CHCI White Paper - Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CHCI White Paper
DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION OF LATINO LEADERS ®
May 2017
Lifting the Burden: Leveraging Existing Programs to Reduce
Energy Costs in Low-Income Communities
By Patricio Portillo, CHCI Shell Energy Graduate Fellow
Abstract clined,2 the cost of renewable technol- of the roughly 50,000 Latino house-
ogies plummeted as performance im- holds in the U.S. as of 2015, 20.4%
3
Nationwide rising retail electricity rates proved, and electricity markets be- lived below the federal poverty line
4
have disproportionately affected Latino came more competitive. However, (FPL).9 In comparison, median income
communities. From 2000-2015, Latino over the past 15 years, the electricity for white households was $77,166 in
household income declined slightly, burden –defined as the proportion of 2015 and 11.6% of total U.S. house-
while average residential electricity total income spent on electricity– af- holds were below the FPL.10 Coinciding
prices rose significantly. Consequently, flicting the Latino community grew. with this period of stagnant income
a larger proportion of household in- The first section of the paper explores growth has been a 54% rise in average
come is being allocated to electricity the electricity burden trend and dis- residential electricity prices nation-
consumption. Investment in new elec- cusses its implications. The second sec- wide.11
tricity infrastructure, greater adoption tion focuses on the role of government
of renewable energy, and costs associ- in ensuring affordable energy and pro- There are two components reflected in
ation with environmental compliance vides recommendations to improve an electric bill: the cost of generation
are driving the rising electricity prices. and expand existing programs. and the cost of transmission and distri-
Meanwhile, the Latino population has bution.12 Influencing these two compo-
yet to fully recover from the 2007-2009 The Latino Community’s nents are factors such as the price of
recession and median Latino house- fuel, electric infrastructure develop-
Electricity Burden
hold income is significantly below the ment and operation, weather condi-
national average. By examining exist- Since 1990 the number of Latino tions, and environmental regulations.13
ing national programs that reduce en- households in the U.S. has nearly tri- Over the past decade greater invest-
ergy costs in low-income communities, pled, growing at a 4% average annual ment in transmission and distribution
this paper identifies opportunities for rate thru 2015. Although modest in-lines to improve electric reliability and
improvement and provides pragmatic come gains occurred in the 1990s, by capacity,14 the construction of renewa-
policy solutions. the 2000s Latino household income ble energy resources, and the imple-
growth had begun to stagnate, con- mentation of critical environmental
Introduction tracting slightly by -1% between 2000 regulations have 15 caused electricity
5
and 2015. Further analysis shows 2000 rates to increase.
Electricity is fundamental to modern to be the apex coming off strong
life and responsible for many of the growth beginning in 1992, before lev- The trends affecting electricity price
amenities we have come to rely upon eling off and then deteriorating into are causing Latino families to direct a
such as powering appliances, providing the 2007-2009 recession,6 from which greater share of their income towards
light, heating and cooling our homes, recovery has been tepid.7 By 2015, me- paying electricity bills. The share of
and storing food.1 The past decade dian Latino household income in the income expended on electricity is re-
presided over historic changes to the U.S. was $45,148, well below the na- ferred to as the electricity burden. The
United States’ electricity system. Car- 8
tional average of $56,516. Moreover, point at which household expenditures
bon emissions in the power sector de- on electricity transcends “a nuisance”
The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not represent or reflect those of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI).Figure 1: Latino Household Income & National Electricity Rates
and becomes “a burden” is not gener- availability of inexpensive electricity ing on food, healthcare, savings, hous-
ally agreed upon. Thresholds vary, de- are inextricably linked. Energy is a criti- ing, and education.23 Moreover, elec-
rived by observing other costs such as cal input for nearly all goods and ser- tricity price shocks are typically beyond
food and shelter and then extrapolat- vices and throughout the 20th century the consumer’s control, including fac-
ing a proportion. One approach is to the U.S. economy moved in tandem tors such as inclement weather, geo-
identify the national median percent of 19
with electricity consumption. This graphic location, government policy,
total income spent on electricity bills trend gradually changed as the U.S. and structural changes in the energy
and either set the electricity burden as economy matured, becoming more market.24 These shocks, which are par-
any percent beyond that or choose a efficient and less energy intensive.
