An Examination of District Residents’ Experiences
with Utility Burdens and Affordability Programs
Report written for the Department of Energy and Environment
of the District of Columbia, Grant Number FY20-AED-760
Ariel Drehobl, Diana Hernández, Roxana Ayala, and Lauren Ross
March 2021
© American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
529 14th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20045
Phone: (202) 507-4000 • Twitter: @ACEEEDC
Facebook.com/myACEEE • aceee.org
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
i
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................................. i
About the Authors ..............................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................................................iii
Key Terms ............................................................................................................................................ iv
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ v
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Overview and Methodology ..................................................................................... 1
Background .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Socioeconomic Context of the District of Columbia ........................................................... 3
Causes and Impacts of High Utility Burdens ....................................................................... 7
National Utility Affordability Programs and Policies ...................................................... 10
District Utility Affordability Policies and Programs ......................................................... 11
Energy and Water Burden Analysis ............................................................................................... 15
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 15
Energy Burdens Findings ...................................................................................................... 17
Water Burden Findings ......................................................................................................... 22
Combined Utility Burden Findings ..................................................................................... 25
Utility Affordability Interview Findings ........................................................................................ 28
Interview Methodology ......................................................................................................... 29
Findings from Qualitative Interviews ................................................................................. 30
Policy Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 39
Program Awareness and Accessibility Recommendations .............................................. 40
Program Targeting Recommendations ............................................................................... 43
Program Design and Delivery Recommendations ............................................................ 46
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
ii
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 49
References ........................................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix A. District Utility Affordability Programs .................................................................. 56
Appendix B. Energy and Water Burden Methodology ................................................................ 59
Appendix C. Energy, Water, and Combined Burden Data ......................................................... 62
Energy Burden Data .............................................................................................................. 62
Water Burden Data ................................................................................................................ 64
Combined Energy and Water Burdens ............................................................................... 66
Appendix D. Interview Methodology ............................................................................................ 68
Appendix E. Interview Guides ........................................................................................................ 71
Participant Interview Guide ................................................................................................. 71
DOEE Program Staff and Administrator Interview Guide .............................................. 74
Appendix F. Interview Participant Data ........................................................................................ 77
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
iii
About the Authors
Ariel Drehobl is a manager on ACEEE’s local policy team, where she leads work related to
energy equity, energy affordability, and low-income energy efficiency programs. Ariel
earned a master of science in environmental science, policy, and management from a joint-
degree program that awarded degrees from Central European University in Hungary, Lund
University in Sweden, and the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. She earned
a bachelor of arts in history and international studies from Northwestern University.
Diana Hernández is a tenured Associate Professor of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia
University’s Mailman School of Public Health. A sociologist by training, her work focuses
on the social and environmental determinants of health. Her research examines the impacts
of policy and place-based interventions on the health and well-being of socioeconomically
disadvantaged populations. Professor Hernández’ published work has appeared in leading
public health, social science, and housing and energy policy journals and her research has
been funded by several federal agencies and philanthropic organizations. Dr. Hernández
completed her doctoral training in Sociology at Cornell University and her undergraduate
degree at Hunter College of the City University of New York.
Roxana Ayala assists with research, writing, and technical support on local-level energy
efficiency policies and initiatives, with a focus on energy equity. Roxana earned a bachelor
of arts in environmental studies and urban studies from the University of California, Irvine.
Lauren Ross is Senior Director of Policy at ACEEE. She oversees state and local policy work
as well as utility regulation. She conducts program and policy research and provides
technical assistance to a variety of groups aimed at advancing equitable energy efficiency.
She has served as the lead on ACEEE’s work to expand policies and programs to improve
energy use in underserved communities, with an emphasis on advancing inclusive clean
energy solutions in affordable housing. She works to promote energy efficiency as a tool to
make communities more economically vibrant, healthier, and adaptable in the face of
climate change. Lauren earned a PhD in urban sociology from Temple University.
Acknowledgments
This report was funded through a grant from the District Department of Energy and
Environment (DOEE). The authors thank Columbia University-based research assistants
Miranda Ysabel Simes and Tasfia Rahman for their contributions to the qualitative
component of this study. Thanks also to Claire Cook with ONE DC for advising on all
stages of the project. The authors gratefully acknowledge reviewers who supported this
report. Reviewers from ACEEE included Rachel Gold, David Ribeiro, and Sara Hayes. The
authors also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Mackenzie Mathews from DOEE for
managing the grant and providing her assistance and guidance, and also thank Taylor
Smith from DOEE for her assistance with scheduling and coordinating resident interviews.
