Economic Opportunity Studies
Summary:  Lessons Learned
Integrating Utility,  Energy Efficiency Tasks with Weatherization
Do's			Rationale		Examples
Audit & Diagnostics
	Adopt, unified, statewide, standardized audit if possible		High cost of performing multiple tasks/or different audits in one home; multiple testing or cost standards		MA has one under development
	Make the standardized audit broader than NEAT as to measures and similar as to cost/benefit or R.O.I.		Confusion about differences in PUC or legislation		WA
	Ensure discretion for some crew investment decisions.		Need choice of investments in various sources or DOE, also choice of various standard audits to adapt to buildings, conditions
	Allow groupings of buildings for eligibility and treatment not only unit-by-unit R.O.I		Indirect cost savings and or group efficiencies are a legitimate goal; community scale impact.		MA
Goals & Measurement
	Include as program goals:				WA, MA
	Sustainability/affordability/safety and protection (i.e. goals of client not just those of utility)		See below: Test of costs/benefits need to have non-energy benefits added
	The positive consumer or community impacts added to the energy benefits;		Fits WAP & LIHEAP goals and allowable expenditures. Reduces system collection and		MA
Costs
	Use expected retail (kwh, mcf) cost (at least) Assure information sharing on costs				WI pilots
Do's	(cont'd)
Management & Quality
	Have a plan for managing growth & checking quality Ensure information sharing on costs important data on effectiveness and value. Do not allow the investments to be a trade secret.		Partners must agree on new rules & studies as change & expansion come and their performance is measured		MA, WV, WA, VA
Eligibility
	Consider usage level		High usage closely related to high burden and high savings. Allowances provide family special needs, provides authentic estimate of burden. Targeting most 'in need' requires significant sample size- ie large pool of possible homes.		IN, ME pilot, Ohio
	Have flexible method of calculating incomes. Be flexible, use at least max federal eligibility level				MA
	Allow groups/blocks/neighborhoods not just individual unit		Economy of scale, overall higher benefit to cost ratio		NY , state programs
Timing
	Include ramp-up period		Training, hiring & equipment issues		MA, WA
Installed Measures
	(Again!  Be sure utility Program is fuel blind)		Major source of saving of gas and/or electricity		MA, WI
	Include appliance replacement		Otherwise indirect cost problems funders; if  done, liability or walk-away policy are problems		IA, TX All
	Include combustion air  safety tests & repairs				CA
	Have a plan for managing growth & checking quality				MA, WV, WA, VA
Don’t's
Accept Measures & Expenditure ceilings per unit			Rationale
			Variation by utility, short term cost orientation will yield poor results test.  Also, it skews DOE investments to accommodate utility accounting.		KY, WV
Information
	Provide all other agency leveraging & other federal reports to utility		A political  & planning issue! Otherwise, trade for their internal material		WA
	Take all the responsibility for getting info & doing outreach to find homes; utility info & communications must be built in		The expectation is that many more will be served; high users, LIHEAP participants, other characteristics should be provided to agency for outreach along with stepped-up utility communications.  (The more restrictions on utility money, the more they should help outreach.)  Info-sharing/privacy policies should be in the Act, Order, and or rules		KY, WV, CO WI pilots
Costs, Benefits/Results
	Agree to traditional utility cost test of success.  (TRC, avoided costs performance-based, etc.)		Low usage, like that of most of the poor, obviously predicts lower savings potential in plus and money.  Residential sector savings are marginal anyway in utility programs.  Many benefits accrue to the client, utility and community.  All are a return on the investment.		All!
	Allow inclusion of utility costs for 'soft' elements of their work.		When calculating costs, utilities will allocate a portion of their PR, billing, mailing cost if they can		MA, NH, WA
	Accept utility reports of any costs without an agreed, method of audited, shared accounts		Your costs/investments will be documented.  Require similar standards for all items included in utility reports to PUC/stock builders/legislator
	Accept cap-per-unit on utility money		Major barrier to maximizing energy benefits; requires contortions with public funds		TX, WA, KY, WV
	Require share with WAP per each unit		Limits utility overall and by unit.  Needs vary--some may need one utility measures.  (WAP Plus may permit support-only units)		KY, WA
	Exempt utility from Administration share		It's false costing; public money would have to support private --could be political issue.
	Require customer lease or payment on appliances		High cost of collection information/billing even if customer can pay eventually.		TX
	Don't use only NEAT		Added modules or selection tools are essential for mobile homes, large multi-family appliances		WA
			Rationale
Eligibility Don’t's	ibility Don’t's		This approach helps utility collections but is not related to max energy savings and will exclude those who sacrifice to make payments
	forget high users as priority		Utilities need to serve the max. number of customers even if that limits savings per home.  Could be it uses many contractors and gets low return		MA
	promise too many completions				CA, KY