Utility Low Income Energy Program Resources and California Weatherization Subgrantees

Association of California Community and Energy Services (ACCES) Utility Low Income Energy Program Resources and California Weatherization s for The Weatherization Leveraged Partnerships Project of Economic Opportunity Studies Washington, DC

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%

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. 2011 measures Utility Measures CPUC does not provide heating, water heating and cooling to clients living in multi-family buildings. CPUC IOU programs need specific utility/cpuc training CPUC does not mandate Lead-safe practices, but instead this is up to the contractor to have proper certification Utilities have training on assessment (intake, assessment, outreach), inspection they do CAS inhouse at the utility. Heating Source Replacements: s must receive prior approval for some of the higher cost measures as heating or cooling. These repairs and replacements are not available to renters. ATTACHMENT A DOE Measures CSD programs include all measures for all eligible clients CSD programs need CSD approved training for all staff CSD contractors are mandated to comply to the state and federal regulations on Lead-safe practices. CSD mandates all units have complete diagnostic assessment prior to weatherization. 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. Under new measures below Cooling Measures 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 Furnace Repairs

- A/C Replacement - Room Air Conditioning Repair or replacement Window/Wall unit Forced Air Unit (FAU) Split System AC Repair or Pilot see below 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 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 - Heat Pump Cooling Source Replacement, Other types not listed Diagnostics Diagnostics diagnostics are performed most often by the utility Combustion Appliance Safety Pre-Test Combustion Appliance Safety Post-Test Blower Door Test Water Savings Duct Leakage Pre-Test w/ Duct Blaster (FAU only) Duct Leakage Post-Test w/ Duct Blaster (FAU only) - Water Heater Replacement - Gas [7] Hot Water Flow Restrictor, per device Faucet Water Heater Conservation Measures [2] Restrictor Water Heater Blanket, per blanket Water Heater Pipe Wrap, per linear feet Eterior Water Heater Pipe Wrap, per linear feet Combustion) Includes disposal Gas Water Heater Replacement (Open or Closed New Vent System Water Heater Metal Cabinet for Water Heater Showerheads Low-Flow Showerhead Hand-Held Low-Flow Showerhead Shower Adapter Shower Arm Aerators Faucet Aerator - Water Heater Replacement - Electric [7] Electric Water Heater Replacement ( All Sizes) - Tankless Water Heater - Gas - Tankless Water Heater - Electric 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 Eterior Door, per door Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Weatherstripping, Other, Per Linear Foot Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Window Repair: Window Replacement: Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] DOORS

Storm windows Fied-Glass Glazing ) (per. Sq. ft. Storm windows Fied-Polycarbonate (per. Sq. ft. ) Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Door Threshold Hinged Lid for Disappearing Stair Cover Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Envelope and Air Sealing Measures [1] Attic Insulation Attic Ventilation New Attic Access (includes weather-stripping & insulation) Attic Access Door (includes weather-stripping & insulation) Floor Repair for Mobile Home Water Heater Door Shoe Seal Under Sink Ehaust Fan Repair/ Replacement (All Sizes) (Inclusive of venting) Cover Plate Gaskets ATTIC VENTILATION Lighting Measures Eterior Hard wired CFL fitures CFLs Pilot see below Torchiere Refrigerators Refrigerators - Primary Refrigerators - Secondary New Measures High Efficiency Clothes Washer Thermostat Pilot see below must have the certifications CO Alarms CO Alarms Smoke Alarms Microwave pilot Thermostatic Shower Valve Forced Air Unit Standing Pilot Change Out Furnace Clean and Tune Occupancy Sensor LED Night Lights High Efficiency Clothes Washer Pilot see below Pool Pumps Compact Flourescent Lamps Hard Wired Porch Lamp (1 ma) CFL's Thread-based Compact Light Bulbs (10 ma) Hard-wired fitures Torchiere LIHEAP Refrigerator Replacement Eisting Measures Shadescreens Shutters (per square feet) Tinted Window Film, per square feet Thermostat, per dwelling Manual Thermostat, per dwelling Programmable Lead Safe WX CO Alarm, Elec. Line-cord or Hard-wire CO Alarm, Lithium Battery Tamper Resistant Smoke Alarms Microwave under LIHEAP Under Furnace repair above Ceiling Fans Stoves/ovens LIHEAP Measures; leveraged

