HomeMy WebLinkAbout200403151st Response of Community Action to ID Power.pdfBrad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
(208) 384-1299
FAX: (208) 384-8511
b mpurd y~hotmail. co
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho and
American Association of
Retired Persons.
F~ECfJVED
.. LED
2004 HZ;;? J
'.'!
..-, n : 31
!17/LI,
;,.
/y:L1CI i Ie) CUi"ii"1ISSiON
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY)
TO INCREASE ITS INTERIM AND BASE
RATES AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
CASE NO. IPC-O3-
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIA-
TION OF IDAHO'S RES-
PONSE TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S FIRST INTER-
ROGATORIES AND
PRODUCTION REQUESTS
COMES NOW, Community Action Partnership Association ofIdaho, by and
through its attorney of record, Brad M. Purdy, and in response to Idaho Power
Company s First Interrogatories and Production Request to the Community Action
Partnership Association ofIdaho (CAP AI), provides the following:
REQUEST NO.On Page 7 of his testimony, Mr. Robinnette (sic, Robinette)
testifies that LIW A annual funding should be increased to $1.2 million. Please provide
copies of any documents or analysis that shows how that amount was computed or
otherwise supports a funding level of $1.2 million.
RESPONSE:Please see Attachment No.1 hereto.
CAPAI'S RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND
PRODUCTION REQUEST.
REQUEST NO.2: . On Page 8 of his testimony, Mr. Robinette testifies to a
total return on investment for weatherization. Please provide copies of the ORNL
analysis that he cites to support the $3.71 benefit amount contained in his testimony.
RESPONSE:Please see Attachment No.2 hereto which constitutes a
summary of a voluminous report that can be obtained in its entirety by visiting
http://www.eere.energy.gov/weatherization.
REQUEST NO. 3:In Ms. Ottens testimony on Page 6 she describes a "gap" in
energyaffordability. Please provide copies of the studies, analyses and calculations
supporting the $96 million gap in 2002 and $113 million gap in 2003 she cites in her
testimony.
RESPONSE:Please see Attachment No.3 hereto which is the Home
Energy Affordability Gap Idaho Fact Sheet. The Home Energy Affordability Gap
analysis is voluminous and can be found at http://www fsconline.com
-I'""
DATED this i2.- day of March, 2004.
,. 1, .-
'"1,
//(--.
1..-c/!!'..
/---
Brad M. Purdy
CAPAI'S RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND
PRODUCTION REQUEST.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
-I L-.,
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS /J-DAY OF MARCH, 2004
SERVED THE FOREGOING CAP AI'S RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION REQUESTS, IN
CASE NO. IPC-03-, BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID
TO THE FOLLOWING:
Barton L. Kline
Monica B. Moen
Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boise, ID. 83707
() u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
KHand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
John R. Gale
Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boise, ID. 83707
() u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
Di Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Lisa Nordstrom
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID. 83702
(,;ru.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary
99 East State Street, Suite 200
O. Box 1849
Eagle, ID. 83616
u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Don Reading
Ben Johnson Associates
6070 Hill Rd.
Boise, ID. 83703
N u.s. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
('1 u.s. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Randall C. Budge
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
201 E. Center
Pocatello , ID. 83204
Anthony Yanke (.1' u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
CAPAI'S RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND
PRODUCTION REQUEST.
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village, OH. 44140
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Lawrence A. Gollomp
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
M. u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Overnight mail
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
Dennis Goins
Potomac Management Group
5801 Westchester St.
Alexandria, VA 22310-1149
Dean 1. Miller
O. Box 2564
Boise, ID. 83701
u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
N' u.s. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Jeremiah J. Healey
O. Box 190420
Boise, ID. 83719-0420
f-J u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
William M. Eddie
O. Box 1612
Boise, ID. 83701
~) u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
r'J ' u.s. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Nancy Hirsch
219 First Ave. South, Suite 100
Seattle, W A. 98104
Dennis Pesau
1500 Liberty St., Suite 250
Salem, OR. 97302
M U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
(xi U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
Conley E. Ward
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID. 83702
Michael L. Kurtz (4 u.s. Mail, postage prepaid
CAPAI'S RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND
PRODUCTION REQUEST.
Kurt 1. Boehm
Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry
36 E. Seventh St., Suite 2110
Cincinnati, OH 45202
() Hand delivered
() Facsimile
() Overnight mail
! -- -,,--
;)fc~~'
::'~
Brad M. Purdy -
')..-;/
CAP AI'S RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND
PRODUCTION REQUEST.
