Utility Low Income Energy Program Resources and California Weatherization Subgrantees

(1)

Association

of

California

Community

and

Energy

Services

(ACCES)

Utility

Low

‐

Income

Energy

Program

Resources

and

California

Weatherization

Subgrantees

for

The

Weatherization

Leveraged

Partnerships

Project

of

Economic

Opportunity

Studies

Washington,

DC

(2)

Utility Low-Income Programs delivered by WAP/LIHEAP agencies:

The California Energy Services Assistance Program (ESAP), formerly known as the

Low-Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE) program, has filed for the new three year program cycle for

2012-2014. This new cycle will be funded at $3,799,916,075 to treat 1,093,442 low-income

homes. Chart 1. shows the difference between the last funding cycle and the proposed

current cycle:

As with DOE and LIHEAP funding the CPUC granted a very large increase from the 2008

cycle to the 2011 cycle. Total funding for the cycle ending in 2008 was over $158 million in

direct services and the second year was over $287 million. The 2009-2011 cycle was close

to doubling the prior funding level. The subgrantees also received a significant increase in

IOU funding from $26 million in cycle 2008 to $34 million in cycle 2011.

Chart 1. Funds and Units, by Utility, 2009-11 vs. 2012-14

CPUC

Actuals

Unit

Proposed

Unit

PD Adopted

Unit

%

Change

% Change

Low-Income

2009-2011

Avg

Cost

2012-2014

Avg

Cost

2012-2014

Avg

Cost

2009-11

actuals

2012-14

Proposed

Energy

Program

vs

2012-14

Adopted

vs 2012-14

Adopted

PG&E

Budget

$389,362,978

$1,148

$487,992,000

$1,301

$469,207,675 $1,304

17%

-4%

Units

339,235

375,000

359,820

6%

-4%

SCE

Budget

$155,953,375

$560

$185,216,000

$842

$217,838,592

$831

28%

15%

Units

278,263

220,000

262,166

-6%

16%

SDG&E

Budget

$58,334,509

$896

$67,339,122 $1,122

$66,372,165 $1,089

12%

-1%

Units

65,102

60,000

60,948

-7%

2%

SoCalGas

Budget

$228,204,848

$625

$266,209,415

$808

$351,358,910

$856

35%

24%

Units

364,871

329,604

410,508

11%

20%

Total $

$831,855,710

$794 $1,006,756,537 $1,022 $1,104,777,342

$1,010

25%

9%

Units

1,047,471

984,604

1,093,442

4%

10%

(3)

The ESAP is similar to the services delivered by the WAP/LIHEAP weatherization programs.

The income levels are either the same level or just over the WAP/LIHEAP per household

income levels. Also the measures are similar but have different delivery standards.

The speculation is that leveraging is going to be more difficult with the utility programs. First the

WAP audit regulations will stop many measures from being installed due to not meeting SIR

values. This will make the units receive less measures in particular in the more coastal and

southern regions of this state. These utility programs already install less measures and trying to

split the minimal unit will become a prohibitive to leveraging.

One other issue is that DOE also identified any leveraged funds to be program income. Most

agencies that have utility programs consider these dollars to be under a profit arm or to help the

agency where needed. If the DOE leveraging identification makes these funds program income

then the profit or any unrestricted activities will not be allowed.

The measures are reflected in the chart below. This also shows the difference in the

delivery of measures to rental, owner occupied and multi-family units.

ATTACHMENT A

2011 measures

Utility Measures

DOE Measures

CPUC does not provide heating, water

heating and cooling to clients living in

multi-family buildings.

CSD programs include all measures for all

eligible clients

CPUC IOU programs need specific

utility/CPUC training

CSD programs need CSD approved training for

all staff

CPUC does not mandate Lead-safe

practices, but instead this is up to the

contractor to have proper certification

CSD contractors are mandated to comply to the

state and federal regulations on Lead-safe

practices.

Utilities have training on assessment

(intake, assessment, outreach), inspection

they do CAS inhouse at the utility.

CSD mandates all units have complete

diagnostic assessment prior to weatherization.

Heating Source Replacements: Contractors

must receive prior approval

for some of the

higher cost measures as heating or

cooling. These repairs and replacements

are not available to renters.

