effectiveness of the program for the utility, ratepayers and targeted low-income participants. The GOSP caps low-income families' utility bills at nine percent of their gross income. If these customers paid that amount each month, the utility would pay off any past-due amount and any utility charge above that amount. Clark PUD spent approximately $450,000 on the program during the years the evaluation covered. The money spent by the utility was offset in the following ways:
Low-income customers benefited through reduced shut-offs, uncertainty and administrative hassles. Utilities and their ratepayers saved significant costs through lower write-offs, administrative costs and increased customer payments. Thus, the model is created for a cost-effective investment on the part of the utility rather than a "give-away" program. Because Washington has over 60 electric utilities, this work must be done utility by utility for the public utilities and with the Washington Utilities and Trade Commission for investor-owned utilities. There is strong interest and commitment by those utilities that have been contacted that have already adopted low-income rate discounts to provide peer exchange technical assistance to those utilities who are interested in considering similar type of activity. It is in the best interest of these utilities to have their "competition" do the same, to level the playing field should Washington State adopt competition in the residential retail electricity market.
Interventions/Activities:
Immediate outcomes:
Intermediate outcomes:
Performance Goal: Two investor owned utilities and ten public utilities will offer low-income rate discounts or percentage of income payment plans (PIPP) to 68,000 LIHEAP-eligible households.
Assumptions:
NEW WEATHERIZATION NOTE: These funds are not in the REACH direct budget but are leveraged funds to complement the program. Twelve million dollars of weatherization services will be available to LIHEAP households that participate in this project as incentive money for the participating utilities. The money will come from state and matching utility dollars. When a utility adopts a rate discount or PIPP program, the homes of low-income persons will receive a priority for installing these weatherization measures. Thus, REACH funds can be leveraged to create utility programs that will result in a larger reduction in energy costs for low-income households than just the weatherization measures would achieve.
Interventions/Activities Coordinate with CAAs to provide energy weatherization measures. The thirty partner CAA's for this project are the network that administer and install low-income weatherization measures in utility service areas throughout the state. This network will install the weatherization measures.
Immediate Outcomes:
Intermediate Outcomes:
Performance Goal: 6000 low LIHEAP-eligible households will have received new weatherization services.
Assumptions:
Baseload Conservation Measures Leveraged funds dedicated to baseload energy efficiency measures for low-income households will be available for targeting of LIHEAP clients to those utilities that adopt low-income rate discounts, out of the overall weatherization dollars. These funds will be used exclusively for baseload measures, such as energy efficient refrigerators and compact fluorescent light bulbs. By expanding the customers eligible for this service to all electric customers with baseload service, and not just those that heat with electricity, a model will be created and hopefully replicated by other low-income efficiency programs in the state. The half million dollars, of the twelve million dollars allocated for these measures, will be an incentive for the utilities to adopt rate discounts or PIPPs. When a utility adopts these programs, the homes of low-income persons will receive a priority for installing these baseload measures. Thus, REACH funds can be leveraged to create utility programs that will result in a larger reduction in energy costs for low-income households than just the baseload measure would achieve.
Interventions/Activities Coordinate with CAA's to provide energy baseload conservation measures. The 30 partner CAA's for this project are the network that administer and install low-income weatherization measures in utility service areas throughout the state. This installation network will install the baseload conservation measures.
Immediate Outcomes:
Intermediate Outcomes:
Performance Goal: 500 LIHEAP-eligible households will have received baseload conservation measures.
Assumptions
Energy Conservation Education Energy education will also be a component of this leveraging program funded by Energy Matchmakers. The energy education program will be for those households that receive both a rate discount, or other energy assistance, and baseload and weatherization measures. This education will not be funded by REACH, but by LIHEAP and DOE WAP. The Washington State CAA/State weatherization network has a history of strong consumer and energy education and recognizes that education is an important part of the overall efficiency program. The energy education component has taken best practices from around the country and created an education opportunity at all points of contact for LIHEAP-eligible clients: Outreach, Intake, Assessment, Installation, Inspection, and Client Evaluation.