20 ticularly harmful to low-income fami-
standard deviation above that per- lies, can cause families to rapidly accu-
However, energy remains central to
cent.16 For the purposes of this paper, mulate unstainable amounts of debt
maintaining and improving living
a high energy burden will be greater attempting to meet monthly bill pay-
standards, helping to improve produc-
than the national median electricity ments.25 Further, numerous studies
tivity and health.21 Consequently, inex-
burden. Based on residential electricity have concluded that the inability to
pensive electricity has become a fun-
price data collected by the EIA, the pay utility bills is a major cause of
damental human need and as such it is
average annual cost of electricity is home evictions and homelessness.26
within the purview of government to
17
$1,370. Since median household in- In addition to the societal benefit of
ensure equitable access to all citizens
come in 2015 was $56,516, the percent reducing overall energy consumption,
when market failures persist. Threat-
of income spent on electricity was low-income families in particular stand
ened by exclusion are low-income
2.4%. In 2015 the FPL was set at an to gain the most from weatherization
households who allot a greater pro-
annual income level of $24,250 per and efficiency improvements. Low-
portion of their total income to utility
four-person family.18 Consequently, income families tend to live in older
bills and are disproportionately affect-
20% of Latino families are spending housing stock dating back to the 1970s
ed by high electricity prices.
roughly 6% of their total income on and therefore lack adequate insulation,
electricity bills; almost three times contain antiquated heating and cool-
All funds in low-income households
more than the national average. ing systems, and own less energy effi-
are generally accounted for to meet
cient appliances; all factors leading to
basic needs, thus pressure from one
The Importance of Lifting the higher energy bills.27 In comparison,
category can force them to decide be-
higher income households generally
Electricity Burden tween core needs.22 As a result, rate
live in newer homes, devoid of these
increases can reallocate money to-
shortcomings. Further compounding
National economic growth and the wards electricity bills, reducing spend-
2“Electricity is fundamental to modern life and responsible for many of the amen-
ities we have come to rely upon”
the issue, 35% of U.S. households rent, These national objectives are pursued be served, and the administration of
with the majority of renters earning through congressional appropriations, funds. Income-based household eligi-
under $50,000 annually.28 Renters, executed at the state and local level, bility for assistance is decided by the
have little excess budget and lack the and often complemented or augment- states, and is typically between 150%
incentive to invest in energy upgrades ed by states in order to provide greater and 110% of the federal poverty line
as they are unlikely to live in the same relief for disadvantaged residents. At (FPL), or 60% of the state median in-
unit long enough to realize a benefit the national level, major federal pro- come. Grantees can also elect to make
from such an investment. Landlords grams include the Department of LIHEAP assistance available for house-
also lack the motivation to make these Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Low holds in which at least one member is
upgrades, since utility bills are passed Income Home Energy Assistance Pro- a recipient of other social welfare ben-
on to the tenets.29 Fortunately, inex- gram (LIHEAP) and the Department of efits such as Temporary Assistance for
pensive and innovative solutions have Energy’s (DOE) Weatherization Assis- Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental
existed for over 40 years with some tance Program (WAP), which focus pre- Security Income (SSI), or Supplemental
institutionalized across the nation. dominantly on bill assistance and Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).34
home weatherization, respectively. Ad-
Current Policies & Programs ditionally, some executive branch The U.S. Department of Health and
agencies support state and municipal Human Services (HHS) estimates be-
Reducing energy bills is a well- level programs, such as the Residential tween 31.1 million and 38.5 million
entrenched national policy objective, Property-Assessed Clean Energy pro- households qualified for LIHEAP assis-
with Congress first providing home gram, by providing analysis, data, and tance in FY 2014 across the lower