Heating Source Replacements: These are

subject to testing and cost of possible repair. If

the repair is 50% of the cost to replace than the

option is to replace the unit.

Forced Air Unit (FAU), Split System

Floor to Floor Furnace

Interior Floor to Wall Furnace

Mobile Home Furnace

Other Types Not Listed

Package Unit (Dual Pack)

Wood-Fueled Appliance

Under new measures below

Furnace Repairs

(4)

- A/C Replacement - Room

Air Conditioning Repair or replacement

Window/Wall unit

Pilot see below

Forced Air Unit (FAU) Split System AC Repair or

Maintenance

- A/C Replacement - Room

A/C Forced Air Unit (split system)

A/C: Multi-story 110V Wall Unit Replacement

Pilot see below

Cooling Source Repair, Other types not listed

Under Air Sealing measures

Duct / Register Repair

N/A

Duct/ Register Replacement: $45 /Hr + Material.

- Evaporative Cooler Maintenance

Evaporative Cooler/ Air Conditioner Vent Cover, per

cover

Cooling Source Replacement, Other types not listed

- Heat Pump

N/A

- Heat Pump

Cooling Source Replacement, Other types not listed

Diagnostics

N/A diagnostics are performed most often by

the utility

Combustion Appliance Safety Pre-Test

Combustion Appliance Safety Post-Test

Blower Door Test

Duct Leakage Pre-Test w/ Duct Blaster (FAU only)

Duct Leakage Post-Test w/ Duct Blaster (FAU only)

Water Savings

Water Heater Conservation Measures

[2]

Hot Water Flow Restrictor, per device Faucet

Restrictor

N/A

Water Heater Blanket, per blanket

N/A

Water Heater Pipe Wrap, per linear feet

N/A

Exterior Water Heater Pipe Wrap, per linear feet

- Water Heater Replacement - Gas

[7]

Gas Water Heater Replacement (Open or Closed

Combustion) Includes disposal

N/A

New Vent System Water Heater

N/A

Metal Cabinet for Water Heater

Showerheads

Low-Flow Showerhead

N/A

Hand-Held Low-Flow Showerhead

N/A

Shower Adapter

N/A

Shower Arm

Aerators

Faucet Aerator

- Water Heater Replacement - Electric

[7]

Electric Water Heater Replacement ( All Sizes)

- Tankless Water Heater - Gas

N/A

- Tankless Water Heater - Electric

N/A

Infiltration & Space Conditioning

Duct Sealing/Insulation

Duct Insulation

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Glass Replacement

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Sliding Glass Door Replacement

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Weatherstripping, Hinged Exterior Door, per door

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Weatherstripping, Other, Per Linear Foot

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Window Repair:

N/A

Window Replacement:

(5)

N/A

Storm windows Fixed-Glass Glazing (per. Sq. ft.

)

N/A

Storm windows Fixed-Polycarbonate (per. Sq. ft. )

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Door Threshold

N/A

Hinged Lid for Disappearing Stair Cover

N/A

New Attic Access (includes weather-stripping &

insulation)

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Attic Access Door (includes weather-stripping &

insulation)

N/A

Floor Repair for Mobile Home Water Heater

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Door Shoe

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Seal Under Sink

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Exhaust Fan Repair/ Replacement (All Sizes)

(Inclusive of venting)

Envelope and Air Sealing Measures

[1]

Cover Plate Gaskets

Attic Insulation

Attic Ventilation

ATTIC VENTILATION

Lighting Measures

Exterior Hard wired CFL fixtures

Compact Flourescent Lamps Hard Wired Porch

Lamp (1 max)

CFLs

CFL's Thread-based Compact Light Bulbs (10 max)

Pilot see below

Hard-wired fixtures

Torchiere

Torchiere LIHEAP

Refrigerators

Refrigerators - Primary

Refrigerator Replacement

Refrigerators - Secondary

N/A

New Measures

Existing Measures

N/A

Shadescreens

N/A

Shutters (per square feet)

