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