Interventions/activities Coordinate with CAAs to provide energy education programs. The 30 partner CAA's for this project are the network that administer and install low-income weatherization measures in utility service areas throughout the state. This network will deliver the energy education component.
Immediate Outcome:
Intermediate Outcomes:
Performance Goal: 6,500 LIHEAP-eligible households will have received energy conservation education.
Assumptions
Collaboration of DCTED, Utilities and CAAs that deliver LIHEAP and DOE WAP The success of this project involves the collaboration of all the entities that impact energy issues for low-income households in Washington State: State government, CAAs, and utilities. Our project strategy includes methods for including these groups to help us meet the project goal.
Interventions/Activities A W.I.S.H. will form a Project Steering Committee composed of DCTED, utilities and CAAs who provide LIHEAP and DOE WAP services. A W.I.S.H. will subcontract with the 30 CAAs who provide LIHEAP and DOE WAP services to act as liaisons with the communities and with local utilities.
Immediate Outcomes:
Intermediate Outcomes:
Performance Goal: A collaboration will exist of utilities, DCTED and CAAs that deliver LIHEAP and DOE WAP that worked together toward the project goal.
Sub-element II(c) Work Plan Listed below are the major tasks that will be undertaken in the workplan:
1. CAA's attend statewide conference that explains the program. 2. The REACH project director contacts each CAA individually to negotiate a contract to carry out the workplan. 3. The project director meets with each CAA to arrange work plan/schedule. 4. CAA does community-based organizing to set up their local utility/ies for peer exchange visit. 5. Project Director and Peer Exchange Team come out to CAA service area to meet with them and their local utility. 6. Return as needed.
Implement peer utility plan: 1. Contact Seattle City Light, Snohomish PUD, Clark County PUD about reaffirming their roles on the peer exchange team. 2. Discuss role for the statewide utility conference with this team. 3. Organize calendar of their availability to travel and meet with other utilities. 4. Travel and meet with other utilities as scheduled.
Major Milestones
We see two potential problems we may face when we implement this project. The two problems are interrelated. First, we may face resistance from smaller, rural co-ops whose primary customer base is agricultural and who see giving rate discounts, or PIPPs, as social policy and not within the scope of what they think a utility should do. The second possible problem, may be that our incentives (installation of baseload conservation and weatherization measures within the homes of their customers) may not be great enough. As a proactive strategy, we intend to match representatives from the Utility Peer Exchange Team, as closely as possible, to the type utility to whom they are marketing rates discounts or PIPPs. Municipals to municipals, public utility districts to public utility districts, rural co-ops to rural co-ops, and investor owned utilities to investor owned utilities. The message will be that discounts and PIPPs make economic sense for the utility and verification of this will be provided. We believe this strategy has the best chance of succeeding.
TIMELINE OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES Element III: Holistic Program Strategies, Mobilization Of Resources, and Project Innovations This project has been designed, from the beginning, as a collaborative project between DCTED, the Washington State Association of Community Action Agencies, A.W.I.S.H. and utilities. Community involvement, including the direct involvement of low-income representatives, has been built into the project through the Steering Committee. The project Steering Committee has majority representation from Community Action Agencies, whose own boards of directors are mandated to have one-third be low income. Each of the 30 CAAs partnering on this project, under the coordination of A W.I.S.H., has put forward suggestions about project design and has reviewed the project proposal throughout the process leading to submittal to HHS. Each of these CAA partners administers many million dollars worth of community programs such as LIHEAP, DOE WAP, Head Start, health clinics, homeless housing, housing rehabilitation, case management, senior services and child advocacy. Thus, this