High Efficiency Clothes Washer

Tinted Window Film, per square feet

Thermostat

Thermostat, per dwelling Manual

Pilot see below

Thermostat, per dwelling Programmable

Contractor must have the certifications

Lead Safe WX

CO Alarms

CO Alarm, Elec. Line-cord or Hard-wire

CO Alarms

CO Alarm, Lithium Battery Tamper Resistant

Smoke Alarms

Microwave pilot

Microwave under LIHEAP

Thermostatic Shower Valve

N/A

Forced Air Unit Standing Pilot Change Out

N/A

Furnace Clean and Tune

Under Furnace repair above

Occupancy Sensor

N/A

LED Night Lights

N/A

High Efficiency Clothes Washer

N/A

Pilot see below

Ceiling Fans

N/A

Stoves/ovens

(6)

Pool Pumps

N/A

Pilots

A/C Tune-up - Central

Yes

Interior Hard wired CFL fixtures

Yes

Ceiling Fans

Yes

In-Home Display

N/A

Programmable Controllable Thermostat

Yes

Forced Air Unit

Yes

Microwave

[8]

Yes

High Efficiency Clothes Washer

N/A

Customer Enrollment

- Outreach & Assessment

Outreach & Assessment

- In-Home Education

Client Education both in home and workshop

- Education Workshops

Yes

DIRECT PURCHASES AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS

Of the four Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) in California, three have direct contracts with many

of the federal subgrantees: Southern California Gas and Southern California Edison. In San

Diego, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) has an administrator who then contracts with

entities, including two subgrantees, to provide services. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)

also has an administrator who contracts for services. In PG&E territory there are only a

handful of subgrantees that also provide utility energy efficiency services.

In the past subgrantees participated more fully in PG&E territory. Over ten years ago PG&E

decided to go to bid for an administrator. Effectively, this caused funds that were to provide

services to pay for the cost of the manager. The subgrantees could also no longer be

competitive to the many for-profit companies bidding for multiple areas. With the

administrator being paid directly from program funding, the administrator’s incentive is to

accept the lowest possible bids.

Ultimately many of the lowest bidders proved to be cutting corners to meet their budgets as

well as the production goals. This created an atmosphere of extreme distrust amongst the

subgrantees and the IOU contractors. The federal programs received referrals of any work

that the PG&E contractors either did not want to install or could not because of the low pay

back.

Soon many of the largest contractors were taken out of the program. However, even though

funds were available the subgrantees could not meet the low bids of the multi-county

for-profits. The majority of the network of subgrantees has not been a part of the PG&E ESAP

since the advent of the administrator.

In Southern California, the two utilities still contract directly with their network. This includes

all of the subgrantees in the SCG and SCE territory. This also extends to the SDG&E

territory where both WAP subgrantees are also ESAP contractors.

(7)

The struggle has been to first keep the leveraged funding in the southern part of the state

intact and help the subgrantees in PG&E territory enter into a better working relationship.

There is a direct advantage to hiring the subgrantees. First more can be installed in a

household, the client has the benefit of a one stop concept and the client can receive other

benefits provided by the subgrantee (HEAP/ECIP).

Leveraging is used by the utilities to show the off-set of CO2 by their companies. In 2012 the

State of California will launch their Cap and Trade program. Leveraging the low income

energy programs could be a source of CO2 reduction. Depending upon the market and the

way the credits will be traded this could help the utilities off-set some of their CO2 production

without going to a more costly alternative energy source as solar or wind.

The following charts indicate contracts for each IOU, subgrantee contractors

(highlighted blue), counties served within the IOU territories and funds for the 2008

program and the comparison funds in 2011. The other contractors are for-profit

companies providing utility weatherization services.

(8)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Contractor

2008 Counties

2011 Counties

Contractor Type

2008

Annual

Expenditure

s

2011 Annual

Expenditures

2011 Services

Priva

te

CB

O

WM

DVB

E

LIHE

AP

Weatherization

and Appliance

Atlas Systems

Inc.

Humboldt -

Lassen - Marin -

Mendocino - Napa

- Plumas -

Sonoma

Humboldt, Marin,

Napa, Sonoma

X

$3,274,912.

$5,114,921

Weatherization

Bo Enterprises

Alameda -

Monterey -

Nevada - Santa

Clara - Santa

Cruz - Yuba

Alameda - Santa

Clara - Santa

Cruz

X

$7,199,580

$7,475,688

Weatherization

CAA Butte

Butte

X

$1,563,885

$2,374,667

Weatherization

CWES, Inc.

