HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040220Ottens Direct.pdf!(ECEIVED
f:- E.. E D
')i'il'1 rrr,
..,,...
',n'
" '. , " -
"-' 1 Lc.,- '-.
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
(208) 384-1299
FAX: (208) 384-8511
bmpurdy~hotmail.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association ofldaho and
AARP .
- ,,
UTiLI! iES f~u i"iH-SS!ON
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
10 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY)
11 TO INCREASE ITS INTERIM AND BASE
RATES AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC 12 SERVICE
CASE NO. IPC-O3-
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
TERI OTTENS
~T""~""~ ~~~T' I""'TYT""~ ~~""T ""~~'T~
Please state your name and business address.
My name is Ted Ottens. I am the Executive Director ofthe Community Action
Partnersip Association ofldaho located at 600 North Curtis, Suite 175 , Boise Idaho, 83706.
On whose behalf are you testifying?
The Community Action Partnership Association ofldaho (CAP AI) board of
directors asked me to present the views of an expert on, and advocate for, low income customers
ofldaho Power Company in this proceeding. This reflects CAP AI's view that low income
people are an important part ofldaho Power s customer base, and that these customers may be
uniquely impacted by the Company s proposed rate increase.
The Community Action Partnership Association ofldaho is an association ofldaho s six
Community Action Partnerships, the Idaho Migrant Council and Canyon County Organization
on Aging, Weatherization and Human Services, all dedicated to promoting self-sufficiency
through removing the causes and conditions of poverty in Idaho s communities.
Community Action Partnerships (CAPs) are private, nonprofit organizations that fight
poverty. Each CAP has a designated service area and, all Idaho areas combined, CAPs serve
every county in Idaho. CAPs design programs to meet the unique needs of their communities, so
not every CAP provides all of the following services, but all work with people within their area
to promote and support increased self-sufficiency. Programs provided by CAPs include:
employment preparation and dispatch, education assistance, child care, emergency food, senior
independence and support, clothing, home weatherization, energy assistance, affordable housing,
health care access, and much more.
CAPAI is intervening in this rate case to encourage the recognition of the value that low
income assistance programs play in helping our seniors, disabled and low-income families to
become and to remain self sufficient. In Idaho, these programs have included Weatherization
and energy assistance programs. Without assistance :&om these programs, seniors and low
~T""~""~ ~~~T' 1,...'nT""~ ~~""T ""~~'T~
income families can experience higher energy costs, pay a higher proportion of their income for
energy and subsequently are in greater danger of being forced to be a further drain on the welfare
assistance system or even into homelessness.
What is your relevant experience to this case before the Commission?
The Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho has been involved in
low income issues, including energy related issues, since the early 1980's. Community Action
Partnerships have been involved in the distribution of Weatherization and Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program payments for over three decades.
As the Executive Director of CAP AI, I am responsible as the statewide administrator of
the federal Community Service Block Grant, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Idah
Telecommunication Services Assistance Program and working with the six Community Action
Partnerships and Canyon County Organization on Aging in the distribution of the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance and the Weatherization funds. These and other service programs
administered and/or provided by CAP AI and our community action partnerships all deal with the
needs ofthe low income in Idaho. Previously I worked as the Energy Director for the
Association Idaho of Cities working with 2002 cities and 44 counties to address energy and
conservation issues within their jurisdictions. Before that I have worked with several local
government entities in Idaho, Wyoming and California dealing with both low income and energy
related issues. Attached hereto as Exhibit 801 is a copy of my curriculum vitae.
Please summarize your testimony?
My testimony will establish:
1) that the proposed rate increase has significant implications for low-income customers
ofldaho Power;
2) that these low-income customers are at risk of paying too large ofa percentage of
~T""~""~ ~~~T' 1""'nT""~ ~~""T ""~~'T~
their income for this basic need commodity, exposing them to potential payment arrears
disconnection of electricity, and even homelessness, and;
3) that there is a significant number of residential customers that are low income and are
in need of assistance in lowering their energy bills through Weatherization and other means.
What definition are you using to describe a "low income household" and how
many of these households are located within the service area ofthe affected companies?