CAP AI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
INTERROGA TORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION
ATTACHMENT No.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-O3-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST
INTERROGATORIES
AND
PRODUCTION REQUEST
TO THE
COMMUNTIY ACTION PARTNERSHIP
ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO (CAP AI)
REQUEST NO.
Request No.
Idaho Power requests copies of any documents or analysis that shows how
the amount was computed or otherwise supports a funding level of 1.
million dollars.
Response to Request No.
On May 7 2003 , an Energy Strategic Planning Session was held in Boise
Idaho to determine the needs for the future of Idaho s Low-Income
Weatherization Programs. This meeting was attended by: Community
Action Executive Directors, Weatherization Managers, Energy Auditors
Energy Assistance Program Managers and Staff from the Community Action
Partnership of Idaho. Michael Karp from AW.I.S.H facilitated this meeting.
(See attachment). The meeting was to determine the consensus on a future
plan with an overview picture of the energy situation in Idaho. Discussions
encompassed all low-income weatherization funding sources, which
included Federal funding sources from Department of Energy (DOE), Health
and Human Services (HHS), along with the utility funding sources from
A VISTA, BPA, PacificCorp., and Idaho Power. Goals were then set based
on Agency s projected waiting lists and their ability to complete their
contractual requirements with DOE, HHS and the additional homes from the
utility companies without having to increase their current infrastructure.
With the uncertainty of Federal funding, weatherization programs are
reluctant to ramp up their crews, which would include the purchasing of
expensive equipment such as vehicles, diagnostic equipment, and standard
tools of the trade (i., duct blasters, blower doors, insulation equipment).
Agencies felt they could successfully complete the additional requirements
from the utility companies by hiring and training new energy technicians
using current equipment and vehicle inventories.
Energy Strategic Planning, Session
May 7, 2003
Introductions:
Ken Robinette, Michael Karp, Kevin Viggers, Teresa Nelson, Carol Gentile, Jenifer
Scott, Marie Eilers, Jim Hall, Brad Simmons, John Danks, Randy Wright, Larry Stanford
Ron Corta, Debbie Bloom-Staff, Mary Chant-Staff, Teri Ottens-Staff.
Karp talked about the agenda and what we were expecting for the day.
included:
Consensus on a future plan
Look for more money for weatherization and energy assistance
Overview picture of the energy situation in Idaho
Working with the utilities
Thoughts
State of the State: Energy Funding Sources
Idaho
A vista
BPA
Pacificorp
Idaho Power
HHS
DOE
Intermountain Gas
PVE (included in DOE)
(Petroleum Violation Escrow)
WAf
155 000
283 000
000
260 000
EAP
1 m (DOE and HHS)
Trends are headed towards energy based funding, not just heating and cooling.
In order to get funds, we will need to invest funds. These expenditures (leveraging) are
allowed off the top of the DOE dollars if it is written into our state plan.
Some successes in other states
Rate based energy assistance
BP A Weatherization program
Intervention in rate cases
Goals:
A vista -
PacifiCorp
Idaho Power
BPA
WAf
900 000
150 000
1.2 m
EAP
1.6 m
1 m
Tribal
Centralized strategy
100 000
CAP AI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION
ATTACHMENT No.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CASE NO. IPC-O3-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S FIRST
INTERROGATORIES
AND
PRODUCTION REQUEST
TO THE
CO MMUNTIY A CTI 0 N P AR TNE RS HIP
ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO (CAP AI)
REQUEST NO.
DOE Weatherization Assistance Program: Non-Energy Benefits of Weatherization'" . ,
;it"" "
;.-
;:'i"::I::-
~~
s. Department of Energy
; !
k lft Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(;~t ;;Ji,'f.
Page 1 of.
EERE HornE
~ Weatherization Home
About the Weatherization
Assistance Program
27 Years of Service
Reducing the Energy Burden
on Low-Income Families
Improving the Economies of
LOIN-Income Communities
Weatherization Assistance
Program History
What Is Weatherization?
How Are We Organized?
Program Goals & Metrics
Program Evaluations
DOE Guidelines
Weatherization
Technologies
State Activities
State Contacts
Weatherization
Information Resources
Training Centers
Search Help!: More Search Options
!:..
Ask an Energy Expert
Non-Energy Benefits of
Weatherization
January 2003
There are substantial non-energy
benefits from DOE's Weatherization
Assistance Program, according to a
recent study by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL). The study
documents benefits to utility
ratepayers, the economy, and the
environment that are in addition to
the energy benefits that reduce the
energy bills of low-income families
by increasing the energy efficiency
of their homes.