Pool Pumps Pilots A/C Tune-up - Central Interior Hard wired CFL fitures Ceiling Fans In-Home Display Programmable Controllable Thermostat Forced Air Unit Microwave [8] High Efficiency Clothes Washer Pilots Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 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, 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 etreme 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 forprofits. 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 etends to the SDG&E territory where both WAP subgrantees are also ESAP contractors.

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.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 2008 Counties 2011 Counties Weatherization and Appliance Atlas Systems Inc. Bo Enterprises Humboldt - Lassen - Marin - Mendocino - Napa - Plumas - Sonoma Alameda - Monterey - Nevada - ta Clara - ta Cruz - Yuba Priva te Type WM CB DVB O E LIHE AP 2008 Annual Ependiture s 2011 Annual Ependitures 2011 Services Humboldt, Marin, Napa, Sonoma X $3,274,912. $5,114,921 Weatherization Alameda - ta Clara - ta X Cruz $7,199,580 $7,475,688 Weatherization CAA Butte Butte Butte X X $1,563,885 $2,374,667 Weatherization Fresno - CWES, Inc. Sacramento Fresno X X $1,136,684 $2,068,138 Weatherization El Concilio of Mateo County Mateo Mateo X $957,063 $1,706,078 Weatherization Fresno County EOC Fresno Fresno X X $1,376,277 $3,088,106 Weatherization Glenn Co. Human Colusa - Glenn - Res. Highlands Energy Services Proteus Quality Conservation Services Colusa - Glenn Joaquin Kings - Tulare Contra Costa - Francisco Trinity X X $155,326 $510,246 Weatherization Joaquin - Stanislaus X X $732,754 $6,999,893 Weatherization Kings - Tulare - Fresno X $592,512 $3,055,014 Weatherization Alameda - ta Clara - Contra Costa - Francisco X $46,051,156 $8,383,434 Weatherization Fresno - Sacramento - Renaissance Fresno - Mariposa - Joaquin Humboldt - Trinity X X $2,809,998 $3,934,069 Weatherization Residential Wall Insulation Lake - Placer - Sutter X X $2,391,871 $2,391,871 Weatherization RHA Refrigerator Grounding All Counties X $802,579 $ Luis Obispo EOC Self Help Home Improvement Standards of Ecellence Sundowner Insulation Monterey - Luis Obispo - ta Barbara - ta Cruz Shasta - Tehama Amador - Butte - Calaveras - Colusa - Contra Costa - Glenn - Humboldt - Lassen - Plumas - Sacramento - Francisco - Joaquin - Mateo - ta Clara - Shasta - Solano - Stanislaus - Tehama - Trinity - Tuolumne, Yolo Amador - Calaveras - El Dorado - Monterey - Monterey - Luis Obispo - ta Barbara X X $1,329,592 $1,339,505 Weatherization Shasta - Tehama X X $781,460 $1,572,893 Weatherization Amador - Butte - Calaveras - Colusa - Contra Costa - Glenn - Humboldt - Lassen - Plumas - Sacramento - Francisco - Joaquin - Mateo - ta Clara - Shasta - Solano - Stanislaus - Tehama - Trinity - Tuolumne, Yolo X $5,376,834 $8,550,205 Refrigerators Calaveras - - Tuolumne X $1,976,527 $692,725 Weatherization