Fresno -

Sacramento

Fresno

X

$1,136,684

$2,068,138

Weatherization

El Concilio of San

Mateo County

San Mateo

X

$957,063

$1,706,078

Weatherization

Fresno County

EOC

Fresno

X

$1,376,277

$3,088,106

Weatherization

Glenn Co. Human

Res.

Colusa - Glenn

Colusa - Glenn -

Trinity

X

$155,326

$510,246

Weatherization

Highlands Energy

Services

San Joaquin

San Joaquin -

Stanislaus

X

$732,754

$6,999,893

Weatherization

Proteus

Kings - Tulare

Kings - Tulare -

Fresno

X

$592,512

$3,055,014

Weatherization

Quality

Conservation

Services

Contra Costa -

San Francisco

Alameda - Santa

Clara - Contra

Costa - San

Francisco

X

$46,051,156

$8,383,434

Weatherization

Renaissance

Fresno - Mariposa

- San Joaquin

Fresno -

Sacramento -

Humboldt -

Trinity

X

$2,809,998

$3,934,069

Weatherization

Residential Wall

Insulation

Lake - Placer -

Sutter

X

$2,391,871

Weatherization

RHA Refrigerator

Grounding

All Counties

X

$802,579

$

San Luis Obispo

EOC

Monterey - San

Luis Obispo -

Santa Barbara -

Santa Cruz

Monterey - San

Luis Obispo -

Santa Barbara

X

$1,329,592

$1,339,505

Weatherization

Self Help Home

Improvement

Shasta - Tehama

Shasta -

Tehama

X

$781,460

$1,572,893

Weatherization

Standards of

Excellence

Amador - Butte -

Calaveras -

Colusa - Contra

Costa - Glenn -

Humboldt -

Lassen - Plumas -

Sacramento - San

Francisco - San

Joaquin - San

Mateo - Santa

Clara - Shasta -

Solano -

Stanislaus -

Tehama - Trinity -

Tuolumne, Yolo

Amador - Butte -

Calaveras -

Colusa - Contra

Costa - Glenn -

Humboldt -

Lassen - Plumas

- Sacramento -

San Francisco -

San Joaquin -

San Mateo -

Santa Clara -

Shasta - Solano

- Stanislaus -

Tehama - Trinity

- Tuolumne, Yolo

X

$5,376,834

$8,550,205

Refrigerators

Sundowner

Insulation

Amador -

Calaveras - El

Dorado -

Monterey - San

Calaveras - San

Bernardino -

Tuolumne

X

$1,976,527

$692,725

Weatherization

(9)

Benito - Tuolumne

Synergy

Companies

Alameda - San

Francisco -

Stanislaus

Alameda

X

$5,154,179

$10,905

Weatherization

Ventura TV and

Video Appliance

Center, Inc.

Fresno - Kern -

Kings - Madera -

Mariposa -

Merced -

Monterey - San

Benito - San Luis

Obispo - Santa

Barbara - Santa

Cruz - Tulare

Fresno - Kern -

Kings - Madera -

Mariposa -

Merced -

Monterey - San

Benito - San Luis

Obispo - Santa

Barbara - Santa

Cruz - Tulare

X

$4,040,590

$5,632,807

Refrigerators

Western

Appliance TV and

Stereo

Alameda - El

Dorado - Lake -

Marin -

Mendocino - Napa

- Nevada - Placer

- Sonoma - Sutter

- Yuba

Merced -

Sacramento -

San Benito - San

Joaquin - Solano

- Yolo -

Stanislaus

X

$2,904,710

Western

Insulation LP

Merced - San

Joaquin - Solano -

Stanislaus - Yolo

Merced - San

Joaquin - Solano

- Stanislaus -

Yolo - San

Benito

X

$4,062,498

47,792,031

Weatherization

Winegard Energy

Kern -Madera -

Sacramento

X

$4,116,786

45,435,444

Weatherization

Total -

Weatherization

and Appliance

[1][2]

_$58,787,773

_$78,128,640

Total -

Weatherization

and Appliance

[1][2]

Subgrantees

$5,206,540

$8,885,417

11%

Leveraging

Amador-Tuolumne CAA

Amador -

Calaveras -

Tuolumne

Amador -

Calaveras -

Tuolumne

X

$36,120

412,000

Refrigerators

CAA of San

Mateo County,

Inc.