The State ofldaho uses an income definition to define eligibility for low-income
weatherization and energy assistance as 150% of federal poverty guidelines as established by the
Federal Office of Management and Budget. Exhibit 802 is a chart of these incomes. According
to the Idaho Department of Commerce, 12% of the State s population, when using the 2000
Census, falls within federal poverty guidelines and 21 % fall within the state guidelines set at
150% of poverty levels. The Idaho 2000 Census shows that those living in poverty are
categorized as follows: 8.3% are elderly, 13.8% are children, 35.3% are single mothers, and
8.3% are all other families and, 34% other.
In response to a CAP AI production request, Idaho Power s stated that there were 336 204
residential customers (households) served in 2002. Of the residential customers in Idaho Power
service area, based on census figures, it is estimated that almost 61 000 households, or 18% of
customers in Idaho Power s service area, meet 150% of federal poverty guidelines. Exhibit No.
803 explains how these calculations were derived.
According to LIHEAP (Department of Health and Welfare) 2002 statistics 91 923
households were eligible in Idaho for assistance and 29 867 households (74 693 people)
statewide received assistance. In the Idaho Power service area approximately 18 000 households
actually received LIHEAP assistance (Exhibit 804 showing Health and Welfare figures). These
LIHEAP recipients represent approximately 29.5% of all citizens eligible for LIHEAP within the
Idaho Power service area (18 000 ofthe approximately 61 000 households that are income
~T""~""~
~~~,
"""TYT""~ ~~""T ""~~'T~
eligible for LIHEAP funding). Of these in 2003, according to "Idaho Power s discovery answers
592 were Idaho Power customers.
According to the Department of Energy the "affordability burden" for total home energy
is set nationwide at 6% of gross household income and the burden for home heating is set at 2%
of gross household income. The affordability gap is determined by subtracting affordable energy
bills (set at 6%) :&om actual home energy bills.
According to the Idaho LIHEAP data provided by the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare, 7.6% of all LIHEAP program participants fell into the "High" energy burden category
in 2003. High energy burden is defined by the Department as paying 11 % or more of their
annual income for utilities (medium burden is determined at 5 to 10% of annual income and low
is considered at less than 5%. The Department does not keep statistics for medium or low
burdens). These figures also support a recent study conducted nationwide by Fisher, Sheehan &
Colton, a public finance and general economics consulting firm, the following statistics apply to
Idaho:
Percentage of Income Number of HouseholdsPercentage oflncome
Based on Federal Poverty Paid on Home Heating in
Levels 2002
50% of Poverty Level 00045%
50 to 75% of Poverty 18%000
Level
~T""~""~
~~~,
.,...'nr,...~ ~~""T ""~~'T~
75 to 100% of Poverty 16%
Level
100 to 125% of Poverty 11%
Level
125 to 150% of Poverty Total for 75 to 150% of
Level Poverty Level is 19 000
households
The relevant portion ofthe foregoing study is included as Exhibit 805.
There is currently a gap of $96 000 000 between what Idahoans could afford to pay
(based on the federal standards of no more than 6% of their annual income) for energy in 2002
and what they actually paid. This gap is expected to increase to $113 million in 2003 based on
rising energy costs. Currently the LIHEAP program sends only $10.5 million (for energy
assistance, Weatherization and administration) to Idaho providing an average benefit of $202
towards closing this gap.
In 2003 Project Share contributed $187 616 to 1 465 Idaho Power customers for an
average benefit of$128 to help close this gap. In 2002, due to the higher energy bills, $278 481
was contributed to 2 111 customers for an average benefit of$132. Project Share reached less
than 3% ofldaho Power customers who qualified for assistance due to low or extremely low
incomes in 2003.
What are some other relevant demographics about this population?
According to the 2000 Census, about 37% of homes in Idaho Power Service area heat
with electricity. Almost all households that are low-income have electricity for lighting,
refrigeration and small appliances. In Idaho in 2002, according to the US Department of Energy
website, 1487 homes were weatherized with Department of Energy funds totally $1 997,798 at
an average of $1 ,344 a home. An additional 995 were weatherized by LIHEAP funds and 132
~T~~""~
~~~,
I""'TTT""~ ~~""T ""~~'T~
by Bonneville Power Administration funds (for 2002 and 2003 only - program administered
through Idaho Power). To date, according to Company discovery response, approximately 4 107
households in Idaho Power s service area have had Weatherization efficiency measures installed
by Company programs since 1989. Over 9 500 households applied for LIHEAP in 2003 making
all eligible for Weatherization measures, and it is estimated over 60 000 households in Idaho
Power s territory are currently eligible. At an average rate of 316 a year (based upon the past
performance of the Idaho Power LIW A program) it would take well over 150 years to weatherize
all homes that are eligible. There is also a strong upward trend for the Company since 1998 for
uncollectibles, a figure that has almost doubled in the past five years. In 2003 there were 19 874
disconnects and only 13 518 reconnects indicating that some customers are slipping through the
cracks due to inability to pay their utility bill.
According to the 2000 Census, more than 26 000 of the households in Idaho Power
service territory have an annual income at less than $9 000. According to the "Affordability
Gap" study mentioned previously in this testimony, the average yearly energy bill for low-
income customers is $1607 with 30 to 35% ofthat amount spent on home heat alone. Though
they are easier described in statistical terms, as in the above paragraph, low income people are
our neighbors, relatives, :&iends . . . and when considering the possibilities of accidents, ill
health, loss of employment, etc. . .. potentially each of us.
According to the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, there are
approximately 57 000 households (the approximately 61,000 eligible households minus the
100 households already weatherized under Idaho Power s LIW A program)may be in Idaho
Power s service area that remain to be weatherized. According to Idaho Power discovery
response, 4 107 units have been weatherized to date with company funds. These funds have been
supplemented with federal weatherization funds.
~T~~""~ ~~~T' """TTr,...~ ~~""T "~~'T~
These households pay the highest percentage of their income for energy costs compared
to other income groups and are the most vulnerable and at risk to change in a competitive
market. They live in society s worst case housing stock, are most at risk to hypothermia and
indoor air quality problems. Coupled with an array of other financial burdens (cost of child care
lack of affordable housing, lack of living wage jobs, cutbacks in federal assistance of most kinds
etc.) they are increasingly moving closer to homelessness. Often, the affordability of a utility bill
can mean the difference of eating, a medical prescription, having a roof over their heads or living
in a car, or worse. When calculating the average take-home pay of a low income head of
household and deducting basic living expenses such as housing (often 70% of their income),
childcare and food, they are in fmancial crisis before even looking at the cost of utilities
clothing, transportation, and other basic needs.
I want to give some real life examples ofthe circumstances Idaho families are facing:
Twin Falls Area: A husband and wife where both are disabled to some degree. The
husband is 62 and has bad heart; his wife is 56 and has lost an arm. He is collecting Social
Security and receives Medicare and she works part-time and has no insurance. Their income is
$941 a month. They have a mortgage payment of$325.00 a month and multiple medical bills
and prescriptions. Her doctor has told her to quit working all together as she now needs to have
rotator cuff surgery on her one remaining arm. However, with no insurance to help pay for this
cost, she will probably not have it done. Their home is all electric and last year their
consumption was $3 000.00. This is a high energy burden. Their bill for Nov 21st thru Dec. 22nd
was $289., this was before it got really cold. Now that she is unable to work at al4 their
income will put more limitations what will get paid and what medication will be purchased.
Treasure Valley Area: Edith is an 85-year-old woman who lives by herself She is retired
and she gets $442 a month in social security. This year has been a very hard year for Edith. She
has been very careful with every precious penny she gets. She is an Idaho Power customer.
~T~~""~ ~~~T' I""'n,
,...~
~""T ~~~'T~SO!
This year she has been very careful with her energy usage. Her energy bill was down $210 for
the year. When she came in for her annual energy assistance appointment, she found this year
her LIHEAP benefit would be lower because her consumption had gone down. Edith's benefit
was $129 for the winter. Her average monthly bill is $122 per month. Edith spends about 25%
of her monthly income on her power bill. This leaves little money for food, medical bills, and
any other bill she may have.
Maria is a young single parent, with three young children. Her husband recently left
them, and she is trying everything she can to get by. Maria is currently working full-time at a
janitorial company, and part-time at a fast food restaurant. She must pay the mortgage on her
mobile home, and pay the space rent. It is important that she provides a place for her children to
call home. The heat in her home is all-electric, and the mobile home she lives in is not very
efficient. She pays about $139 a month for electric. Although she is working two jobs, she still
must choose between paying her utility bills and buying food for her children. Maria s income
prevents her ftom receiving food stamps.
These are but three examples of the challenge that low income people in this state face
and the impact of their monthly electric bill on their limited financial resources.
What is the need for electrically heated weatherization and efficiency retrofits in Idaho
Power s service territory?
According to the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, there are
approximately 55 000 households may be in Idaho Power s service area that remain to be
weatherized. According to Idaho Power data, 4 107 units have been weatherized to date with
company funds. These funds have been supplemented with federal weatherization funds. The
details ofIdaho Power s LIWA program are set forth in the testimony of Mr. Ken Robinette.
In its response to CAPAI's discovery request #1 (a), Idaho Power states that its gross
operating revenue for 2002 was $812 863 191. The Comprehensive Review ofthe Northwest
~T""~""~ ~~~T' """TTr ,...~ ~~""T ""~~'T~
Energy System, sponsored by each of the Governors of the four Northwest States asked for each
utility to spend 3 percent of its gross operating revenues for public purpose energy programs.
that 3 percent, 14% was to be spent for low-income weatherization. The corresponding figure
then for Idaho Power suggests a LIWA spending level of$3 414 025.
As set forth in the testimony of Mr. Robinette, Idaho Power s current level ofLIW A
funding is a small fraction of this amount. Consequently, CAP AI recommends that the amount
of Company funding for LIWA be increased as set forth below, and in Mr. Robinette
testimony.
Aside from your belief that LIW A is under-funded, do you have any other concerns abou
the Company s proposed general rate increase?
Yes. CAP AI opposes the Company s proposed increase to the minimum montWy
Customer Charge :&om $2.51 to $10., an increase of rougWy 300%. For low income
residential customers who, as demonstrated above, live day to day struggling to provide
themselves and their families with the most basic of human necessities will be the hardest hit by
this annual increase of roughly $90.00. Because it is a charge not directly correlated to the level
of actual energy usage, low income customers cannot compensate by simply turning the lights
off and the heat down. CAP AI recommends that the Commission leave Idaho Power s Customer
Charge at its current level.
Do you have any recommendations to make to the Commission regarding this
proceeding?
Yes. They are listed below.
. Do not approve an Idaho Power rate increase that fails to take into account the unique
circumstances, and ability to pay, ofldaho Power s low-income customers. The proposed
increase does not allow low-income households to utilize energy conservation methods to keep
their bills low by forcing them to pay for fixed costs beyond their control.
~T""~""~ ~~~~T' """TTT ,...~ ~~~T ~~~'T~1 (1
. Increase LIW A funding :&om its current levels to an annual amount of $1.2 million as
proposed by CAP AI witness Ken Robinette;
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
Yes, it does. I thank the Commission for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
~T""~""~ ~~~T' .,...,n7 ~~ ~~""T ~~~'T~1 1
Exhibit 801
((ECEIVEO
;LED
IT)
TERI L. OTTENS ZUG!FEs 20 P11 3: 29
17949 Goodson Rd.
Caldwell, Idaho 83605
;--
'1 i -
' ,
L.5L_IWork-208-321-2389
:~ IILI f j:.:.~ CUHr11SB:diil.~-208-454-1259
EDUCATION
Q) Bachelor of Arts, Government, California State University at Sacramento, 1977
Q) Completed 19 credits of Masters of Public Administration courses, University of Wyoming and
Boise State University 1983-1990
RELATED EXPERIENCE
Fxecntive Director Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho, 2000 to Present, Boise, ill
CAP Al is a non-profit association advocating for low income issues including energy. Duties include
administration of numerous grants and programs, staff supervision, working with eight member agencies
coordination of policies and issues, financial oversight.
Owner Association Management Solutions, 1998 to Present, Boise, ill. This company provides
management services to public and private associations. Services offered include membership recruitment
and tracking, administrative services, legislative monitoring and lobbying, desktop publishing of
newsletters, directories and conference material; conference and event planning and other services required
by the association. The company currently manages six associations one of which has a contract with the
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance to provide energy code and efficiency education to cities and
counties.
Depnty Director 1997 to 1998 Technica1 Service~ Director 1994-1996, Association of Idaho Cities
Boise, ill. AlCis a non-profit membership organization for Idaho cities. Duties included:
Q) Worked with over 100 cities and the majority of the 44 counties on planning issues from
comprehensive planning, implementation ordinances, area of impact, open space preservationand other related issues
Q) Worked as the Energy Coordinator for AlC and the Idaho Association of Counties to promote
energy efficiency and address energy related concerns of their citizens at a statewide level.
Q) Developed and followed through on public participation/education plans
Q) Worked with cities and counties to develop regional partnerships in meeting planning goals
Q) Participating in the writing and preparation of AlC publications, reports and articles
Q) Acting as spokesperson or liaison for the organization with many other groups, the media and
the state legislature
Q) Identifying and developing funding resources and partnerships, including extensive grant
writing and administration
Administrative Officer City of Caldwell, ill, 1989-1993. Duties included:
Q) Daily administration of all facets of city government including working with AlC and local
utilities on related issues including how energy issues affected Caldwell citizens.
Q) Served as Budget Officer in preparation and management of $14 million budget
Q) Served as Personnel Officer and the American with Disabilities Coordinator
Q) Preparation of meeting agendas and staff reports
Q) Grants Officer responsible for over $250 000 in grants
Q) Involved in strategic planning at all levels including the city comprehensive plan, area of impact
negotiations, infrastructure master plans, budgets and the RegionaJlUrban Design Assistance
Team (R/UDAT) Study.
Tnformation Officer/Planner Ada County Development Services, ID, 1988.
population of over 200 000. Duties included:
(!)
Knowledge of land use planning, zoning laws and issues, growth management.
(!) Interpersonal skills in dealing with general public, governmental agencies and developers in
complaint and enforcement issues.
Ada County serves a
Executive Director Downtown Casper Development Corporation, 1986-1987. DCDC is a non-profit
membership agency with responsibility for downtown redevelopment. Duties included:
(!) Business retention, expansion and recruitment
(!) All administrative functions of organization including budgeting, preparation of Board agendas
and reports, staff supervision, membership development
(!) Fund raising for the organization, including membership development, identifying grant
resources and corporatelbusiness donors. This included preparing and making presentations
(!)
Responding to membership needs/technical assistance
Assistant City Manar;er City of Laramie, WY 1980-1986. Duties included:
(!)
Working with the City County Planning Office to coordinate city/county growth
(!) Preparation and management of $17 million budget as City Budget Officer.
(!) Understanding and management of city risk management program, utility franchises, personnel
grant writing and contract negotiations and administration.
(!) Public Information Officer
Director of Planning and Research City of Tracy, CA 1977-1979. Duties included:
(!) Facilities and program planning and implementation
(!) Grant administration, volunteer coordinator
OTHER RELATED EXPERIENCE
(!) United Way Board Member, Canyon Area United Way,1988 to present
(!) Untied Way Board Member, Wyoming (Laramie and Casper), 1980-1988
(!) Member, Idaho Community Forestry Council 1993-Present
(!) Member, Caldwell Beautification Committee 1988-1998
(!) Coordinator, Caldwell Area Paint the Town 1989-1995
(!) Member, Mayor s Committee for the Disabled, Caldwell 1988-
(!) Member, IDOC Fair Housing Advisory Committee, 1996-1997
Q) Member, Middleton School District Parents Advisory Committee, 1995-Present
(!) United Way FEMA Committee - 1992
(!) Volunteer Member, Wallace Institute Agricultural Preservation Task Force, 1998-1999
HONORS
* Outstanding Young Woman of America, 1983 and 1987
* Distinguished Service Award, Laramie Jaycees 1985
* Outstanding Young Wyomingite, Wyoming Jaycees, 1986
* Friend of American Education, Natrona County School District
* Woman of the Year, Beta Sigma Phi, 1992
REFERENCES
Sherry McMillen, President
Community Action Partnership
208- 746-3351
Michael McEvoy
Canyon County Farm Bureau
208-585-2277
Percent of Poverty for States Exhibit ~U2
100 Percent, 110 Percent, 125 Percent, 150 'p~r~ent and 175 Percent
of the 2003 HHS Poverty Guidelines
For All States (Except Alaska and Hawaii) and for the District of Columbia
Size of 100 110 125 150 175familyPercentPercentPercentPercentPercentunitof Poverty of PovertY of Poverty of Poverty of Poverty
980 878 $11 225 $13 470 $15 715$12 120 $13 332 $15 150 $18 180 $21 210$15 260 $16 786 $19 075 $22 890 $26 705$18,400 $20 240 $23 000 $27 600 $32 200$21 540 $23 694 $26 925 $32 310 $37 695$24 680 $27 148 $30 850 $37 020 $43 190$27 820 $30 602 $34 775 $41 730 $48 685$30 960 $34 056 $38 700 $46,440 $54 180
For family units with more than 8 members, add $3 140 for each additional member.
Note: For optional use in FFY 2003 and mandatory use in FFY 2004
TERI OTTENS EXHffiIT NO. 803
Calculation of61 000 Households at or Below 150% of Poverty Level.
This was figured :&om 2000 Census figures which shows number of households making
an income at or below $24 999. In the Idaho Power service area 92 388 households are at
or 1?elow 150% of poverty level. It was estimated, based upon poverty figures in the
Census, that approximately 65% of all households are at or below $24 999 will qualify
for at the 150% of poverty level, or 60 085 households.
Exhibit No. 804
2002 LIHEAP Figures - Idaho
Agency Total Households LIHEAP Benefits
El Ada 5064 $890261
WICAP 5930 $1150336
SCCAP 3281 $627240
SEICAA (not all of 3896 $874934theirterri tory is ln Idaho
Power
areas)
TOTAL 18171 $3560942
Exhibit 805
ON THE BRINK
The Home Energy Affordability Gap in IDAHO
APRIL 2003
Findin~ #1
Home Energy Burdens for Households
at Various Federal Poverty Levels
50%
i 40%
~ 30%
~ 20%
Jj 10%
~o ~
~ ~:..?
-'0 17~ ;g
~ '~ '
9'. 'd'.170 190 1S'0-'0 -'0 -'0
Poverty Level
Home energy is a crippling fmancial
burden for low-income Idaho households.
Idaho households with incomes of below
50% of the Federal Poverty Level pay
45% or more of their annual income
simply for their home energy bills.
Home energy unaffordability, however, is
not simply the province of the very poor.
Bills for households between 50% and
100% of Poverty take up 16% of income.
Even Idaho households with incomes
between 150% and 185% of the Federal
Poverty Level have energy bills above the
percentage of income generally
considered to be a.ffordable.
Findin~ #2
Number of low-Income Idaho
Households by Federal Poverty
level
" ,: ~~
buJj5 30,000
:I:
'0 15 000
::s ".1: ~ T. ,
~ ~'..' .$'
19. 6' ~ 09
~ -
v. -6'-v. \9. or.
-. -.
Poverty Level
The number of households facing these
energy burdens is staggering. More than
000 Idaho households live with income
at or below 50% of the Federal Poverty
Level and thus face a home energy burden
of 45% of income or more.
000 additional Idaho households live
with incomes between 50% and 74% of
Poverty (home energy burden of 18%),
000 more Idaho households live with
incomes between 75% and 99% of the
Federal Poverty Level (home energy
burden of 13%).
$35
$30
I!! $25
..!!!
;g $20
,g $15
~ $10
I!!
..!!!
Findin2 #3
A $96 Million Energy Affordability Gap
(2001/2002 Heating Fuel Prices)
,..)-
\9.1:1.is'.1:1.190 17.6',-'0 190
-'0 -'0
Poverty level
Existing sources of energy
assistance do not adequatelyaddress the energy
affordability gap in Idaho.
Actual low-income energybills exceeded affordable
energy bills in Idaho by more
than $96 million at 2001/2002
winter heating fuel prices.
In contrast, Idaho received a
gross allotment of federal
energy assistance funds of
$10.5 million for Fiscal Year
2003. Some of those funds
will be used for administrative
costs, weatherization and
other non-cash assistance.
Findin2 #4
A $113 Million Gap at 2002/2003 Winter
Heating Prices
$50
,),
\9.-'0 190 17.6',-""'0 190 \5'0-""'0 -""'0
Poverty level
Increases in the prices of
natural gas, propane and fueloil during the 2002/2003
winter heating season drive
the unaffordability gap up to
more than $113 million.
While the gap for the lowest
income households (0~50% of
Poverty) increases by nearly
9% (from $30 million to $32
million), the gap for the
highest income households
(150-185% of Poverty)
increases by nearly 65% (from
$7 million to $12 million).
Finding
Low-Income Energy Bilts
in Idaho by End Use
(2001/2002 Winter Heating Prices)
The energy affordability gapin Idaho is not created
exclusively, or even primarily,
by home heating and cooling
bills.
E!lElectrlc 8HotWater 0 Heating LlCooling
At 2001/2002 winter heating
prices, while home heating
bills were $576 of a $1 607
bill (35.9%), electric bills
(other than cooling) were
$491 (30.5%). Annual coolingbills represented $53
expenditures (3.3% of the
total bill), while domestic hot
water represented $487 in
expenditures (30.3%).
$53
Finding
The unaffordability of home energy bills frequently causes low-income households to take drastic actions that
are detrimental to their health, safety and welfare. A survey of energy assistance recipients by the Iowa
Department of Human Rights found that:
Over 12 percent of the surveyed energy assistance recipients went without food to pay their
home heating bill.
More than one-in-five went without medical care to pay for heating bills, including not seeking
medical assistance 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.
Almost 30 percent reported that they did not pay other bills, but did not elaborate as to which
bills were not paid.
~ ill addition to not paying other bills, many low-income households incurred debt in order to pay
both their home heating bills and other basic necessities: borrowed from friends and/or
neighbors; used credit cards to pay for food and other necessities, or did not pay the heating bill.
A publication of
FISHER, SHEEHAN COLTON
PUBLIC FINANCE AND GENERAL ECONOMICS
Belmont, Massachusetts
April 2003
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
)
AV
E
R
A
G
E
D
O
L
L
A
R
A
M
O
U
N
T
B
Y
W
H
I
C
H
A
C
T
U
A
L
H
O
M
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
B
I
L
L
S
EX
C
E
E
D
E
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
L
E
H
O
M
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
B
I
L
L
S
FO
R
H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
S
B
E
L
O
W
18
5
%
O
F
PO
V
E
R
T
Y
L
E
V
E
L
.
AV
E
R
A
G
E
T
O
T
A
L
H
O
M
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
B
U
R
D
E
N
F
O
R
HO
U
S
E
H
O
L
D
S
B
E
L
O
W
5
0
%
O
F
P
O
V
E
R
T
Y
L
E
V
E
L
.
$6
7
2
p
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
45
.
3%
o
f
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
c
o
m
e
RA
N
K
:
#3
3
RA
N
K
:
#
3
6
PE
R
C
E
N
T
O
F
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
S
B
E
L
O
W
10
0
%
O
F
PO
V
E
R
T
Y
LE
V
E
L
.
CO
M
B
I
N
E
D
H
E
A
T
I
N
G
/
C
O
O
L
I
N
G
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
G
A
P
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
B
Y
FE
D
E
R
A
L
HO
M
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
A
S
S
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
.
11
.
8%
o
f
a
l
l
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
23
.
0%
o
f
g
a
p
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
RA
N
K
:
#
2
9
RA
N
K
:
#
2
7
DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS
Each state (along with the District of Columbia) has been ranked (from 1 to 51) in terms offour separate
measures of the extent of the energy affordability gap facing its low-income customers:
(1) The percent of individuals with annual incomes at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level.
This data is obtained directly from the 2000 u.S. Census.
(2) The average total home energy burden for households with income at or below 50% of the
Federal Poverty Level shows the percentage of income which households with these incomes
spend on home energy. "Total home energy" includes all energy usage, not merely heating and
cooling. A home energy bill is calculated on a county-by-county basis. The statewide average is a
population-weighted average of county-by-county data.
(3) The average affordability gap (in dollars per household) for all households with income at or
below 185% of Poverty is the dollar difference between actual total home energy bills and bills
that 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 affordability
gap for each state. The combined heating/cooling affordability gap is the difference between
actual heating/cooling bills 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 thus
examines 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:
(1) 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 has
the highest percentage.
(2) The state with the rank of #1 has the lowest average home energy burden for households with
income below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level while the state with the rank of #51 has the
highest average home energy burden.
(3) The state with the rank of #1 has the lowest average affordability gap (dollars per household)
while the state with the rank of #51 has the highest dollar gap.
(4) The state with the rank of #1 has the highest percentage of its heating/cooling affordability gap
covered by federal energy assistance while the state with the rank of #51 has the lowest
percentage of its heating/cooling gap covered.
All references to "states" include the District of Columbia as a "state." Low-income home energy bills
are calculated using average residential revenues per unit of energy. State finapcial resources and utility-
specific discounts are not considered.