energy assistance during the Organiza- technical expertise. (110% FPL) and upper (150% FPL)
tion of Petroleum Exporting Countries range of income eligibility. In compari-
(OPEC) Oil Embargo of 1973-1974.30 son, roughly 6.3 million households
The embargo constrained U.S. oil sup- Low Income Home Energy received LIHEAP assistance in FY 2014,
ply, driving up the cost of heating oil Assistance Program implying only 16% to 20% of all eligi-
and compelling Congress to assist with ble households received federal aid.35
lowering home energy bills. Leading Established by Title XXVI of the Omni- In order to overcome this discrepancy,
the way to cut energy costs, state offi- bus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public states may turn to donations from
cials in Maine partnered with Commu- Law 97-35), the LIHEAP statute primari- higher income utility customer to cold
nity Action Agencies (CAAs) to seal air ly provides grants to states, territories,
weather funds, charitable groups, and,
leaks in homes with techniques such as and tribes (collectively referred to as occasionally, structured bill payment
covering windows with plastic sheet- “grantees”) through two mechanisms: plans.36 The risk of unpaid bills to utili-
ing, caulking, and weather stripping, regular funds and emergency contin- ty companies tends to be mitigated by
improving efficiency and reducing gency funds.33 The statute employs a distributing costs to paying customers;
home energy bills.31 Building off formula to determine the amount of a practice that cost all other ratepayers
Maine’s success and the legal prece- regular funding states are apportioned, an estimated $6 billion in poverty costs
dent set by the Economic Opportunity while emergency contingency funds and does not necessary aid those una-
Act of 1964, which established the War are retained by the President and the ble to pay.37 The inability to provide
on Poverty, congress directed CAAs to Secretary of Health and Human Ser- federal assistance to over 80% of eligi-
administer energy assistance programs vices, to be distributed at their discre- ble households is a significant appro-
nationally. Initial measures provided tion. priations failure. Inadequate coverage
assistance through home weatheriza- is further aggravated by the suscepti-
tion and household education pro- Federal requirements for LIHEAP are bility of the program to fraud and im-
grams, later expanding to include crisis minimal, with application decisions proper payments. A Government Ac-
relief for households facing immediate broadly bestowed to the grantees. Ra- countability Office (GAO) report from
shutoff, and eventually providing direct ther, the statute demands for 16 assur- 2010 randomly sampled 7 states and
energy bill subsidies for low-income ances regarding program operations to discovered that 9% of LIHEAP recipi-
households.32 be certified in order for grants to be ents had used invalid identity infor-
awarded. The assurances include ac- mation. The report notes that in some
ceptable forms of assistance, who can instances this occurred due to typos,
3“Rate increases can reallocate money towards electricity bills, reducing spending
on food, healthcare, savings, housing, and education”
however in other cases the information resources needed to substantially re- States in turn allocate funds to local
of deceased relatives information was duce overall demand for bill assistance governments and nonprofits who uti-
38
used to qualify for eligibility. In order within the next ten years and report lize a national network of over 900 ser-
to reconcile the coverage disconnect, the finding back to Congress. The task- vice providers to purchase and install
Congress should change how LIHEAP force should also be instructed to pro- of weatherization material.46 Program
is funded, moving from a fixed annual vide estimates on the number of po- guidelines outline suitable energy effi-
amount to a percentage of total eligi- tential jobs such an undertaking would ciency measures including the installa-
ble households per state based on an- create and its economic impact. tion of: insulation, efficient windows,
nual estimates submitted to HHS. Ac- water heaters, air conditioners, ventila-
companying eligibility estimates, states Weatherization Assistance tion equipment, and storm doors.47
should also be required to submit Program Savings from these efficiency measures
“LIHEAP Program Integrity Plans” out- are permanent, providing long-term
lining key element of their fraud pre- The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) benefits to low-income households.