The authors also thank DOEE staff who participated and provided their insights for this
project, including Thomas Bartholomew, Sharon Cooke, Kenley Farmer, Cyronda Goode,
LaWanda Jones, Jennifer Kulp, Taresa Lawrence, Mackenzie Mathews, Brooke Siegel, and
Denise Watson. Last, we would like to thank Mary Robert Carter for managing the editing
process, Mariel Wolfson for developmental editing, Rachel Siegel for copyediting, Phoebe
Spanier for proofreading, and Kate Doughty for graphics design.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
iv
Key Terms
Area median income (AMI). In each region, the income level at which half of households
earn more per year and half earn less per year. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development calculates AMI each year for every metropolitan region in the country based
on number of people in the household.
Energy burden. The percentage of annual household income spent on annual energy bills,
including electricity, natural gas, and other heating fuels.
Energy insecurity. The inability to adequately meet basic household heating, cooling, and
energy needs over time.
Federal level poverty (FLP). The measure of income used to determine eligibility for certain
programs and benefits. Poverty guidelines for households based on number of persons in
the household are set by the Department of Health and Human Services.
State median income (SMI). In each state, the income level at which half of households earn
more per year and half earn less per year, based on number of persons in the household.
Utility burden (combined burden). The percentage of annual household income spent on
annual bills for electricity, natural gas, other heating fuels, and water.
Water burden. The percentage of annual household income spent on water bills.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
v
Executive Summary
KEY FINDINGS
• Despite continued economic growth, racial inequities persist in the District of Columbia.
Historical and structural factors have produced stark disparities in homeownership,
employment, wealth, education, and health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic and
related economic fallout has had widespread impacts in the District, disproportionately
affecting Black, Latinx, and low-income residents.
• DC metro area residents with disproportionately high energy and water burdens include
low-income households, non-high school graduates, households with a family member
with a disability, older adults over 65, Black households, Hispanic households, renters,
and households in pre-1980 buildings.
• The median low-income household (≤60% SMI) in the DC metro area experiences energy
and water burdens about five times higher than the median non-low-income household.
• Interview findings reveal that energy assistance programs provide financial support and
stress relief to households facing acute or chronic hardships. While staff and program
participants agreed on many core issues, clearer communication is needed on program
details and their environmental impacts.
• This report’s recommendations, based on qualitative and quantitative analyses, note how
DOEE can improve the awareness and accessibility, targeting, design, and delivery of its
five energy and water affordability programs.
This report analyzes District residents’ experiences with utility burdens and energy and
water affordability programs offered by the Department of Energy and Environment
(DOEE). The report includes a literature review that explores the root causes and systemic
drivers of racial inequity in the District, quantitative analysis that calculates utility burden
data for households in the DC metro area, primary data collection based on qualitative
research on the experiences of DOEE utility assistance recipients, and recommendations
aimed at improving access to and utilization of these programs by District residents.
The report focuses on DOEE’s five affordability programs, including
• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
• Utility Discount Program (UDP)
• Solar for All (SFA)
• Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
• Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge (CRIAC) Residential Relief Program
Historical policies and practices that led to discrimination in zoning laws, mortgage lending,
employment, and access to quality education have led to long-standing patterns of racial
segregation and racial disparities in income and wealth, particularly affecting Black
residents in the District (Kijakazi et al. 2016). These structural barriers had and continue to
have implications for the racial wealth gap in the city and for residents’ ability to afford safe
and healthy housing, food, and utilities, among other basic necessities. The COVID-19
pandemic and subsequent recession have disproportionately affected Black, Latinx, and
low-income residents, exacerbating these inequities.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
vi
UTILITY BURDEN FINDINGS
Energy, water, and combined utility burden analyses paint a picture of energy and water
burdens in the District. Across these analyses, similar groups experienced
disproportionately high burdens, including low-income households (i.e., ≤60% SMI),
households who receive food stamps, non-high school graduates, households with a family
member with a disability, older adults over 65, Black households, Hispanic households,
renters, and households in pre-1980 buildings. These findings are representative of all
households in the DC metro area, the majority of which do not receive utility assistance.
These findings do not differentiate between households who receive and do not receive
utility assistance.
Energy Burden Findings
• The energy burden of low-income households is 4.5 times higher than that of non-
low-income households.
• The median energy burden for Black and Hispanic households is 45% higher than
that of white (non-Hispanic) households.