San Mateo

X

$154,800

$

Central Coast

Energy Services

Monterey - San

Benito - Santa

Cruz

Monterey - San

Benito - Santa

Cruz

X

$320,952

$36,000

Refrigerators

Central Valley

Opportunity

Center

Madera -

Mariposa -

Merced -

Stanislaus

X

$77,400

$

Community

Resource Project

Sutter - Yuba

X

$51,600

$

North Coast

Energy Services

Lake - Marin -

Mendocino - Napa

- Solano -

Sonoma - Yolo

X

$276,576

$

Project GO

Placer

X

$24,768

$4,800

Refrigerators

Redwood

Community Action

Agency

Humboldt

X

$206,400

$47,200

Refrigerators

San Joaquin HRA

San Joaquin

X

$77,400

$57,600

Refrigerators

Total -

Leveraging

$1,226,016

$157,600

(10)

Energy

Education

Workshops

Amador

Tuolumne

Community Action

Agency

Amador,

Tuolumne,

Calavaras

X

$3,450

Glenn County

Colusa - Glenn

X

$32,125

Redwood

Community Action

Agency

Humboldt

X

$18,200

Total Energy

Education

Workshops [4]

$53,775

TOTAL Contractor Expenditures

2008

$64,538,458

$129,275,637

2011

TOTAL Contractor Expenditures

Subgrantees

10%

$6,486,331

$9,043,017

7%

The figure of $1,226,016 and $157,600 in the pink “Total Leveraging” column designates the

subgrantee total that was directly leveraged with federal funds, either DOE or LIHEAP.

These agencies provided a refrigerator from the utility program to a DOE/LIHEAP eligible

household along with the WAP. The refrigerators are a measure for both the utility and DOE

WAP or LIHEAP programs so in most cases the materials came from the utility and the

installation labor cost was charged to DOE WAP or LIHEAP.

The Energy Education Workshops were also a leveraged activity. The workshops were

provided to DOE WAP or LIHEAP households who received services through federal funding.

The services could have been DOE WAP, LIHEAP Weatherization or HEAP. The utilities

also considered these two activities as leveraged.

The regular weatherization program total in lavendar was many times used as a stand alone

program providing services to other than households that received either DOE WAP or

LIHEAP.

At the end of this section there is a chart showing the leveraged funding and units that were

recorded by the utilities. Not all utilities decided to collect this data so the chart is not

complete.

(11)

SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Contractor 2008 Counties 2011 Counties Contractor Type 2008 Annual Expenditures 2011 Annual Expenditures 2011 Services Private CBO WMDVBE LIHEAP

Weatherization and Appliance Contractor A San Diego San Diego x x $ 1,645,954 $ 2,248,165 Weatherization Subgrantee San Diego San Diego x x $ 530,320 $ 614,075 Weatherization Subgrantee San Diego San Diego x x $ 669,307 $ 962,418 Weatherization

Contractor E Orange Orange x

$ 1,468,501 $ 1,637,371 Weatherization Contractor F San Diego San Diego x $ 61,368 $ 159,582 Weatherization Contractor G San Diego San Diego x $ 1,410 $ 859,074 Weatherization Contractor H San Diego San Diego x x $ 43,030 $ 250,651 Weatherization Contractor K San Diego / Orange San Diego / Orange x $ 51,813 $ 218,296 Weatherization Contractor L San Diego San Diego x $ 142,665 $ 2,069,148 Weatherization Contractor M San Diego San Diego x $ 38,151 $ 532,959 Weatherization Contractor O San Diego San Diego x $ 17,719 $ 110,736 Weatherization Contractor Q San Diego San Diego x $ 1,583,902 $ 2,135,621 Weatherization Contractor S San Diego San Diego x $ 96,528 $ 164,797 Weatherization Contractor T San Diego San Diego x $ 652,167 Weatherization Prime Contractor J San Diego / Orange San Diego / Orange x x $ 7,882,711 $ 5,417,226 Weatherization TOTAL Contractor Expenditures 2008 $ 14,233,380 $ 18,032,286 2011 TOTAL Contractor Expenditures Subgrantees 8% $ 1,199,627 $ 1,576,493 9%

In the San Diego Area, ther are only two subgrantees. These two agencies both had utility

funding as well as DOE and LIHEAP. They provided some households with leveraged

services but it was not a constant practice as shown in the chart where only 29 units received

leveraged services in the 2009-2011 cycle.