vention systems in order to reduce Weatherization Assistance Program Moreover, for every $1 invested,
fraud and waste.39 At present only 16% (WAP) was established in 1974 under weatherization returns $2.72 in related
of households with incomes at or be- Title IV of the Energy Conservation and benefits and supports over 8,000 direct
low 150% of the FPL receive LIHEAP Production Act (Public Law 94-385, as jobs nationwide.48 However, appropria-
assistance. This percentage should be amended) and is a formula block grant tions for WAP have been erratic and
raised gradually over a ten year period program to assist low-income families. changes in program requirements have
to allow the requisite administrative As set forth by statute, the law intends historically caused major implementa-
support system to develop until 100% to increase the energy efficiency of tion delays opening the program up to
of eligible households are covered and homes to reduce dependence on for- criticism.49
adequately served. eign energy and prevent future energy
shortages. The large marginal gains A study conducted by the Oak Ridge
Although LIHEAP funds can be applied from efficiency upgrades to housing National Laboratory (ORNL) evaluating
in various ways, such as crisis relief or stock occupied by low-income families WAP concluded the average cost per
weatherization, they are mainly used coupled with their inability to other- unit weatherized in 2008 was $4,695
for direct bill assistance. Of the $3.5 wise afford home modifications were (2013 dollars).50 In comparison, the
billion in LIHEAP funding for FY 2014, the primary basis for the bill’s enact- combined present value of energy and
55.8% went to heating and cooling, ment.41 The act ascribes responsibility non-energy benefits per unit was
21% went to energy crisis assistance, for implementation to DOE and since $22,156 (2013 dollars).51 Therefore the
and 9% went to weatherization WAP’s inception in 1976, over 7 million program achieved an impressive over-
measures.40 Direct bill assistance for households have benefited, with priori- all savings-to-investment ratio of 4.72.
heating, cooling, and energy crisis cap- ty given to homes with elderly or Households that received weatheriza-
tures the majority of LIHEAP funds and handicapped members.42 tion also participate in utility adminis-
appears as reduced rates or small tered Percent of Income Payment
credit amounts dispersed throughout Funding for WAP is appropriated by Plans, which are subsidized by other
the year as needed. The attraction of Congress and dispensed by DOE to ratepayers. Approximately 22% of the
bill assistance is twofold: implementa- states thru two methods: a fixed allo- energy cost savings from weatheriza-
tion is easy and relief immediate. How- cation, which varies by state, and a tion went to full ratepayers in the form
ever, it does little to address the un- variable formula allocation.43 Total of a reduced subsidy. Additionally, nu-
derlying reasons assistance is needed state fixed allocations sum to merous non-energy benefits, such as
in the first place. While LIHEAP pro- $171,858,000.44 The variable formula health impacts of refrigerator replace-
vides relief in the short-run the pro- accounts for a state’s climate, the esti- ment, greater home value from weath-
gram is unsustainable as a purely bill mated number of low-income homes, erization, reduced foreclosures, and
assistance program. As the institution and residential energy expenditures. reduced carrying costs from arrearag-
responsible for authorizing and appro- Additionally, WAP can retain up to es, were excluded from the ORNL eval-
priating federal funds, Congress should 20% of funding for training and tech- uation, implying the total benefit cal-
pass legislation instructing HHS to nical assistance at the national, state, culated was a conservative estimate.52
convene a taskforce to determine the and local level.45
4The budget process is highly politi- untary PACE property assessments and er electricity prices.