project will be integrated with the full spectrum of other services for low-income households in each community. One of the key components to self-reliance is the ability to afford basic needs, such as heating, cooking, lighting, refrigeration, water heating and appliances. Wage earners and children cannot go off to school and work and perform successfully if they live in the dark, cannot cook food or have inadequate warmth. This project promotes self-reliance by ensuring those basic needs are met by having affordable energy bills and energy efficient homes and appliances, coupled with an education component. Because the partner CAA's administer the federal, state and utility low-income weatherization programs, as well as home rehab programs, there is a natural tie to integrating this REACH project with those other services. In fact, the program is designed to leverage six million dollars in state funds over three years (and match six million in utility money) as an added incentive to utilities to provide rate discounts or similar program. This project is new and innovative in that it:
Element IV: Project Budget Appropriateness The Washington State REACH initiative budget is divided as follows: The State of Washington is retaining funds for project monitoring for Will Graham, DCTED Project Grant Monitor and for Robert Maxwell, project evaluator. DCTED will contribute 5% towards Will Graham's oversight and monitoring. A W.I.S.H. is the CAA sub-contractor for the project workplan. In that role, A W.I.S.H. has budgeted funds for project administration and coordination. Additionally, A W.I.S.H. will enter into professional service contracts with the thirty CBO's that currently deliver the LIHEAP and WAP programs. Funds are set aside for a statewide conference, a peer exchange travel budget for utility partners, for baseload conservation measures to be used as incentive for rate discounts, and supporting administration, travel, supplies and project dissemination. A W.I.S.H conducts its business using professional service contracts, thus amounts in personnel reflect those costs and consequently the fringe section of the budget is not applicable. Matching funds will come in the form of weatherization and energy education dollars that will be targeted from State funds (Energy Matchmakers program funded from the State Capital Budget) and utility funds that will match the Energy Matchmakers dollar-for-dollar. These funds will also be used as an incentive to get utilities to adopt rate discounts. $500,000 will be used for LIHEAP-eligible electric baseload customers (vs. heating customers only) for measures such as energy efficient refrigerators and light bulbs. The project steering committee, made up of stakeholders from CAA's, the State, utilities, the State Consumer Advocate, the Utility Commission, and other interested parties, will decide how much shall be used for each utility and other design aspects of the project. Travel funds are allocated for both the Project Director and the Project Evaluator for two trips to Washington, D.C. The budget detail describes the cost assumptions for this category. Representatives of the peer exchange team of utilities (those with rate discounts or PIPPs) who will serve as a resource to other utilities in the state, require a travel budget. We are assuming a team of four people on the average for this function, as described in the budget detail. A statewide conference will kick off the project and funds are budgeted for a large event that includes all stakeholders. It is planned as a one-day event and the budget assumes funding for transportation, honoraria, lodging, food, conference room rentals, equipment rental, printing, postage and advertising. The one million dollars requested in this application to be funded by REACH will cover the tasks necessary for the success of the project, as described in this narrative and as detailed in the budget support section accompanying the SF424B. The other mobilized resources ($12 million) to be leveraged will be available through the State of Washington Energy Matchmakers, which is funded by the State Capital Budget for low-income weatherization, and matched dollar-for-dollar by utilities. The Energy Matchmakers will be targeted to act as an incentive for utilities to adopt rate discounts. Within this overall weatherization program will be a baseload (e.g. refrigerators and appliances) component and an energy education component.