Energy and Non-EnergyBenefits of Weatherization
$1.
Energy Non-Ener1jyBenefits BeneFits
Each dollar of DOE investment inOW 0 va ue non-energy weatherization returns $3.71 inbenefits of energy- and non-energy-relatedweatherization? benefits.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a press release on
August 28 , 2002 announcing a report documenting considerable
non-energy benefits from low-income weatherization. The report
summarizes existing literature on how to value such benefits for
participating households, utility ratepayers, the local economy, and
the environment. While there is a large range of potential monetary
values for these benefits, there is no question they are important
for the communities that receive weatherization services.
Furthermore, ORNL's analyses are useful for developing overall
cost-benefit ratios. Researchers conclude that for every dollar of
DOE investment, there are non-energy benefits worth $1.88.
These benefits are in addition to energy savings, which reduce
energy bills an average of $275 per year in more than 105 000 low-
income homes in 2002. The cost-benefit ratio of energy reduction is
$1.83 for each dollar of DOE investment. When the energy- and
non-energy-related benefits are added together, the DOE
Weatherization Assistance Program returns $3.71 for every dollar
invested by DOE.
Among others, the non-energy benefits of weatherization include:
. For participating households, there are reduced water
consumption and accompanying water and sewer fees, and an
increase in property values.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/weatherization/ne - benefits.html 03/02/200
~OE Weatherization Assistance Program: Non-Energy Benefits of Weatherization. , Page 2 of
. For utility ratepayers there are reduced costs for bill
collection and service shut-offs. And because weatherization
addresses the safety of major appliances, the utility has fewer
emergency calls.
. For the local economy, DOE's investment in energy
efficiency generates a whole range of jobs in local home
services industries. Nationwide, the Weatherization Assistance
Program generates 8 000 jobs, which increases the tax base
in communities throughout the country and indirectly
supports other jobs. Furthermore, weatherization reduces the
burden of unemployment payments for taxpayers and local
businesses.
. For national security, weatherization decreases U.S. energy
use the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil every year.
. For the environment the reduction in energy consumption
by low-income clients reduces the need for combustion of
fossil fuels and the resulting emissions into the atmosphere.
The report noted that there are additional benefits from
weatherization that are not covered in the study because a
monetary value cannot be assigned to them.
Read this and other reports by Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory
Non-Energy Benefits from the Weatherizati0n Assistance Program-
A Summary of Findings from Recent Literature PDF 235 KB
Download Acrobat Reader.
Martin Schweizer and Bruce Tonn; Oak Ridge National Laboratory
report number ORNL/CON-484; 41 pp.; April 2002.
Recent Studies and Publications
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Weatherization and SEP
Support Program have published dozens of reports over the past 17years, many of which are available online. Some hard copies of
reports are also available from ORNL.
Printable Version
Webmaster Security & Privacy Weatherization & Interqovernmental Proqram Home EERE Home
S. Department of Energy
Content Last Updated: 08/13/2003
http://www.eere.energy.gov/weatherization/ne - benefits.html 03/021200~
uv.t.'., W Gamenzanon AssIstance program: Program EvaluatIOns Page 1 of
s. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyWeatherization & Intergovernmental Program
Weatherization Assistance Program Evaluations
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regularly conducts evaluations of the
Weatherization Assistance Program in order to verify energy savings and maximize service
to weatherization clients. These evaluations are conducted by DOE's Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory (ORNL
The evaluations have been critical to establishing the efficacy of energy efficiency
measures for establishing cost-benefit ratios for the program as a whole. In terms of
energy savings, weatherization clients save $1.83 for every dollar of DOE investment. Foradditional benefits, see Non-Energv Benefits of Weatherization
Webmaster Security & Priyacy Weatherization & Interqoyernmental Prouram Home EERI;J::IQIJ1~
S. Department of Energy
Content Last Updated: 08/13/2003
http://www.eere.energy.gov/weatherizationiprog- eval.html ?print 02/12/2004
CAP AI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
INTERROGA TORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION
ATTACHMENT No.
The Home Energy Affordability Gap:
Putting Data to Work
. - __
II'III II'
Roger D. Colton
Fisher, Sheehan & Colton
National Fuel Funds Network
June 2003
;...
Defining the "affordability gap
: ;': ~:
Actual home energy bills
- Affordable home ~Jle
Home Energy Affordability Gap
'(J~/lll L'(J'(JQ 1': L.:J LI:Ri.:JLl QtH ';:j t"'Atit.'(J.:J
ON THE BRINK
The Home Energy Affordability Gap in IDAHO
APRIL 2003
50%
P 20"-
! 10%
FindiDR #1
Home Energy Burdena for Houllholda
at Varloua Federal Poverty levela
, ~....~. " ~'- ~...