In the larger metropolitan areas the ability to provide service to low-income households is a

very small percentage of those living within the federal guidelines. In Los Angeles County

the LIHEAP services only extends to 2% of the total eligible within that county. The utility

programs are looked at as a vehicle that can extend services to more eligible families. In

larger urban areas the eligible families most often live in multi-family housing. The measures

tend to be similar in this type of housing between federal and utility programs.

(12)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

Contractor 2011 Counties 2008 Counties

Contractor Type

2008 Annual Expenditures

2011 Annual

Expenditures 2011 Services

Private CBO WMDVBE

LIHE AP

Weatherization and

Appliance

ASSERT INC Los Angeles - Kern

Los Angeles - Kern x $702,175 $1,034,579 Weatherization AVALON CARVER COMMUNITY

CENTER INC Los Angeles Los Angeles

x $3,737,962 $955,867 Weatherization B&W FURNACE

SERVICE Los Angeles Los Angeles

x

$66,355

$643,274 Weatherization

American Eco Services Los Angeles Los Angeles

x

Asian Pacific American

Comm Los Angeles Los Angeles

x $1,034,579 Weatherization American Construction x $510,194 Weatherization

Subgrantee San Diego - Imperial

San Diego - Imperial x x x $646,578 $143,813 Weatherization

Subgrantee Santa Barbara Santa Barbara

x x

$356,391

$1,706,078 Weatherization

Subgrantee San Bernardino San Bernardino

x x x

$2,420,416

Subgrantee Orange Orange

x x x

$619,088

Subgrantee Riverside Riverside

x x

$68,618

Subgrantee Los Angeles Los Angeles

x x

$94,087

DOMINION REL

ESTATE CORP Los Angeles Los Angeles

x $136,789 $ Weatherization EAGLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL INC Los Angeles - Riverside - Tulare - Kings Los Angeles - Riverside - Tulare - Kings x $4,437,087 $5,669,884 Weatherization

EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange x x $7,257,650 $14,347,065 Weatherization

EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

CONSORTIUM Los Angeles Los Angeles

x

$614,373

ECONO WEST INC Los Angeles Los Angeles

x

$310,982

4686,083 Weatherization

Energy Services Tech

Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange x x $613,423 Weatherization Harrison Air Riverside - San Bernardino Riverside - San Bernardino x $334,742 Weatherization

Subgrantee Los Angeles - Kern

Los Angeles - Kern x x x $381,164 $360,179 Weatherization ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino x $506,864 $930,915 Weatherization

x

$54,386

43,964 Weatherization

x x x

$6,203,643

OASIS AIR

CONDITIONING Kern Kern

x $147,207 $63,744 Weatherization Subgrantee ALL ALL x x x $609,125 $352,122 Weatherization PROTEUS INC Tulare Tulare x $402,903 $5,437,971 Weatherization Pacific Coast

Los Angeles Los Angeles x

$327,628 Weatherization QUALITY CONSERVATION SERVICES INC

$1,503,728 $3,802,227 Weatherization RELIABLE ENERGY MANAGEMENT INC

Los Angeles Los Angeles x x

$1,294,710

RICHARD HEATH & ASSOCIATES INC ALL ALL x x $1,082,592 $1,740,529 Weatherization SIERRA WEATHERIZATION COMPANY INC

43,375,998

(13)

SOCO AIR CONDITIONING CO Riverside - San Bernardino Riverside - San Bernardino x $259,248 $124,874 Weatherization

Synergy Mech Air

Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino x $787,214 Weatherization Tony's HVAC

Los Angeles - Orange Los Angeles -

Orange x $843,394 Weatherization TRI-STATE HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC Riverside Riverside x x $78,147 $41,338 Weatherization Subgrantee