Element V: Significant and Beneficial Impact of Project The project will have a significant and beneficial impact on our targeted population in the form of a permanent reduction in home energy costs. Research conducted by Clark County Public Utility District, after implementing a PIPP, showed that delinquent balances fell from 67% to only 37% and power disconnects declined by 65%. The most impressive finding was that the regularity of bill paying by low-income households increased. Once low-income customers felt their utility bills were under control, they paid, on average, $23 more per month on their bills. Not only did the regularity of bill payments increase, the amount paid also increased. Low-income customers benefited through reduced shut-offs, uncertainty and administrative hassles. Utilities and their ratepayers saved significant costs through lower write-offs, administrative costs and increased customer payments. Thus, the model is created for a cost-effective investment on the part of the utility rather than a "give-away" program. This is definitely a "win-win" situation for both low-income households and utilities. The utilities are encouraged to use PIPPs and rate discounts because it reduces their overall costs. Once a utility adopts either a rate discount or PIPP the beneficial impact of reduced energy costs to low-income households will continue way beyond the life of the project because the discounts will remain in effect indefinitely, or until such time as a new policy supercedes it. This data clearly indicates that a PIPP program can discourage a family energy crisis and provide financial incentives that encourage household payments. We expect to have similar results when implementing PIPPs and rate discounts with the twelve utilities described in this proposal. One of the goals of this project is to create a model that can be replicated in other states. As data is collected and results determined, a report will be developed that outlines both the process and outcomes of this project. That report will be distributed to all the CAAs participating in the project and the Steering Committee. The reported is intended to be used as a marketing tool to encourage utilities, in Washington and other states, and regulatory bodies to seriously consider adopting rate discounts or PIPPs. As such the report will be written in a succinct, non-technical, jargon-free manner for public consumption. The 60 investor owned and public utilities will receive this report. Follow up contacts will be made to discuss the report's findings and answer any questions the utility may have. This approach is intended to encourage utilities that have not adopted either rate discounts or PIPPs to consider doing so. A.W.I.S.H will put a report summary on its web site and make presentations at relevant conferences like the Energy Northwest Conference which includes representatives from Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Idaho state governments and the U.S. Department of Energy. A.W.I.S.H will also make the report available to pertinent groups like the Washington State Association of Communication Action and the Energy Advisory Steering Committee of DCTED.
Element VI: Community Empowerment Consideration The number of households in poverty grew in Washington State from 233,000 in 1980 to 275,000 in 1990. (US Census households at or below 125% of poverty.) Estimates put the current number of households below 125% of poverty at around 300,000. The demographic data from our Energy Assistance Program indicates poverty remains a constant problem in energy affordability. About 90 percent of the households assisted in 1999 had incomes below 100 percent of the poverty level. 60 percent of all households served had incomes below 75 percent of poverty. Lower utility rates seem more readily achievable than rapid growth in income. Other reliable indicators of poverty are the Unemployment Security Department's statistics on unemployment. The three year average unemployment, rate used to determine distressed areas, shows that all of these area are in rural Washington. Besides extending to all counties in Washington, REACH efforts will involve all of the Indian Tribes whose poverty issues have already been well documented. None of the Native American organizations in Washington operate their own power generation facilities or cooperatives and will benefit from any discount programs in their service areas that REACH is able to facilitate. The other distressed areas REACH will be able to impact are the Timber/Salmon Impact Areas designated by the Governor as distressed areas. These areas of the state have been severely economically impacted due to the downturns in those industries that have been traditionally reliant on either timber or salmon. Our REACH efforts to work with utility companies to achieve discount rates or other programs to make homes affordable to heat will also concentrate on these distressed areas mainly in eastern Washington. The utility companies serving these distressed areas are, for the most part, Public Utility Districts and individual attention will be required to communicate and plan with these small rural PUDs. (See attached table)
SEGMENT TWO Project Narrative Element VII: Management and Organization of Project The applicant, DCTED, will have overall managing responsibility. DCTED will contract with A.W.I.S.H for project coordination and administration. A.W.I.S.H in turn will enter into professional services contracts with the 30 CAAs who currently provide LIHEAP and DOE WAP. The CAAs will work with their local utilities to encourage rate discounts or PIPPs, and provide energy education, baseload conservation measures and weatherization measures. They will also keep detailed records to use during the project evaluation. Will Graham will be the representative from DCTED who will monitor all grant activities. Michael Karp, President and CEO of A.W.I.S.H, will be the project director/coordinator and directly responsible for daily operations of the project. Will Graham has been the Energy Section Supervisor for the Community Programs Unit of DCTED since 1988. He supervises a section of four professional staff and manages state and federal low-income energy programs, including LIHEAP. He has held other positions within DCTED from 1980 through his present position, such as Program Developer, Research Analyst, and Administrative Assistant. Mr. Graham has a MBA from City University in Seattle, and a B.S. in Economics from the University of