cized in the present Congress; however collection methods tailored to regional
the success of WAP and its high return market needs.57 Given the centrality of energy in the
on investment demand enhanced modern era, the federal government
funding levels. Similar to LIHEAP, WAP Since the PACE program was first con- operates two national residential pro-
funding should be changed from a ceived in 2010, with the DOE publica- grams to help low-income households
fixed allocation to a more fluid method tion “Guidelines for Pilot PACE Financ- afford energy. HHS’ Low-Income Home
that better reflects the needs of low- ing Programs,” 31 state governments Energy Assistance Program directly
income families. As such, funding have passed PACE enabling legislation helps low-income households by
should be based on WAP’s saving-to- and 16 states have active programs.58 providing direct bill assistance, while
investment ratio. The President should Over the past six years a few critical DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Pro-
direct DOE to evaluate the proper shortcomings of PACE programs have gram reduces overall utility bills by
amount of funding necessary for emerged. Most notably, a perverse in- improving home energy efficiency. At
WAP’s saving-to-investment ratio to centive exists for contractors selling their core both programs are highly
equal 1 in order to support the Agen- home upgrade products to maximize successful, helping millions of families
cy’s budget request. If the new budget sales irrespective of energy reduction annually, however, both are under-
request is substantially greater than gains.59 Consequently, unnecessary funded and room for improvement
current WAP funding, DOE should also projects are sold to consumers, with exists. Government support in the form
be required to submit a plan to gradu- little material benefit or oversight. of technical expertise and resources is
al disburse the funds to avoid burden- PACE has also been offered to low- also provided to innovative approach-
ing state administrators and causing income homeowners without them es seeking to drive down the cost of
implementation delays. being informed of their eligibility for energy, such as the residential PACE
free energy improvements under WAP program.
Residential Property-Assessed or another program.60 An additional
Clean Energy barrier to PACE is that almost 30% of At present LIHEAP is unable to provide
low-income households rent, provid- coverage to all eligible households and
Low-income homeowners attempting ing little incentive for property level the program is susceptible to fraud.
to mitigate rising energy costs face the invest.61 To address some of these is- Moreover, the emphasis on supple-
difficult reality that home energy im- sues, DOE published a “Best Practices menting utility bills rather than shrink-
provements require significant upfront Guideline” in 2016 with recommenda- ing them fails to address the underly-
capital. Residential Property-Assessed tions for current and future programs ing problem. In order to improve the
Clean Energy (PACE) programs aim to based on public comments.62 State effectiveness of LIHEAP two changes
overcome this barrier by allowing legislatures should pass amendments should be made: (1) Congress should
homeowners to obtain energy efficien- institutionalizing DOE’s guidance and fund LIHEAP based on the number of
cy, renewable energy, and water con- require the laws be updated whenever eligible households rather than a fixed
servation home improvements through new guidelines are published. In order appropriation. Funding should increase
a tax collected with their annual prop- to encourage state lawmakers to pass gradually to provide ample time for
erty taxes.53 This innovative financing amending legislation, DOE should offer the administrative capability of the
mechanism, currently available in 16 data and technical assistance to states program to develop. (2) Congress
states, provides access to capital by who adopted the most up-to-date should also instruct HHS to establish a
financing the high cost of home im- guidelines. taskforce to responsible for examining
provement projects over a long repay- how to reduce the need for bill assis-
ment horizon – up to 20 years.54 Pro- Conclusion tance within the next ten years and
ponents of PACE assert that annual report back to Congress.
energy savings from improvement pro- The Great Recession continues to have
jects typically exceed the annual tax a profound effect on Latino house- WAP is a highly successful federal pro-
payment.55 Additionally, homeowners, holds, contributing to plateauing in- gram with a proven record of deliver-
who generally move every 5 to 7 years, come and declining household ing significant economic returns.
are reluctant to pursue long lifespan wealth.63 This has coincided with a pe- Greater success can be achieved if
investments; however PACE financing riod of rising residential electricity pric- WAP’s appropriation is changed from a
is attached to the property not the es, causing a greater proportion of fixed amount to an amount that places
owners, allowing the assessment to Latino household income to be allo- the savings-to-investment ratio at 1.
transfer with the sale of the property. cated to electricity bills rather than Although the budget process in con-
States can implement residential PACE other critical expenditures such as gress is highly contentious, WAP has
programs by passing legislation per- food, healthcare, and education. More- an incredibly successful financial rec-
mitting the use of assessments at the over, with 20% of Latino households ord and benefits all 50 states.
local level.56 In turn, local governments living below the federal poverty level, a
have the flexibility to enact ordinances, substantial portion of the population is State and local governments are in-
resolutions, or policies authorizing vol- increasingly financial strained by high- creasingly turning to innovative financ-
5ing mechanism, such as PACE, to over- 11. Energy Information Administration. Average energyexplained/index.cfm?
Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Cus- page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices.
come the affordability barrier and pro-
tomers. 2016. U.S. Department of Energy.
mote energy efficiency adoption. How- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/ 25. National Energy Policy Development Group.
ever, these programs are still evolving data.cfm#sales. Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally
Sound Energy for America’s Future. The
and various concerns have arisen. State 12. Hodge, Tyler. “Residential electricity prices Office of the President of the United States.
legislatures can address PACE’s short- are rising.” Energy Information Administra- 2001.
comings by updating state laws to in- tion. U.S. Department of Energy.2014.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ 26. Vick, J., and C. Norton. 2008. State of Metro-
corporate DOE program guidelines and politan Housing Report 2008. Louisville, KY:
detail.php?id=17791.
DOE can encourage the deployment of Metropolitan Housing Coalition.
best practices by aiding states that 13. Energy Information Administration. “Factors www.metropolitanhousing.org/ wp-
Affecting Electricity Prices.” U.S. Department content/uploads/member_docs/2008_State_
have adopted the newest guidance.
of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/ of_Metropolitan_Housing_Report.pdf.
energyexplained/index.cfm?
27. Penney, Brad, and Kloer, Phil. Less Is More:
Endnotes page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices.
Transforming Low-Income Communities
14. Harris Williams & Co. White Paper. Trans- Through Energy Efficiency., 2015.
1. Energy Information Administration. Table 4. mission & Distribution Infrastructure. 2014.
28. Penney, Brad, and Kloer, Phil. Less Is More:
Residential Sector Key Indicators and Con-
15. Hodge, Tyler. “Growth in residential elec- Transforming Low-Income Communities
sumption. 2016. U.S. Department of Energy.
tricity prices highest in 6 years, but ex- Through Energy Efficiency., 2015.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
pected to slow in 2015.” Energy Information
tables_ref.cfm.
Administration. U.S. Department of Energy. 29. Penney, Brad, and Kloer, Phil. Less Is More:
2015. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ Transforming Low-Income Communities
2. 2017 Sustainable Energy in America
detail.php?id=20372. Through Energy Efficiency., 2015.
Factbook. The Business Council for Sustain-
able Energy, 2017. 30. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable
16. Ariel Drehobl and Lauren Ross. Lifting the
High Energy Burden in America's Largest Energy. “Weatherization Assistance Pro-
3. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014.
Cities: How Energy Efficiency Can Improve gram History.” U.S. Department of Energy.
The International Renewable Energy Agen-
Low Income and Underserved Communities. https://energy.gov/eere/wipo/
cy, 2015. https://www.irena.org/
American Council for an Energy-Efficient weatherization-assistance-program-history.
DocumentDownloads/Publications/
IRENA_RE_Power_Costs_2014_report.pdf Economy, 2016. Print. 31. U.S. Department of Energy. Weatherization
17. Energy Information Administration. 2015 Assistance Program: Program Overview.
4. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Average Monthly Bill- Residential. 2015. U.S. http://www.waptac.org/data/files/
Electric Competition. https://www.ferc.gov/
Department of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/ website_docs/briefing_book/
industries/electric/indus-act/
electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/ wap_programoverview_final.pdf.
competition.asp
table5_a.pdf. 32. Perl, Libby. LIHEAP: Program and Funding.
5. U.S. Census Bureau. Households by Total
18. U.S. Department of Health & Human Ser- Library of Congress. Congressional Re-
Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin
vices. Prior HHS Poverty Guidelines and search Service. 2015. Web.
of Householder: 1967 to 2015. 2016.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/ Federal Register References. https:// 33. Perl, Libby. LIHEAP: Program and Funding.
demo/income-poverty/p60-256.html. aspe.hhs.gov/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines- Library of Congress. Congressional Re-
and-federal-register-references. search Service. 2015. Web.