Synergy Companies Ventura TV and Video Appliance Center, Inc. Western Appliance TV and Stereo Western Insulation LP Winegard Energy Total - Weatherization and Appliance [1][2] Benito - Tuolumne Alameda - Francisco - Stanislaus Alameda X $5,154,179 $10,905 Weatherization Fresno - Kern - Kings - Madera - Mariposa - Merced - Monterey - Benito - Luis Obispo - ta Barbara - ta Cruz - Tulare Alameda - El Dorado - Lake - Marin - Mendocino - Napa - Nevada - Placer - Sonoma - Sutter - Yuba Merced - Joaquin - Solano - Stanislaus - Yolo Fresno - Kern - Kings - Madera - Mariposa - Merced - Monterey - Benito - Luis Obispo - ta Barbara - ta Cruz - Tulare X $4,040,590 $5,632,807 Refrigerators Merced - Sacramento - Benito - Joaquin - Solano - Yolo - Stanislaus X $2,904,710 Merced - Joaquin - Solano - Stanislaus - Yolo - Benito X $4,062,498 47,792,031 Weatherization Kern -Madera - Sacramento X X $4,116,786 45,435,444 Weatherization $58,787,773 $78,128,640 Total - Weatherization and Appliance [1][2] s $5,206,540 $8,885,417 11% Leveraging Amador- Tuolumne CAA Amador - Calaveras - Tuolumne Amador - Calaveras - Tuolumne X X $36,120 412,000 Refrigerators CAA of Mateo County, Inc. Mateo X X $154,800 $ Central Coast Energy Services Central Valley Opportunity Center Community Monterey - Benito - ta Cruz Monterey - Benito - ta Cruz X X $320,952 $36,000 Refrigerators Madera - Mariposa - Merced - Stanislaus X X $77,400 $ Resource Project Sutter - Yuba X X $51,600 $ North Coast Energy Services Lake - Marin - Mendocino - Napa - Solano - Sonoma - Yolo X X $276,576 $ Project GO Placer Placer X X $24,768 $4,800 Refrigerators Redwood Community Action Agency Humboldt Humboldt X X $206,400 $47,200 Refrigerators Joaquin HRA Joaquin Joaquin X X $77,400 $57,600 Refrigerators Total - Leveraging $1,226,016 $157,600

Energy Education Workshops Amador Tuolumne Community Action Agency Amador, Tuolumne, Calavaras X X $3,450 Glenn County Colusa - Glenn X X $32,125 Redwood Community Action Agency Humboldt X X $18,200 Total Energy Education Workshops [4] $53,775 TOTAL Ependitures 2008 $64,538,458 $129,275,637 2011 TOTAL Ependitures s 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.

SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 2008 Counties 2011 Counties Type Private CBO WMDVBE LIHEAP 2008 Annual Ependitures 2011 Annual Ependitures 2011 Services Weatherization and Appliance A E Orange Orange F G H K L M O Q S T Prime J / Orange / Orange / Orange / Orange $ 1,645,954 $ 2,248,165 Weatherization $ 530,320 $ 614,075 Weatherization $ 669,307 $ 962,418 Weatherization $ 1,468,501 $ 1,637,371 Weatherization $ 61,368 $ 159,582 Weatherization $ 1,410 $ 859,074 Weatherization $ 43,030 $ 250,651 Weatherization $ 51,813 $ 218,296 Weatherization $ 142,665 $ 2,069,148 Weatherization $ 38,151 $ 532,959 Weatherization $ 17,719 $ 110,736 Weatherization $ 1,583,902 $ 2,135,621 Weatherization $ 96,528 $ 164,797 Weatherization $ 652,167 Weatherization $ 7,882,711 $ 5,417,226 Weatherization TOTAL Ependitures 2008 $ 14,233,380 $ 18,032,286 2011 TOTAL Ependitures s 8% $ 1,199,627 $ 1,576,493 9% In the 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 etends to 2% of the total eligible within that county. The utility programs are looked at as a vehicle that can etend 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.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Type 2011 Counties 2008 Counties LIHE AP Private CBO WMDVBE Weatherization and Appliance Los Angeles - ASSERT INC Los Angeles - Kern Kern AVALON CARVER COMMUNITY CENTER INC Los Angeles Los Angeles B&W FURNACE SERVICE Los Angeles Los Angeles American Eco Services Los Angeles Los Angeles Asian Pacific American Comm Los Angeles Los Angeles American Construction - - Imperial Imperial ta Barbara ta Barbara Orange Orange Riverside Riverside Los Angeles Los Angeles DOMINION REL ESTATE CORP Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles - Los Angeles - EAGLE SYSTEMS Riverside - Tulare - Riverside - Tulare INTERNATIONAL INC Kings - Kings Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CONSORTIUM Los Angeles Los Angeles ECONO WEST INC Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles - Los Angeles - Riverside - Orange Riverside - Energy Services Tech Orange Riverside - Riverside - Harrison Air Los Angeles - Los Angeles - Kern Kern ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES Los Angeles - Riverside - Los Angeles - Riverside - Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles OASIS AIR CONDITIONING Kern Kern ALL ALL Tulare Tulare PROTEUS INC Los Angeles Los Angeles Pacific Coast QUALITY Los Angeles Los Angeles CONSERVATION SERVICES INC RELIABLE ENERGY Los Angeles Los Angeles MANAGEMENT INC RICHARD HEATH & ALL ALL ASSOCIATES INC SIERRA Los Angeles Los Angeles WEATHERIZATION COMPANY INC 2008 Annual Ependitures 2011 Annual Ependitures 2011 Services $702,175 $1,034,579 Weatherization $3,737,962 $955,867 Weatherization $66,355 $643,274 Weatherization $683,510 Weatherization $1,034,579 Weatherization $510,194 Weatherization $646,578 $143,813 Weatherization $356,391 $1,706,078 Weatherization $2,420,416 $1,536,645 Weatherization $619,088 $232,478 Weatherization $68,618 $44,289 Weatherization $94,087 $272,868 Weatherization $136,789 $ Weatherization $4,437,087 $5,669,884 Weatherization $7,257,650 $14,347,065 Weatherization $614,373 $425,502 Weatherization $310,982 4686,083 Weatherization $613,423 Weatherization $334,742 Weatherization $381,164 $360,179 Weatherization $506,864 $930,915 Weatherization $54,386 43,964 Weatherization $6,203,643 $14,216,173 Weatherization $147,207 $63,744 Weatherization $609,125 $352,122 Weatherization $402,903 $5,437,971 Weatherization $327,628 Weatherization $1,503,728 $3,802,227 Weatherization $1,294,710 $10,323,857 Weatherization $1,082,592 $1,740,529 Weatherization 43,375,998 $8,909,874 Weatherization

SOCO AIR CONDITIONING CO Synergy Mech Air Tony's HVAC Riverside - Riverside - Los Angeles - Los Angeles - Riverside - Riverside - Los Angeles - Orange Los Angeles - Orange $259,248 $124,874 Weatherization $787,214 Weatherization $843,394 Weatherization TRI-STATE HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC VO VI FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION WATTS LABOR COMMUNITY ACTION COMM WESTERN INSULATION LP WG MECHANICAL WINEGARD ENERGY GARCIA & SONS HOME IMPROVEMENT STAPLES & ASSOC HIGHLANDS ENERGY SERVICES INC AMERICAN INSULATION INC Ventura County Riverside Riverside Ventura - Los Angeles Ventura - Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles - Los Angeles - Riverside - Riverside - Riverside - Los Riverside - Los Angeles Angeles All All Kern Kern Tulare - Kings - Tulare - Kings - Fresno Fresno Tulare - Kings - Tulare - Kings - Fresno Fresno Riverside - Imperial Riverside - Imperial Ventura - Los Angeles Ventura - Los Angeles $78,147 $41,338 Weatherization $20,695 $ Weatherization $1,796,744 $1,510,966 Weatherization $128,629 $ Weatherization 4154,116 $49,342 Weatherization $1,646,146 44,251,961 Weatherization $167,364 $ Weatherization $2,381,274 $ Weatherization $17,421 $542,432 Weatherization $18,950 $945,865 Weatherization $429,261 $7,451,020 Weatherization $14,038 $1,979,435 Weatherization $89,203 $101,594 Weatherization TOTAL Ependitures 2008 $ 44,232,107 $ 95,973,491 2011 TOTAL Ependitures s 30% $ 13,360,138 $ 20,481,169 21% SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2008 Counties 2011 Counties Weatherization and Appliance Fresno Fresno DAP Only DAP Only Los Angeles Los Angeles Kern - Los Angeles Kern - Los Angeles Fresno Fresno Orange Orange Ventura - ta Barbara Ventura - ta Barbara Los Angeles - Orange - ta Barbara - Los Angeles - Orange - Ventura ta Barbara - Ventura Type Private CBO WMDVBE LIHE AP 2008 Annual Ependitures 2011 Annual Ependitures 2011 Services $ 175,310 Weatherization $ 69,716 Weatherization $ 300 Weatherization $574,152 $ 300,540 Weatherization $ 80,854 Weatherization $1,477,544 $ 214,947 Weatherization $157,917 $ 60,005 Weatherization $278,025 $ 277,669 Weatherization $36,300 $ 47,450 Weatherization