Houston. Michael Karp will be the project director and will have direct responsibility in managing and coordinating the project. He has over 20 years of successful experience in directing, managing and coordinating complex projects, especially those affecting low-income households' energy needs. He has successfully administered many millions of dollars of LIHEAP, D.O.E. WAP, state and utility weatherization funds, housing rehabilitation programs and natural resource programs. For six years, Michael chaired the State of Washington's policy advisory committee that oversaw the LIHEAP and D.O.E. WAP programs. Michael was a co-founder of the NW Energy Coalition (NWEC) in 1981, the country's longest and most successful collaboration addressing public interest energy issues. Funded by the Energy Foundation and many others, NWEC spans four Northwest States and has over 80 organizational members that present low-income organizations, environmental groups, utilities, and unions. For the last four years, Michael has provided technical assistance, through the NWEC, to agencies representing the poor in the four Northwest states. The Energy Foundation, the country's largest energy foundation, funded this project. As a co-founder of the Energy Project, a collaboration between the Washington State Association of Community Action Agencies and the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Michael developed a model that has been replicated throughout the country to leverage utility dollars for low-income energy needs. Michael Karp has a national consulting practice focused on addressing the energy needs of the poor. Before starting his consulting practice, he administered energy programs for a multi-county Community Action Agency in Washington State; which included the original U.S. Department of Energy WAP and Health and Human Service LIHEAP. In this capacity, he supervised five program managers and as many as fifty staff. He is extremely experienced and knowledgeable about these programs. He has consulted with state governments and COBs in over thirty states to help leverage hundreds of millions of dollars of utility funds for these low-income energy programs. Michael initiated the national low-income energy peer exchange which, for five years now, brings the top people in this field from across the country to meet and strategize about poverty and energy issues. This group is comprised of state LIHEAP/DOE WAP administrators, federal personnel, legal service representatives, community action agencies and consultants. Michael has been recognized nationally as one of the most effective low-income energy advocates over the past twenty years. He has helped design some of the most innovative low-income energy programs in the United States, and consults with such trend-setting states as California, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Washington, Montana, New York and others to that end.
Element VIII: Project Evaluation The State of Washington is committed to ensuring that the REACH initiative performance goals are measured and evaluated and that the process evaluation allows program activities to be reviewed and revised to allow for replication of a successful program. We look forward to a partnership with OCS in approving both our proposed evaluator, and technical assistance to further refine our plan should we be selected. To that end the State of Washington DCTED has secured the services of an experienced REACH evaluator, Alaska Energy Associates (AEA), which has been involved in developing the proposal and is committed to providing evaluation services throughout the grant period to foster continuity. AEA has strong ties to Washington State energy programs and providers and will conduct independent, methodologically sound evaluation services for both process and outcome activities. The evaluator shall seek to clearly document the effectiveness of program implementation and whether the activities achieved the expected objectives in terms of immediate and intermediate outcomes. The evaluator will link all activities/interventions to indicators, prescribe or define the verifications to be used and define the assumptions required for these objectives to be met. The principal evaluator from AEA will be Robert Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell's many years of experience in the weatherization and energy conservation fields will be a great asset to the evaluation. His history in energy conservation, through weatherization, LIHEAP and utility conservation programs throughout the country, provides a background of experience that will be critical in implementing a sound evaluation for the Washington REACH program. His experience in Logic Model process and outcome evaluation activities with the State of Alaska REACH grant will greatly enhance the quality of evaluation that the Washington REACH grant receives and ensure that it is consistent with the reporting methodology used by existing REACH grantees. As Executive Director for Interior Weatherization, Inc., Mr. Maxwell was responsible for implementation and evaluation of large-scale weatherization programs. On an annual basis, both existing and new programs were evaluated for impact, success and areas of potential improvement. Program evaluation to quantify societal and environmental impact both prior to, and after, implementation was required for numerous committees, ad hoc groups and task forces. In addition, as a consumer and low-income advocate in utility issues before the Alaska Utilities Commission, Mr. Maxwell performed evaluations and comparisons for many electrical conservation programs in both Alaska and the lower 48 states. The Evaluator has proposed a detailed Evaluation Plan Outline for the State of Washington REACH Program/Energy Conservation Initiative. Outcome and Process Evaluations will be performed three times during the project period. The primary benefit of performing these evaluations is to provide feedback to the program staff, giving them the necessary information to make adjustments that will provide stronger outcomes. It is recognized that only mid-term and final evaluations are required for the REACH program. Although the State of Washington REACH program will have annual evaluations, to remain in compliance with the REACH guidelines, only mid-term and final reports will be submitted unless OCS requests otherwise. A sample of the proposed logic model based on the OCS prototype for all REACH grants can be found on the last page of this section of the proposal.