• Across the DC metro area, 64% of low-income households face a high energy burden
(above 6%), and 40% of low-income households face a severe energy burden (above
10%).
• One-fourth (25%) of low-income households experience an energy burden of at least
15%, which is 7.5 times the median for the DC metro area.
Water Burden Findings
• The median water burden of low-income households is 5.4 times higher than that of
non-low-income households.
• The median water burden of Hispanic households is 63% higher and of Black
households is 51% higher than it is for white (non-Hispanic) households.
• Low-income households have a median water burden that is 4.5 times higher than
the metro area median; similarly, low- to moderate-income households (≤100% AMI)
have a median water burden that is about 2 times higher.
• One-fourth (25%) of low-income households experienced a water burden of at least
7.4%, which is more than 12 times the median water burden in the DC metro area.
Combined Utility Burden Findings
• The median combined energy and water burden of low-income households is almost
5 times higher than that of non-low-income households.
• The median combined burden of Hispanic households is 55% higher and of Black
households is 42% higher than that of white (non-Hispanic) households.
• The median combined energy and water burdens accounts for up to 11.2% of income
for low-income households, which is 4.3 times higher than the combined burden for
the median DC metro area household.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
vii
INTERVIEW FINDINGS
The interviews with 30 participants of DOEE’s energy and water affordability programs
provided insights into participants’ household characteristics and experiences of energy
insecurity along with their experiences with DOEE programs. Through the interviews with
10 DOEE program staff and administrators, we identified staff perspectives on program
challenges, client and participant base, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on program
operations and outcomes. Below are key themes across interviews as well as points of
convergence and divergence across participants and program staff.
Participant Perspective
• Participants prioritized utility bills as a key household expense but faced energy
insecurity due to recent economic shocks or to chronic low or fixed household
incomes.
• In addition to seeking energy assistance benefits, households reduced energy use
and attempted minor weatherization interventions to save on energy bills and
maintain thermal comfort.
• Participants expressed gratitude for DOEE support and noted the impacts of energy
assistance on bill management and stress reduction.
• Preferences for benefits delivery was mixed, with some households preferring
monthly distributions and others preferring lump sum payments.
• Opportunities for enhanced communication and clarity on program details were
noted.
Program Staff and Administrator Perspectives
• DOEE staff expressed empathy and a commitment to delivering comprehensive
services, including adapting service delivery and program elements to better assist
participants.
• The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition to online applications and
electronic communications with clients; however, a core aspect of their approach,
which involves strong customer relations, was significantly compromised. Staff
expressed concern that the elderly and technologically challenged may not be
adequately served, despite identifying continued need for additional supports.
Points of Convergence/Divergence
• Participants and staff agreed that DOEE program offerings and customer service
were robust and superior to available alternatives.
• Staff and administrators highlighted the connection between their energy assistance
programs and ensuring a just clean energy transition for District residents, yet
participants were unclear about how they could contribute to greater environmental
stewardship through DOEE programs.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
viii
• Gaps in service to rental and multiple unit housing residents were noted by both
participants and staff, while prioritizing energy and conservation/weatherization
was emphasized by participants.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
We developed the following policy recommendations that identify barriers and
opportunities to increase the effectiveness of DOEE affordability programs. These
recommendations also aim to reduce high energy and water burdens in order to improve
utility affordability, home health and comfort, and overall economic prosperity of District
residents.
Program Awareness and Accessibility Recommendations
• Increase targeted direct program outreach and re-enrollment efforts
• Align water and energy affordability support and outreach
• Employ diverse methods of outreach and continued communication
• Provide follow-up confirmation on benefits and services
• Connect energy saving and clean energy messaging with environmental benefits
Program Targeting Recommendations
• Target resources towards households with disproportionately high utility burdens
• Target resources towards households experiencing disproportionate health burdens
• Provide resources for affordable housing building owners to help keep rents
affordable
• Develop and include additional equity-related goals to measure program success
• Consider tiered benefits to support moderate-income household needs
Program Design and Delivery Recommendations
• Continue building robust stakeholder and community engagement practices
• Increase structural solutions for utility affordability, such as weatherization and
solar energy
• Create a one-stop-shop model for program enrollment
• Maintain emergency water assistance and create a leak reduction program
• Validate and educate on energy conservation strategies
These recommendations are based on the qualitative analysis, and also reflect findings from
the literature review and quantitative utility burden analysis. The report includes
anonymized quotations from interviewees in relation to and in support of the
recommendations.