"t
...... ~... , ,~~
L.-a
Home energy is a crippling financial
burden for low-income Idaho households.
Idaho households with incomes of below
50% of the Federal Poverty Level pay
45% or more of their annual income
simply for their home energy bills.
Home energy Wtaffordability, however, is
not simply the province of the very poor.
Bills for households between 50% and
100% of Poverty take up 16% of income.
Even Idaho households with incomes
between 150% and 185% of the Federal
Poverty Level have energy bills above the
percentage of income generally
considered to be affordable.
fiwYDI #2
Number of Low-Income Idaho
Households by Federal Poverty
Level
- - ~~ .. ....... ~
p DWIt)' I.8wI
The number of households facing these
energy burdens is staggering. More than
21 ,000 Idaho households live with income
al or below 50% of the Federal Poverty
Level and thus face a home enerS)' burden
of 45% of income or maR.
000 additional Idaho households live
with incomes between 50% and 74% of
Poverty (home energy burden of 18%).
19,000 more Idaho hougeholds live with
incomes between 75% and 99% of theFederal Povc1'ty Level (home energy
burden of 13%).
$35
$30
j 525
~ $20
I $15
i $'0
!!!
FlndtnK #3
A $98 Million Energy Affordabillty Gap
(2001/2002 Heating Fuel Prices)
~ .ii'd., ~ .ii'
\I?n. v,
.. ~
J'. "Y.(J'.
...
-:t
~ ~
pov.rty l.4Yt,
Existing sources of energy
assistance do not adequately
adkkess ~e energy
affordability gap in Idaho.
AcIDal low-income energy
bills exceeded affordable
energy bills in Idaho by more
than $96 million at 2001/2002
winter beating fuel prices.
In contrast, Idaho received II
gross allotment of federal
energy assistance funds of
$10.5 million for Fiscal Year
2003. Some of those funds
will be used for administralive
costs, weatherization, and
other non-cash assistance.
mding #4
A $113 MIllion Gap at 2002/2003 Winter
Heating Price.
$50
....... ... "'
-t '
...
Powrty lAY.,
Increases in the prices of
natural gas, propane and fuel
oil during the 2002/2003
winter heating season dOve
the unaffordability gap up to
more ~an $113 miJlion.
While the gap for the lowest
income households (0-50%
Poverty) increases by nearly
94Yo (from $30 million to $32million). ~e gap for thehighest income households
(150-185% of Poverty)
increases by nearly 65% (from
$7 million 10 $12 million).
03/11/200417:232083214819PAGE
FiodlolE #S
Low-Income Energy Bills
In Idaho by End U..
(2001/2002 Winter Heating Prices)
The energy atTordability gap in Idaho is not created
exc1W1ively. or even primarily,
by home heating and cooling
bills.
811*,,'"8MGtWewOH"'ln,IIJCeoIIng
At 200112002 winter heating
prices, while home heating
bills were $576 of a $1607
bill (35,9%), electric bitts
(other than cooling) were
$491 (30.5%). Annual cooling bills represented 553
expenditures (3.3% of the
total bill), while domestic hot
water represented $487 in
expendibnes (30.3%).
...
Fiodin! #6
The W18ffordabitity of home energy bills frequently causes low-income: households to take drastic actions that
are detrimental to their health, safety and welfare, A swvey of energy assistance recipients by the Iowa
Depanment of Human Rights found that:
Over 12 percent of the surveyed energy assistance recipients went without food to pay their
borne heating bilt.
More than one-in-6ve went without medical care to pay for heating bills, including not seeking
medical assismnce when it was needed, not filling prescriptions for medicine when a doctor has
prescribed it, and/or not taking prescription medicines in the dosage ordered by the doctor.
)0 Almost 30 percent reponed that they did not pay other bill!!, but did not elaborate as to which
bills were not paid.
In addition to not paying other bills, many low-income howeholds incw:red debt in order to pay both their home heating bills and other basic necessities: bonowed from fiiends and'or neighbors; wed credit cards to pay for food and other necessities, or did not pay the heating bill.
A publicalio" of
FISHER, SHEEHAN CatrON
PUflUC FINANCE ANJJ GENERAL ECONOMICS
Belmo"'. MOSIDchusettl
Aprii 2003
(S
)
...
.
.
...
.
.
(S
)
(S
)
..
.
ID
A
H
O
En
e
r
g
y
G
a
p
R
a
n
k
i
n
g
s
(s
c
a
l
e
o
f
1-
5
1
)
...
.
.
-.
I
AV
D
A
G
I
I
n
o
W
o
U
n
n
I
c
s
AC
'
r
U
A
.
L
I
I
C
8
B
DI
D
G
1
'
a
I
L
L
S
DC
B
K
D
B
D
A
P
P
O
B
D
U
I
L
B
B
D
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
1
D
I
G
r
8I
L
L
S
re
a
.
o
v
8
BI
I
O
I
.
I
)
S
BB
1
D
W
"
1
8
5
'
0
P
P
o
v
J
u
r
r
y
L
I
I
V
B
L
.
(S
)
...
.
.
..
.
...
.
.
A'
I
X
I
t
&
f
a
"
I
O
T
A
!
.
..
.
ID
I
I
D
I
O
Y
B
U
B
D
B
I
f
l
O
a
8O
1
J
S
S
I
I
O
L
D
B
U
L
O
I
r
50
\
DI
'
P
o
v
u
n
L
n
8
L
.
$6
7
2
p
e
r
h
o
u
s
.
h
o
l
d
45
.
3\
o
f
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
c
Q
8
8
RA
N
K
:
1
3
3
RA
H
l
t
:
#
3
6
PU
C
'
D
T
o
r
I1
I
D
J
V
I
O
O
A
L
S
BI
I
l
.
O
W
10
0
\
o
r
P
o
v
u
n
r.
q
r
.
.
CO
I
I
B
I
D
D
b
A
T
D
l
G
/
C
o
o
L
D
I
G
A
l
'
r
o
R
D
A
B
l
t
.
J
n
GA
P
C
O
V
B
U
D
8
'
I
'
D
U
A
L
lI
O
I
I
8
D
K
J
K
:
r
A
8
8
1
8
t
A
J
I
C
B
.
11
.
B
\
o
f
al
l
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
23
.
0\
o
f
g
a
p
i
.
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
RA
N
K
:
'
2
9
RA
N
K
:
t
:
Z
7
G'I
IT
1
(S
)
0"
'
DIPIMITZON8 8xP~TIQM8
Each state (along \\'ith the District af Colwnbia) has been ranked (from 1 to 51) in \enns of four separate
meallures of the extent of the energy affordability gap facing its low-income customers:
(l) The percent of individuals with annual incomes at or below t 00% of the Federal Poverty Level.
This data is obtained directly ftolU the 2000 U.S. Census.
(2) The average total home energy bt'rden for households with income at or below 50% of theFederal Poverty Level shows the percentage of income which households with these incomesspend on home energy, "Total home energy" includes all energy usage, not merely heating andcooling. A home energy bill is calculated on a county-by-county basis. The statewide average is a
population-weighted average of county-by-COUDty data.
(3) The average affordability gap (in dollars per household) for all households with income at orbelow 185% of Poverty is the dollar difference between actual total home energy
bi11s and billsthat are set equal to an affordable percentage of income. Affordability for total home energy bills
is set at 6% of household income.
(4) The extent to which federal energy assistance Covers the combined heating/cooling affordabilitygap for each state, The combined heating/cooling affordability gap is the difference between
actual heating/cooling biUs and bills that are set equal to an affordable
percentage of income.Affordability for combined heating/cooling bills is set at 2% of income, This measure thusexamines the proportion of the heating/cooling gap that is covered by the gross federal Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) allocation to the state assuming that the
entire LIHEAP allocation is used for cash benefits,
In the state s rankings, a higher ranking indicates better conditions while a lower ranking indicates worse
conditions relative to other states. Thus, for example:
(I) The state with the rank of # 1 has the lowest percentage of individuals living in households with
income at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level while the state with the rank. of
#51 hasthe highest percentage.
(2) The state with the rank of #1 has the lowest average home energy burden for households withincome below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level while the state with the rank of #51 has the
highest average borne energy burden.
(3) The state with the rank of #1 has tbe lowest average affordability gap (dollars per household)while the state with the f'BI1k of#SI has the highest dollar gap.
(4) The state with the rank of,,1 has the highest percentage of its heating/cooling affordability gapcovered by federal energy assistance while the state with the rank of #5 I bas the lowest
percentage ofits heating/cooling gap covered.
All references to "states" include the District of Columbia as a "state." Low.income home energy billsare calculated using average residential revenues per unit of energy, State financial resources and utility-
specific discounts are not considered.