6. U.S. Census Bureau. Households by Total
Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin 19. Energy Information Administration. U.S. 34. Perl, Libby. LIHEAP: Program and Funding.
of Householder: 1967 to 2015. 2016. economy and electricity demand growth Library of Congress. Congressional Re-
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/ are linked, but relationship is changing. search Service. 2015. Web.
demo/income-poverty/p60-256.html. 2013. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
detail.php?id=10491. 35. LIHEAP: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year
7. Joint Economic Committee, Ranking Demo- 2014 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
crat Carolyn B Maloney. The Economic State 20. Nadel, Steven. “What is energy intensity, Health and Human Services, 2016. Print.
of the Latino Community in America. United and how does it relate to energy efficien-
States Congress, 2016. Print. cy?.” 2015. American Council for an Energy 36. Vick, J., and C. Norton. 2008. State of Metro-
Efficienct Economy. http://aceee.org/ politan Housing Report 2008. Louisville, KY:
8. Proctor, Bernadette D., Jessica L. Semega, blog/2015/12/what-energy-intensity-and- Metropolitan Housing Coalition.
and Melissa A. Kollar. U.S. Census Bureau, how-does-it. www.metropolitanhousing.org/ wp-
Current Population Reports, P60-256(RV), content/uploads/member_docs/2008_State_
Income and Poverty in the United States: 21. World Economic Forum. Energy for Eco- of_Metropolitan_Housing_Report.pdf.
2015, U.S. Government Printing Office, nomic Growth: Energy Vision Update 2012.
Washington, DC, 2016. http://reports.weforum.org/energy-for- 37. Oppenheim, Jerrold, and MacGregor, Theo.
economic-growth-energy-vision-update- The Economic in Poverty: How Investments
9. Proctor, Bernadette D., Jessica L. Semega, 2012/. Eliminate Poverty Benefit All Americans.
and Melissa A. Kollar. U.S. Census Bureau, Entergy. 2007. http://
Current Population Reports, P60-256(RV), 22. Schanzenbach, Diane W., Nunn, Ryan, Bau- www.democracyandregulation.com/
Income and Poverty in the United States: er, Lauren, and Mumford, Megan. Where attachments/99/poverty_book-
2015, U.S. Government Printing Office, Does All the Money Go: Shifts in Household _the_ecs_of_poverty_fnl.pdf.
Washington, DC, 2016. Spending Over the Past 30 Years. The
Brookings Institution. 38. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Low
10. Proctor, Bernadette D., Jessica L. Semega, -Income Home Energy Assistance Program:
and Melissa A. Kollar. U.S. Census Bureau, 23. Sabol, Patrick. From Power to Employment: Greater Fraud Prevention Controls Are
Current Population Reports, P60-256(RV), Plugging Low Income Communities into the Needed. 2010. http://www.gao.gov/
Income and Poverty in the United States: Clean Energy Economy. Groundswell. new.items/d10621.pdf.
2015, U.S. Government Printing Office,
24. Energy Information Administration. “Factors 39. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Low
Washington, DC, 2016.
Affecting Electricity Prices.” U.S. Department -Income Home Energy Assistance Program:
of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/ Greater Fraud Prevention Controls Are
6Needed. 2010. http://www.gao.gov/ Weatherization Works - Summary of Find- PACE Financing Programs. 2016. U.S. De-
new.items/d10621.pdf. ings from the Retrospective Evaluation of partment of Energy.
40. LIHEAP: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatheri- https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/11
2014 zation Assistance Program. 2014. Oak Ridge /f34/best-practice-guidelines-RPACE.pdf.
National Laboratory.
41. Energy Conservation and Production Act, 63. Lopez, Mark H., Morin, Rich, and Krogstad,
2014. Print. http://weatherization.ornl.gov/Retrospectiv
Jens M. “Latinos Increasingly Confident in
epdfs/ORNL_TM-2014_338.pdf.
42. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Personal Finances, See Better Economic
Energy. “About the Weatherization Assis- 52. Tonn, Bruce, D. Carroll, S. Pigg, M. Blasnik, Times Ahead: Yet many economic indicators
tance Program.” U.S. Department of Energy. G. Dalhoff, J. Berger, E. Rose, B. Hawkins, J. show few gains for the community since the
https://energy.gov/eere/wipo/about-
Eisenberg, F. Ucar, I. Bensch, C. Cowan. Great Recession.” 2016. Pew Research Cen-
weatherization-assistance-program-0.
Weatherization Works - Summary of Find- ter.
43. Sissine, Fred. DOE Weatherization Program: ings from the Retrospective Evaluation of http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/06/08/lat
A Review of Funding, Performance, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatheri- inos-increasingly-confident-in-personal-
Cost-Effectiveness Studies. 2012. Congres- zation Assistance Program. 2014. Oak Ridge finances-see-better-economic-times-
sional Research Service. National Laboratory. ahead/.
44. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable http://weatherization.ornl.gov/Retrospectiv
Energy. “Weatherization Assistance Pro- epdfs/ORNL_TM-2014_338.pdf.
gram Allocation Formula.” U.S. Department 53. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
of Energy. Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
https://energy.gov/eere/wipo/weatherizatio Financing of Renewables and Efficiency.
n-assistance-program-allocation- 2010. U.S. Department of Energy.
formula#formula.
54. Best Practice Guidelines for Residential
45. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable PACE Financing Programs. 2016. U.S. De-
Energy. “Weatherization Assistance Pro- partment of Energy.
gram Allocation Formula.” U.S. Department https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/11
of Energy. /f34/best-practice-guidelines-RPACE.pdf.
https://energy.gov/eere/wipo/weatherizatio
n-assistance-program-allocation- 55. PACE Basics One-pager. PACENation.
formula#formula. http://pacenation.us/what-is-pace/.
46. Cunningham, Lynn J. Renewable Energy and 56. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Energy Efficiency Incentives: A Summary of Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
Federal Programs. Congressional Research Financing of Renewables and Efficiency.
Service. 2016. 2010. U.S. Department of Energy.
47. Butler, Alice D. The Department of Energy's 57. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Weatherization Assistance Program. Con- Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
gressional Research Service, 2001. Financing of Renewables and Efficiency.
2010. U.S. Department of Energy.
48. U.S. Department of Energy. Weatherization
Assistance Program: Program Overview. 58. Best Practice Guidelines for Residential
http://www.waptac.org/data/files/website_d PACE Financing Programs. 2016. U.S. De-
ocs/briefing_book/wap_programoverview_fi partment of Energy.
nal.pdf. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/11
/f34/best-practice-guidelines-RPACE.pdf.
49. Sissine, Fred. DOE Weatherization Program:
A Review of Funding, Performance, and 59. Harak, Charlie. PACE Energy Efficiency
Cost-Effectiveness Studies. 2012. Congres- Loans: Good Intentions, Big Risks for Con-
sional Research Service. sumers. 2016. National Consumer Law Cen-
ter.
50. Tonn, Bruce, D. Carroll, S. Pigg, M. Blasnik,
G. Dalhoff, J. Berger, E. Rose, B. Hawkins, J. 60. Harak, Charlie. PACE Energy Efficiency
Eisenberg, F. Ucar, I. Bensch, C. Cowan. Loans: Good Intentions, Big Risks for Con-
Weatherization Works - Summary of Find- sumers. 2016. National Consumer Law Cen-
ings from the Retrospective Evaluation of ter.
the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatheri- 61. Olsen, Edgar O. Promoting Homeownership
zation Assistance Program. 2014. Oak Ridge among Low-Income Households. 2007. The
National Laboratory. Urban Institute.
http://weatherization.ornl.gov/Retrospectiv http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/pu
epdfs/ORNL_TM-2014_338.pdf. blication/46626/411523-Promoting-
51. Tonn, Bruce, D. Carroll, S. Pigg, M. Blasnik, Homeownership-among-Low-Income-
G. Dalhoff, J. Berger, E. Rose, B. Hawkins, J. Households.PDF.
Eisenberg, F. Ucar, I. Bensch, C. Cowan. 62. Best Practice Guidelines for Residential
7You can also read