CONCLUSION
This report finds that even before the pandemic, many District residents experienced
systemic inequality and high utility burdens that led them to seek assistance. Low-income
District households are especially overburdened by utility bills as compared to low-income
households nationally. DOEE’s utility affordability programs reduce the District’s negative
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
ix
environmental impact while improving affordability and comfort for low- and moderate-
income District residents. As the pandemic continues to affect the lowest income residents,
the recommendations from this report can help to increase equitable access to and
utilization of solar installations and energy efficiency and weatherization investments as a
means of supporting economic, environmental, and equity-related District goals.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
1
Introduction
The Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) currently provides a set of programs
and services to assist low- and moderate-income residents facing high utility burdens. A
high utility burden⎯the percent of income spent by households on electricity, gas, fuel oil,
and/or water⎯can greatly impact a household’s ability to afford other basic necessities.
When residents have to choose between paying utility bills and other necessities, they may
endure significant health and financial impacts. To ease the utility burden on these
households, DOEE administers utility affordability programs that provide relief through
different mechanisms, including improved access to solar generation and weatherization,
subsidized rate structures, and one-time bill assistance payments.
DOEE administers five such utility assistance programs. Table 1 lists these programs,
income eligibility, and description of the services provided. This study analyzes these five
programs from the perspective of DOEE staff and program participants to provide
programmatic recommendations.
Table 1. Energy and water assistance programs studied in this report
DOEE program
Income
eligibility
Provided services
Low Income Home
Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP)
60% state
median
income (SMI)
One-time annual energy bill assistance between $250 and
$1,800, determined based on household size, total household
income, heating source, and dwelling type
Utility Discount
Program (UDP)
60% SMI
Utility bill discount of up to $475 per year on electric bills, up to
$276 for gas heating bills, and/or over $500 annually on water
and sewer bills
Weatherization
Assistance
Program (WAP)
60% SMI
Weatherizes homes with measures such as insulation, duct
sealing, heating and cooling systems repair or replacement, air
infiltration mitigation, and ENERGY STAR lighting and
appliances; improves home energy efficiency, lowers bills, and
improves home comfort
Solar For All (SFA)
80% area
median
income (AMI)
Free installation of solar photovoltaic systems on homes or
participation in community solar so that participants save about
$500 per year on electric bills
Clean River
Impervious Area
Change (CRIAC)
Residential Relief
Program
100% AMI
Monthly water bill discount for single-family and individual
homes; DC Water ratepayers fund the program; three tiers of
assistance ($75, $50, and $15 per month), determined by
household size and income; one-time emergency benefit of up
to $2,000 launched during the pandemic to provide emergency
relief for water bill arrearages
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY
This study uses qualitative and quantitative research methods to analyze utility burdens
among District residents and the experiences of utility affordability program participants, in
order to provide recommendations to improve the effectiveness, reach, and outcomes of
DOE’s utility assistance programs. To do this, we analyze household level data to estimate
utility burdens for District residents as well as conduct interviews with DOEE program staff
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
2
and program participants. The recommendations provide guidance to create more equitable
program outcomes and benefits for District residents.
The intended audience for this report is DOEE staff who design, manage, and evaluate
energy utility assistance programs. The products of this research include a literature review
that explores the root causes and systemic drivers of racial inequity in the District,
quantitative analysis calculating utility burden data for households in the DC metropolitan
statistical area (MSA), primary data collection through qualitative research on the
experiences of DOEE utility assistance recipients, and recommendations aimed at
improving access and utilization of these programs by District residents.
Our research questions are
• How do socio-political factors in the District impact energy and water insecurity?
• Which households are the most utility-burdened in the DC metro area?
• What factors lead residents to seek energy and water assistance programs?
• How well do DOEE’s energy and water assistance programs serve the needs of
individual participants and the District population as a whole?
• How can DOEE remove barriers and increase the effectiveness of its energy and
water affordability programs in order to reduce high utility burdens and improve
health and economic outcomes for District residents?
This report includes our results organized by our four major research activities:
Background and literature review. We explore the causes and impacts of high utility
burdens through the socio-political context of the District of Columbia. We analyzed
academic articles, policy reports, agency reports, and relevant local news media and blogs
that provide insight on racial and economic equity in the District and growing affordability
challenges.
Energy and water utility burden analysis. We conducted an energy and water utility
burden analysis, using U.S. Census Bureau data for the DC metro area, that identifies which
demographic groups and types of households experience disproportionately high utility
burdens. We use the 2019 American Housing Survey (AHS) data to calculate energy, water,
and combined energy and water burdens for households across the DC metro area.