Outcome Evaluation Outcome measures will be defined for each program goal and performance target and will demonstrate the cause-effect relationship of program activities to measurable results. Each program goal will be broken down into individual intermediate and immediate outcomes, indicators and quantifiable performance targets. Progress toward reaching a given performance goal will be tracked by verifying the number of individual customers (LIHEAP recipients) who achieve a given milestone by experiencing a measurable change in conditions or behaviors related to their energy use. Verification tools (means for tracking indicators) and product steps (the activities carried out by program staff) will be identified so that the number of customers who achieve a given milestone can be reported on a quarterly basis. An example of an outcome measures model (ROMA) can be found in appendix A. Alaska Energy Associates will collect data for analysis both before and subsequent to program activity implementation. Data collection tools will include internal records such as quarterly progress reports and monthly activity statements. External tools will include utility records and State and Tribal LIHEAP recipient data. Additional external data collection methods will consist of the following:
Process Evaluation The process evaluation shall consist of two stages. The first stage will be prior to program activity implementation. The Project evaluator will seek consensus from the project steering committee and other stakeholders as to what the immediate and intermediate outcomes are to be from the activities that will evolve during the collaboration resulting from the peer exchange. The Evaluator will then integrate the resulting logic model evaluation outline into a Results Orientated Management and Accountability (ROMA) format for the those involved so that they may use that format for internal mapping and strategic planing in a systematic way. This will be conducive to implementation that allows for comparative evaluations based on the logic model evaluation outline. In the second stage, program activity implementation, the project evaluator will work with the Project Director to help identify and document key elements and activities of the program to ensure replication ability. Evaluation findings and reports for this stage shall be geared toward verifying program activities with the overall intention of providing positive suggestions for program success. Included as appendix B is an example of how the Logic and ROMA models will be integrated in a REACH program evaluation that is functional for all parties. Cause and Effect Relationships To Be Tested The sample logic model which, follows on the next page, gives examples of some cause and effect relationships to be tested. The "objectives" will be considered the "cause" and the "indicators" will be considered the "effects." The sample logic model is based on the prototype provided by OCS at the March 1999 REACH conference.
WASHINGTON STATE REACH GRANT SAMPLE LOGIC EVALUTION MODEL
OBJECTIVES INDICATORS VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS Program Goals Participating low-income households permanently reduce energy costs Average utility bill of participants reduced by $300 annually Utility billing records Industry restructuring does not increase utility costs Participants become self sufficient 10% of current LIHEAP recipients move off LIHEAP programs State LIHEAP records Recipients income remains consistent Intermediate Outcomes or program purpose: Two investor owned utilities and ten public utilities will offer low-income rate discounts or PIPPs 68,000 LIHEAP-eligible households received low-income rate discounts or PIPP Utility program records Utility regulatory filings Utilities choose to participate in programs LIHEAP-eligible households will have received new weatherization services CBOs provide services to 6000 LIHEAP-eligible households Local CBOs program records Leveraged funds are made available for new weatherization services Immediate Outcomes or outputs An increase in the regularity of home energy bill payments by LIHEAP-eligible households Database includes historical data and performance records for all participants by completion Baseline data report and updates Households are stable Activities LIHEAP-eligible households receive baseload efficiency measures 406 LIHEAP high use households receive baseload appliance conservation measures Contracted local CBO monthly progress reports and billing records Low-income households can be weatherized and receive baseload conservation Regulatory Support Budget and schedule for activities Agreements and payment Records Surveys and monitoring collects baseline data Database, historical and updated Historical data is available from utilities
A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity |
