Low Income Conservation Assistance: Program: Getting Traction with Customers
Cascade Water Alliance
Ed Cebron, Chief Economist / Treasurer August 7, 2018
1. About Cascade’s Low Income Conservation Pilot Project
2. Putting Together the Pilot Program3. Getting Customers Onboard4. Measuring and Evaluating Results5. Lessons Learned / Next Steps
Outline of Session
2
Basic Hypothesis: “Low income households represent an untapped sector for water conservation measures that could potentially provide cost-effective savings for the utility, even at full cost, coupled with enhanced rate assistance for low income households.”
1. Teamed with Cascade Member (Skyway W&S District) for Pilot Program
2. Voluntary Program
3. Free Conservation Servicesa) Residential Water Auditb) “No Cost” installation of conservation equipment
4. Evaluated Outcomes
Program Summary
3
4
• Convincing decision-makers• Soliciting participation/promoting in the
community• Access to private property/ right-of-entry• Liability and Warranty• Vendor roles
Challenges in Structuring and Executing the Pilot Program
5
• Is there merit as a conservation program?• Does/Should Cascade have a role in retail rate
assistance?• Do the Members even want to aid low income
customers?• “We don’t have low income customers”• “We want to say we have a program, but don’t want to lose
revenue”• “We are a cost-based enterprise; no room for give-aways”
• Very different perspectives between electeds (our Board) and Cascade member (retail utility) staff
Issues for Decision-Makers
6
• We Needed:– Right of Access– Indemnification– Owner and tenant approvals– Vendor warranties
• Potential Risks Anticipated– Unsafe sites: disrepair, structural integrity– Retrofits turning into big repair projects– Illegal activities– Physical or personal danger– Discovering residents who probably don’t qualify for
rate discount program
Legal Context
7
Expressing Interest
8
• Customers saw:
Legal Mumbo-Jumbo
9
We had a multi-stage contact process:
Challenges in Soliciting Participation
10
Contact Method Results1) Check box on Annual Rate Assistance Certification process
78 positive responses out of 200 eligible accounts
2) Mail Packet with information, agreements
7 returned agreements
3) Phone call follow-up 2 returned agreements
4) Door-to-door follow-up 15 additional authorizations
5) 2nd Year Community Outreach, Rate Assistance process, with door-to-door follow-up
61 positive responses 13 additional authorizations
– “I’ve had 2nd thoughts”– Legal paperwork was daunting
• “I had doubts, now they are confirmed”
– Different people at different contact points• “I never said that”
– Fear of being scammed – Too much effort to pursue– Language barriers– Transiency
Customer Response
11
• 36 Households Participated in the Audits– 22 Received retrofits from vendor– 10 Received retrofits from Cascade– 3 Had no opportunities for retrofits– 1 Declined retrofits
• Installed:– 49 Faucet aerators; 0.5 gpm (bathroom), 1.5 gpm (kitchen)– 20 Showerheads; 1.5 gpm (fixed and handheld)– 28 Toilets; 1.28 gpf
• Other Outcomes:– 5 repair projects (drain lines, leaking and broken faucets,
worn or failed valves)
What We Actually Implemented
12
What We Found
13
• Total Program Cost: $16,371 (direct)– $454 per home (36 audits)– $511 per home (32 homes retrofitted)– $744 per home (22 homes retrofitted by vendor)
• Total Water Savings: 497 gpd• Cost per Unit Capacity: $33/gpd• Average Customer Bill Savings: $5.50 per month
(water only; sewer is fixed)
Program Costs and Results
14
• Oldest toilet: December 7, 1942• Highest flow showerhead: 6 gpm• Highest flow faucet: 5 gpm• Approximately 10% of toilets were leaking• Soliciting community support didn’t help• Customer satisfaction was high
Additional Findings
15
1) Our greatest concern was housing condition: safety and liability
– A non-issue in practice2) Our easiest task was to recruit volunteers for the “free lunch”:
– A non-starter in practice3) Our most valuable lessons learned:
– KISS– In-person follow-up– For maximum cost/benefit return, focus program
on free plumbing repairs
General Outcome vs. Program Expectations
16