Analysis of interviews with DOEE program staff and program participants. We conducted
10 interviews with DOEE program staff who manage or support at least one of DOEE’s five
utility affordability programs to gain insights into how programs are currently operating.
We also conducted 30 interviews with District residents who participated in one or more of
those programs to learn about impacts on their financial stability, their perceptions and use
of energy and water, and their experience with DOEE’s energy assistance programs.
1
We
transcribed the interviews and developed a codebook that identified emerging themes that
characterize the nature of energy insecurity in the District. Performing an axial coding, we
1
See Appendix F for anonymous demographic information about program beneficiary interview participants.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
3
then identified and assessed data patterns and potential causal relationships, contextual
factors, impacting conditions, and barriers and facilitators to navigating local resources,
receiving, and benefiting from assistance.
2
Policy recommendations and conclusion. Based on our research, we developed
recommendations that are intended to address barriers and increase the effectiveness of
DOEE utility assistance programs so that they reduce high utility burdens and lead to
positive outcomes for District residents. These recommendations explore program
awareness and accessibility, targeting, design, and delivery.
In addition to the main report, the project team submitted supplemental documentation to
DOEE, including transcripts of resident interviews, the interview codebooks, and complete
energy and water burden calculations.
Background
In this section, we explore the causes and impacts of high utility burdens on District
residents, with a focus on the District’s social, political, and economic context that has given
way to persistent economic and racial inequality. We review academic articles, policy
reports, agency reports, and relevant local news media and blogs from the past five years to
gather information on the sociopolitical context of the District. We also explore literature on
energy and water affordability broadly and in the District, as well as the landscape of
programs available for District residents to address energy and water affordability needs.
SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Historical policies and practices that led to discrimination in zoning laws, mortgage lending,
employment, and access to quality education have resulted in long-standing patterns of
racial segregation and racially based income and wealth disparities in the District,
particularly affecting Black residents (Kijakazi et al. 2016).
3
These structural barriers had and
continue to have implications for residents’ ability to afford safe and healthy housing, food,
and utilities, among other basic necessities. Since the 2000s, the city has experienced growth,
reflected in neighborhoods becoming wealthier, whiter, and younger (Rabinowitz 2017).
Over the past decades, the District’s growing economic prosperity has been uneven for
residents and neighborhoods: it has not benefited longtime Black residents as it has their
white counterparts and other newcomers.
Racial wealth and income gaps in the District remain stark. In 2016, the median household
income for the District’s Black residents was less than one-third that of white residents, and
Latinx median wealth was half that of white residents (Gebriel 2018). Incomes are lowest in
Wards 7 and 8, which have the highest concentration of Black residents. The District’s white
residents have a net worth 81 times greater than Black residents. White residents have
2
Axial coding is a technique used to identify core themes during qualitative data analysis through the process of
relating codes (categories and concepts) to each other.
3
For more of a historical overview of the context and structural barriers predicating the racial wealth gap in the
District see, The Color of Wealth in the Nation’s Capital, available at www.urban.org/research/publication/color-
wealth-nations-capital/view/full_report.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
4
wages that are twice that of Black residents, and lower unemployment rates compared to
Black residents (Kijakazi et al. 2016; Lassieter 2017). These factors also contribute to Black
residents’ higher rates of homelessness. Overall, 88% of people experiencing homelessness
in the District are Black, although Black residents make up 48% of the population
(Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless 2019). As the economic recession and impacts of
the global pandemic continue to plague the city, Black and Latinx renters, both nationally
and in the District, face the greatest threat of eviction and homelessness (Wedeen 2021).
Researchers have also found that evictions are tied to an increase in coronavirus cases and
deaths, making this risk even more dire during this public health emergency (Leifheit et al.
2020).
Housing Affordability in the District
Persistent wealth inequity in the District has been worsened by wage increases not keeping
pace with other rising costs, such as housing. In 2020, even as the minimum wage increased
to $15 an hour—an additional $3.50 or 30% increase from the 2016 minimum wage—this
increase did not keep pace with rising housing costs. Transportation and food costs have
also increased in the District over time. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’
consumer price index, over the last 20 years, expenses for transportation, food, and housing
in the DC metro area have increased by 43%, 59%, and 70%, respectively (BLS 2021a).
Over the last two decades, the number of affordable housing units in the District has
decreased while the number of high-cost housing units has multiplied (District of Columbia
DHCD 2019). In 2002, 40% (58,000 rental units) of the District’s housing stock rented for less
than $800 per month, but by 2013 this fell to 20% (33,000 rental units) (Rivers 2015). The Fair
Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment in the District is roughly $1,700 per
month. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities, that is, without spending more than
30% of income on housing, a household must earn nearly $5,700 monthly (or $68,000
annually). Based on a 40-hour work week, this represents an hourly wage of about
$33⎯more than double the District’s current minimum wage⎯that is needed to afford
housing (NLIHC 2020). To put this number in a national context, the District has the fourth
highest “housing wage” in the country (following Hawaii, California, and Massachusetts)
(NLIHC 2020).
Over the last decade, many longtime District residents have experienced waves of
gentrification and displacements as the rise in housing costs outpaces incomes (ONE DC
2017; Rivers 2015). Between 2000 and 2013, nearly 40% of the District’s lower-income
neighborhoods experienced gentrification and 20,000 Black residents were displaced due to
increased costs of living in their neighborhoods, making DC the city with the highest
intensity of gentrification in the U.S. (Richardson, Mitchell, and Franco 2019; Richardson,
Mitchell, and Franco 2020). For example, over the past decade, Navy Yard has experienced
rapid and drastic changes, with a 29% increase in white residents, an 18% increase in the
proportion of households earning at least $100,000, and a 15% increase in the proportion of
young residents (Rabinowitz 2017). Additionally, between 2000 and 2010, the Columbia
Heights neighborhood experienced significant demographic change: the Black and Hispanic
population decreased by about 30% and 10%, respectively, and the white population grew
by nearly 140% (Tatian and Lei 2021).
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
5
The increase in the cost of living, especially for Black communities and communities of
color, has led residents to forego necessities and resources needed for a healthy lifestyle and
has forced many into substandard housing that contributes to poor health outcomes (Woolf
et al. 2018). The relationship between health, wealth, and housing helps explain the
disparate health outcomes reflected in the District. The current public health crisis has also
continued to exacerbate these persistent health inequities.
Rising Utility Costs in the District
As housing costs have risen, utility costs in the District have also increased over time. From
2000 to 2019, the average electricity bill for District residents increased 78%, from $55 to $98
per month. Figure 1 shows the change in electric bills in the District from 2000 to 2019.
Similar numbers for natural gas are not available.
Figure 1. The average monthly electricity bill in the District of Columbia and U.S. from 2000 to 2019.
Data from
www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/.
DC Water bills have also been on the rise in recent years. In 2018, DC Water implemented a
new rate structure that increased the average residential bill by 5.9%, from $102.30 in 2018 to
$108.32 in 2019 (DC Water 2018). Recently, DC Water's board approved increasing their
residential and multifamily water rates for the fiscal years 2021 and 2022. With these new
rates, DC Water projects the average monthly residential water and sewer bill would be
$110.21 in 2021, up from $103.81 in 2020. This will increase water costs by an average of 6%,
or $89 per household annually in 2021 (DC Water 2020).
Increases in utility bill rates can exacerbate financial pressures for residents experiencing
hardship and may lead many to seek assistance and support. Between April 2019 and June
2020, the Office of the People's Counsel (OPC), the consumer advocate for District residents,
responded to over 450 complaints about high DC Water bills, disconnections, and payment
disputes (District of Columbia OPC 2020). OPC received the most complaints about water
affordability from Ward 7 residents, followed by Ward 4 and then Ward 5 residents (District
$55
$56
$62
$60
$61
$72
$72
$86
$94
$98
$109
$100
$89
$91
$92
$109
$99
$97
$101
$98
$73
$76
$78
$80
$81
$89
$96
$100
$104
$105
$111
$110
$107
$110
$114
$114
$113
$112
$118
$115
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
District of Columbia U.S.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
6
of Columbia OPC 2020). While the types of complaints varied across wards, they included
billing disputes, payment problems, leaks in public and private areas, meter issues, CRIAC
program issues, payment arrangements, high bills, and disconnections (District of Columbia
OPC 2020). OPC also received 912 complaints for the Potomac Electric Power Company
(PEPCO), 444 complaints for Washington Gas, and 164 complaints for third-party energy
providers during FY2019 (District of Columbia OPC 2021). This indicates the need for utility
affordability support, and DOEE can continue to ensure that residents have access and
information about available water affordability resources.
The Impact of COVID-19 on District Residents
As of January 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic fallout has had
widespread impact in the District, most notably affecting Black, Latinx, and low-income
residents. These disproportionate impacts reflect long-standing inequalities, often stemming
from historical policies that allowed for racial, wealth, and occupational discrimination,
segregation, and exclusion from institutional systems. This historical and present
socioeconomic context has made Black and Latinx communities and communities of color
most vulnerable to exacerbated food insecurity, energy insecurity, housing instability, and
access to proper health services during the pandemic (Gathright 2020; Crawford and
Huddleston 2020; CBPP 2021).
Low-income Black communities have been hit the hardest by the impacts of COVID-19,
especially Wards 7 and 8 (Gathright 2020; Kathpalia and Zickhur 2020). Before the
pandemic, neighborhoods located in the Northwest (i.e., Wards 1–6) had a higher health
index (high opportunity for good health) than neighborhoods in the Southeast (i.e., Wards
7–8) where more than 90% of the residents are Black. This difference is influenced by social
determinants of health such as race, education, housing, income, and social environment
(Woolf et al. 2018). The same patterns are playing out among children, where Black and
Hispanic children and children from low-income households are showing higher COVID
positivity rates than their white and more affluent counterparts (Goyal et al. 2020).
Across the District, many residents are experiencing an economic crisis, with
unemployment remaining as high as 7.9% and many households behind on mortgage and
rent payments (BLS 2021b). Between July 9 and 21, 2020, 11% of District renters reported not
paying their rent on time or deferring payment (CBPP 2021). In August 2020, rent-burdened
households in the District represented 48% of the total population and 25% of renters of
color in the District had missed or deferred rents (McCargo, Choi, and Walsh 2020).
4
During
the same time period, 12% of adults (63,000) and 25% of children (45,000) in the District
reported that they did not have enough to eat (CBPP 2021).
While the pandemic has compounded affordability challenges for many vulnerable
households, the unemployment rate has varied drastically across Wards. Between April and
May 2020, Ward 8 residents experienced a 20.7% unemployment rate, while Ward 1
4
The Urban Institute defines rent-burden households as households that spend more than 30% of their income
on rent.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
7
residents experienced an 8% unemployment rate, and Wards 2 and 3 had the smallest
increase in unemployment (Taylor 2020).
The Office of People’s Council has found that the financial fallout of the pandemic has
limited many households’ ability to keep up with their utility bills. The moratoriums have
helped to keep people connected to services, yet climbing and unpaid bills remain a
significant concern moving into 2021. OPC found that high bills topped its list of 1,782
complaints received in FY2019 (District of Columbia OPC 2021). Economic and social factors
such as job losses, less disposable income to pay bills, and more energy and water used at
home due to stay-at-home orders are leading to rising utility debt.
Total utility bill arrearages across all households are much higher than in the past,
indicating that many more households are in arrears. Table 2 includes total bill arrearages
for PEPCO, Washington Gas, and DC Water households, across all households and those
enrolled in low-income discount rate programs. As of September 2020, the average
residential customer was behind by $400 for electricity, $440 for natural gas, and $463 for
water bills. Due to the shut-off moratorium, households with arrearages are not being
disconnected from electricity, natural gas, or water services. However, household arrearages
continue to grow each month that bills remain unpaid. Utility assistance will be even more
urgent when the public health emergency ends, and households need to address unpaid
bills to keep their utility services connected.
Table 2. Total bill arrearages for PEPCO, Washington Gas, and DC Water customers in the District (as of September 2020)
Total
residential
arrearages
Total low-
income
arrearages
Total
residential
customers in
arrears
Total low-
income
customers in
arrears
Average
residential
customer
arrearage
Average low-
income
customer
arrearages
PEPCO
$25,776,277
$4,407,363
64,434
12,920
$400
$341
Washington Gas
$10,596,974
$1,914,961
24,099
3,579
$440
$535
DC Water
$10,142,444
N/A
21,899
N/A
$463
N/A
Data for PEPCO and Washington Gas from PUC Filings, edocket.dcpsc.org/public/search/casetype/ardir. PEPCO data from “Pepco’s
monthly Arrearages and Disconnections Report,” December 21, 2020. Washington Gas data from “WGL’s Arrearages and Disconnections
Report,” December 21, 2020. Data for DC Water from October 2020 report, “DC Retail Rates Committee Package,”
www.dcwater.com/sites/default/files/event_attachment/DC%20Retail%20Rates%20Committee%20Package%2010.20.20.pdf.
CAUSES AND IMPACTS OF HIGH UTILITY BURDENS
Researchers have explored how energy burdens differ across demographic groups, building
types, and locations. Many studies have found that certain demographic groups experience
disproportionately high energy burdens, including Black, Hispanic, Native American, and
older-adult households (Lewis, Hernández, and Geronimus 2019; Drehobl, Ross, and Ayala
2020). Researchers generally define a “high energy burden” as spending more than 6% of
income on energy bills.
