Low-Income Energy Efficiency: Brantford Power

1
Low-Income Energy Efficiency Brantford Powers
Conserving Homes Program

• The History
• The Barriers
• The Benefits
• The Program
• The Results
• The Lessons Learned
• Discussion

2
The History

• In response to a May 31, 2004 Ministers letter
  Brantford Power (BP) began to explore
  opportunities for providing an energy
  conservation program for its low-income customers
• Developed relationship with the Low Income Energy
  Network (LIEN) and provided input into LIENs
  program template
• Brantford Power then included the low-income
  pilot in its 2005 CDM Plan which was approved by
  the OEB

3
The Barriers

• 14.4 of Ontarios population are already living
  at or below the poverty line meaning they lack
  the money to effectively participate in CDM/DSM
  programs
• Low-income households are harder to reach with
  energy efficiency programs and traditional low
  cost utility approaches such as rebate programs
  do not effective
• Due to pass through energy costs and split
  incentive, property managers and landlords are
  often resistant to investing in efficiency
• Tenants dont own building or appliances and so
  have no incentive or authority to replace
  inefficient appliances or plug leaks in building
  envelope

4
The Barriers (2)

• Low-income customers typically live in older,
  drafty/poorly insulated buildings with
  inefficient appliances heating system
• Most apartments do not have a thermostat in the
  suite so tenants cannot control heat nor can a
  programmable thermostat be installed
• Lack of capital to invest in insulation, new
  appliances

5
The Benefits

• Lower energy bills
• Reduce risk of homelessness
• Increase housing stability
• Improve quality of life
• Reduce demand for energy assistance
• Reduce pollution
• Reduce the need for new generation
• Reduce costs associated with emergency calls,
  late-payments, etc.

6
The Program - Collaboration

• Between Brantford Power, Share the Warmth the
  Ontario Ministry of Energy

7
The Program - Objective

• Provide energy conservation measures education
  to approximately 100 low-income households who
  pay their own electricity bills
• Target group Approx 50 tenants 50 homeowners
• Evaluate pilot success/lessons learned
• e.g. number of participants, energy savings,
  behavioral changes, capacity building
• Assess roll-out options
• Encourage others to get involved

8
The Program Components
Home energy assessment Basic measures Education

• First visit

Extended measures
Education
Second visit
Education
Follow-up visit
9
The Program Basic Measures

• Basic measures
• Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs CFLs
• Programmable thermostat
• Plug-in motion sensor nightlight
• Water heater blanket pipe-wrap
• Clothes line/rack

10
The Program Deeper Measures

• Extended measures
• Energy Star fridge
• Energy Star room air conditioner
• Weatherization/building envelope

11
The Results

• To date the program has completed 73 home
  assessments impacting on 219 people
• Of the 73 households, 23 were homeowners and 50
  were renters
• Average Income 1,013.75/month
• Average number of people per household is 3
• Pilot not gas inclusive and all electrically
  heated homes had baseboard heaters, therefore no
  programmable thermostats were installed in any of
  the 73 homes
• 14 hot water jackets were installed
• 25 of the 73 households owned their fridges. To
  date 16 fridges have been replaced
• Initial TRC was negative due to a delay in
  starting the second phase deeper measures. Now
  that second phase is underway TRC will improve
  dramatically.

12
The Lessons Learned

• Much less complicated to deliver conservation
  programs to homeowners as applicant and homeowner
  are one in the same
• Majority of low-income households live in market
  rental accommodations. Unless building envelope
  or appliance replacement is provided, it is
  difficult to achieve meaningful savings and
  positive TRC results
• Difficult to identify low-income homeowners as
  opposed to low income renters
• Difficult to convince low-income households that
  participating in a conservation program because
  they a) do not believe that the program will have
  a meaningful impact on their lives b) believe
  that it will not ONLY benefit landlord c) do not
  see the value in a program that may not lower
  bill but may only prevent it from increasing.

13
Lessons Learned (2)

• Some low-income households do not want people
  entering their home and so do not sign up for
  programs that require home visits
• Language and cultural barriers mean that some
  low-income households are either uninformed about
  the existence of the program or misunderstand the
  programs goals, eligibility criteria (to the
  benefit of the landlord only).
• Using straight LICO to screen applicants is too
  restrictive and means that few low-income
  households can participate. This is especially
  true of low-income homeowners. Need to look at
  125 of LICO approach.
• Identifying electrically heated homes is
  challenging
• Need to increase the basic measures available to
  both tenants and homeowners to increase the value
  of the first visit as many will not be eligible
  for the 2nd and 3rd phase

14
Discussion