Ventura - Los Angeles Ventura - Los

Angeles

x x

$20,695 $ Weatherization

Subgrantee

$1,796,744

VO VI FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION

$128,629 $ Weatherization

WATTS LABOR COMMUNITY ACTION COMM

4154,116 $49,342 Weatherization WESTERN INSULATION LP Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino x $1,646,146 44,251,961 Weatherization WG MECHANICAL Riverside - Los Angeles Riverside - Los Angeles x $167,364 $ Weatherization WINEGARD ENERGY All All x x $2,381,274 $ Weatherization

GARCIA & SONS HOME IMPROVEMENT Kern Kern x x $17,421 $542,432 Weatherization

STAPLES & ASSOC

Tulare - Kings - Fresno Tulare - Kings - Fresno x $18,950 $945,865 Weatherization HIGHLANDS ENERGY SERVICES INC Tulare - Kings - Fresno Tulare - Kings - Fresno x x $429,261 $7,451,020 Weatherization AMERICAN INSULATION INC

Riverside - Imperial Riverside -

Imperial x x $14,038 $1,979,435 Weatherization Subgrantee Ventura County

Ventura - Los Angeles Ventura - Los

Angeles x x $89,203 $101,594 Weatherization TOTAL Contractor Expenditures 2008 $ 44,232,107 $ 95,973,491 2011 TOTAL Contractor Expenditures Subgrantees 30% $ 13,360,138 $ 20,481,169 21%

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Contractor 2008 Counties 2011 Counties Contractor Type 2008 Annual

Expenditures

2011 Annual

Expenditures 2011 Services

Private CBO WMDVBE

LIHE AP

Weatherization

and Appliance

Contractor Fresno Fresno

x

$ 175,310 Weatherization

Contractor DAP Only DAP Only

x x

Contractor Los Angeles Los Angeles

x

$ 300 Weatherization

Contractor Kern - Los Angeles Kern - Los Angeles

x

$574,152 $ 300,540 Weatherization

x

Subgrantee San Bernardino San Bernardino

x x x

$1,477,544 $ 214,947 Weatherization

Subgrantee Orange Orange

x x x

Subgrantee

Ventura - Santa

Barbara Ventura - Santa Barbara

x x

Subgrantee

Los Angeles - Orange - Santa Barbara - Ventura

x x

(14)

x

x x

$ 12,046,619 Weatherization

Contractor

Los Angeles - Riverside Los Angeles - Riverside x

Contractor

Fresno Fresno x

Contractor

DAP Only DAP Only x x

Contractor

Subgrantee

Inyo - Mono - Los Angeles

x x

Contractor

Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino

Los Angeles - Riverside - San Bernardino x x $3,886,670 $ 4,520,649 Weatherization Contractor Fresno Fresno x x $304,180 $ 327,938 Weatherization Subgrantee

Los Angeles - Orange Los Angeles - Orange x x

Subgrantee

Kern - Los Angeles - San Bernardino - Tulare

x x x

$2,599,288 $ 2,420,786 Weatherization

Subgrantee

Los Angeles Los Angeles x x x

Contractor

All All x

Contractor

Kern - Kings - Los

Angeles - San

Bernardino - Tulare

Kern - Kings - Los

Angeles - San Bernardino - Tulare x $2,290,332 $ 3,203,968 Weatherization Contractor

Inyo - Mono - Los Angeles - Orange - San Bernardino - Ventura

x

Contractor

$3,074,721 $ 2,623,793 Weatherization

Contractor

Fresno Fresno x x

$ $ 211,252 Weatherization Contractor

Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside

Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside x x $ $ 1,080,461 Weatherization Contractor Fresno Fresno x x $ $ 527,677 Weatherization Contractor

Contractor

DAP Only DAP Only x

Contractor

Riverside - Los Angeles - San Bernardino

x x

$3,540,513 $ 4,969,686 Weatherization

Contractor

$394,460 $ 361,490 Weatherization Contractor All All x $470,675 $ 30,362 Weatherization Contractor All All x $12,758 Contractor

Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside - Tulare

x

$15,072,160

Contractor

Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside

Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside x $154,116 TOTAL Contractor Expenditures 2008 $35,340,355 $ 44,281,342 2011 TOTAL Contractor Expenditures Subgrantees 14% $ 5,106,208 $ 3,239,500 7%