sno Fresno Fresno Fresno Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles - Riverside Los Angeles - Riverside Los Angeles Los Angeles Fresno Fresno DAP Only DAP Only Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Inyo - Mono - Los Inyo - Mono - Los Angeles Angeles Los Angeles - Riverside Los Angeles - Riverside - - Fresno Fresno Los Angeles - Orange Los Angeles - Orange Kern - Los Angeles - Kern - Los Angeles - - Tulare - Tulare Los Angeles Los Angeles All All Kern - Kings - Los Kern - Kings - Los Angeles - Angeles - - Tulare - Tulare Inyo - Mono - Los Inyo - Mono - Los Angeles - Orange - Angeles - Orange - - Ventura - Ventura DAP Only DAP Only Fresno Fresno Los Angeles - Orange - Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside Riverside Fresno Fresno DAP Only DAP Only DAP Only DAP Only DAP Only DAP Only Riverside - Los Angeles - Riverside - Los Angeles - Los Angeles Los Angeles All All All All Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside - Tulare Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside - Tulare Los Angeles - Orange - Riverside $ 20,035 Weatherization $ 12,046,619 Weatherization $ 1,242,509 Weatherization $ 350,232 Weatherization $ 90,795 Weatherization $ 741,821 Weatherization $ 1,175 Weatherization $ 431,279 Weatherization $459,410 $ 442,939 Weatherization $54,386 $ 8,941 Weatherization $3,886,670 $ 4,520,649 Weatherization $304,180 $ 327,938 Weatherization $246,920 $ 106,853 Weatherization $2,599,288 $ 2,420,786 Weatherization $255,828 $ 102,849 Weatherization $ 2,275,113 Weatherization $2,290,332 $ 3,203,968 Weatherization $ 407,326 Weatherization $3,074,721 $ 2,623,793 Weatherization $ $ 211,252 Weatherization $ $ 1,080,461 Weatherization $ $ 527,677 Weatherization $ 3,859,794 Weatherization $ 331,785 Weatherization $ 316,424 Weatherization $3,540,513 $ 4,969,686 Weatherization $394,460 $ 361,490 Weatherization $470,675 $ 30,362 Weatherization $12,758 $15,072,160 $154,116 TOTAL Ependitures 2008 $35,340,355 $ 44,281,342 2011 TOTAL Ependitures s 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

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 eisting 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 etend 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 net three year cycle from 2009 to 2011. Total Homes Treated Treated by % Treated by Total dollars to WAP subgrantee from utility DOE/LIHEAP Leveraged # of Homes Treated by subgrantees PG&E 2008 63,319 6,365 10% $6,486,331 Not collected 2011 128,071 8,962 7% $9,040,017 Not collected SDG&E 2008 20,804 1,754 8% $1,199,627 Not collected 2011 22,575 1,973 9% $1,576,493 29 SCG 2008 85,147 25,742 30% $13,360,138 491 2011 161,020 34,364 21% $20,481,169 989 SCE 2008 54,635 7,904 14% $5,106,208 Not collected 2011 93,771 6,863 7% $3,239,500 Not collected Totals 2008 223,905 41,766 18% $26,152,304 2011 405,437 52,163 12% $34,337,179

In the near future: Within the IOU territories, the miing 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 noneligible 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, epress 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 epressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.