From the charts above for Southern California Gas and Edison, the trend of lower

percentages going to subgrantees is evident. In total for these two utilities the cycle ending

in 2008 had a 22% of the total funds going to subgrantees. In the cycle ending in 2011 the

(15)

two utilities dropped to 14%. Although the funding level was increased the percentage to

subgrantees fell. Both SCG and SCE brought on new contractors as well as raising the

funding level of their existing contractors. Some of the larger performing agencies did not

perform and were dropped as ARRA began. This gave the new and non-subgrantees a

chance to extend their utility contracts.

Homes treated by subgrantees:

The following chart is the summary of activity for all contractors and for the subgrantees.

Unfortunately not all utilities gathered the leveraging information for each subgrantee. All

total percentages of funds going to subgrantees decreased from 2008 to 2011. The CPUC

mandates the IOUs to file for the budgets every three years. The 2008 year was the end of

that cycle from 2006 to 2008. In 2011 ended the next three year cycle from 2009 to 2011.

Total Homes

Treated

Treated by

Subgrantee

% Treated

by

Subgrantee

Total

dollars to

WAP

subgrantee

from utility

DOE/LIHEAP

Leveraged

# of Homes

Treated by

subgrantees

PG&E

Cycle ending in

2008 63,319 6,365

10%

$6,486,331

Not collected

Cycle ending in

2011 128,071 8,962

7%

$9,040,017

Not collected

SDG&E

Cycle ending in

2008 20,804 1,754

8%

$1,199,627

Not collected

Cycle ending in

2011 22,575 1,973

9%

$1,576,493

29 SCG

Cycle ending in

2008 85,147

25,742

30%

$13,360,138

491 Cycle ending in

2011 161,020

34,364

21%

$20,481,169

989 SCE

Cycle ending in

2008 54,635 7,904

14%

$5,106,208

Not collected

Cycle ending in

2011 93,771 6,863

7%

$3,239,500

Not collected

Totals

Cycle ending in

2008 223,905

41,766

18%

$26,152,304

Cycle ending in

2011 405,437

52,163

12%

$34,337,179

(16)

In the near future:

Within the IOU territories, the mixing of funds from other sources as California Energy

Commission (CEC) Energy Upgrade (EU) does not happen since the programs have varying

eligibility guidelines. Although leveraging with EU has not happened within the utility and CSD

energy programs there have been recent efforts to pilot a one stop concept. SCG, SCE and the

CEC have conducted a pilot on Multi-Family housing in Southern California.

This pilot combined ESAP, and EU funding as well as the California Solar Initiative (CSI) to

retrofit an affordable housing building. The building underwent an energy audit to determine

what measures would be feasible. The ESAP was used to determine the eligibility of the

families. All that were ESAP eligible were weatherized under that program. The other units that

did not qualify, the owner was given the option to pay for the services from the ESAP provider.

The solar water heating was rebated through the CSI. This approach is being evaluated for

feasibility and cost effectiveness.

The ESAP contractor used was not a subgrantee hence no federal weatherization funds were

leveraged on this pilot. Although federal funding was not used this model may be an opportunity

for subgrantees to branch out into this one stop concept for both low-income eligible and

non-eligible units.

None of the subgrantees polled provided energy efficiency services to non-qualifying homes.

The recent pilot may serve as a catalyst for some more enterprising subgrantees. In the

California state legislature, there are two bills that propose to collect another fee through the

IOUs to partially dedicate to low-income energy efficiency. If these bills pass California’s Cap

and Trade program would fund CSD to provide state funded low-income energy efficiency

services. In California we have had only one other state funded low-income energy program in

2002. Cal-LIHEAP provided just over $20 million dollars that was used to leverage the DOE and

LIHEAP weatherization programs.

The network of subgrantees is closely following these bills. The California legislature has been

trying to pass the Cap and Trade issue for several years. With both the Senate and the

Assembly on board our hope is to have a state funded program that will strengthen the federal

funding and ultimately serve more of our low-income population.

Disclaimer:

“This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the

United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor

any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability

or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned

rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The

views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the

United States Government or any agency thereof.”