5
Some policymakers have begun to design policies and plans to
5
Researchers estimate that housing costs should equate to no more than 30% of household income, and
household energy costs should be no more than 20% of total housing costs, so that affordable energy costs
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
8
achieve an affordable energy burden level below the 6% threshold.
6
Similarly, the District’s
2020 LIHEAP Energy Burden Analysis study recommends a 3% energy burden goal for
LIHEAP participants (APPRISE 2020). This definition excludes transportation costs, which
have been found to disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities
of color as well. This number also does not include the added costs associated with late fees
and shutoffs that those who face high utility burdens are likely to encounter.
While low incomes are a substantial factor driving higher energy burdens, energy inefficient
housing also plays a large role. According to the 2017 American Housing Survey, 9% of total
U.S. households completed an energy efficient improvement in the past two years, but only
17% were low-income households (Drehobl, Ross, and Ayala 2020). Additional research
examining energy benchmarking data in a few major cities has found that households from
both the lowest- and highest-income brackets had the highest energy use intensity (EUI);
that is, they had the highest energy consumption per square foot. While consumption
behaviors are regarded as the driver for high EUI among higher-income households (i.e.,
likely to use large amounts of energy to power larger homes and more electronics and
devices), the researchers point to inefficient heating and lighting to help explain the high
EUI among low-income households (Kontokosta, Reina, and Bonczak 2019). This suggests
that inefficient infrastructures rather than inefficient behaviors lead to higher energy use
and expenditures for low-income households.
Table 3 includes the main drivers of high energy burdens, including physical,
socioeconomic, behavioral, and policy-related factors. High energy burdens are correlated
with negative health, economic, and social impacts. The high cost of household energy can
have mental health impacts, such as chronic stress, anxiety, and depression, associated with
fear and uncertainty around access to energy and the inability to control energy costs, as
well as compounding fears of late fees and shutoffs (Hernández 2016).
should be no greater than 6% of total income. For decades, researchers have used the thresholds of 6% as a high
burden and 10% as a severe burden (APPRISE 2005). ACEEE uses these thresholds in our most recent energy
burden report (Drehobl, Ross, and Ayala 2020). To clarify, high and severe energy burdens are not mutually
exclusive. All severe energy burdens (> 10%) also fall into the high burden category (> 6%).
6
See 2020 ACEEE report, How High Are Household Energy Burdens? An Assessment of National and Metropolitan
Energy Burdens across the U.S., for examples of city and state-led policies to address high energy burdens:
www.aceee.org/research-report/u2006.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
9
Table 3. Key drivers of high household energy burdens
Drivers
Examples of factors that affect energy burden
Physical
Housing age (i.e., older homes are often less energy efficient)
Housing type (e.g., manufactured homes, single-family, and multifamily)
Heating and cooling system (e.g., system type, fuel type, and fuel cost)
Building envelope (e.g., poor insulation, leaky roofs, inefficient and/or poorly maintained
HVAC systems, and/or inadequate air sealing)
Appliances and lighting efficiency (e.g., large-scale appliances such
as refrigerators, washing machines, and dishwashers)
Topography and location (e.g., climate, urban heat islands)
Climate change and weather extremes that increase the need for heating and cooling
Socioeconomic
Chronic economic hardship due to persistent low income
Sudden economic hardship (e.g., severe illness, unemployment, or disaster event)
Inability to afford (or difficulty affording) up-front costs of energy efficiency investments
Difficulty qualifying for credit or financing options to make efficiency investments due to
financial and other systemic barriers
Systemic inequalities relating to race and/or ethnicity, income, disability, and other
factors
Behavioral
Information barriers relating to available bill assistance and energy efficiency programs
and relating to knowledge of energy conservation measures
Lack of trust and/or uncertainty about investments and/or savings
Lack of cultural competence in outreach and education programs
Increased energy use due to occupant age, number of people in the household, health-
related needs, or disability
Policy-related
Insufficient or inaccessible policies and programs for bill assistance, energy efficiency,
and weatherization for low-income households
Utility rate design practices, such as high customer fixed charges, that limit customers’
ability to respond to high bills through energy efficiency or conservation
Source:
Drehobl, Ross, and Ayala 2020.
High energy burdens reduce a household’s disposable income and increase its likelihood of
staying trapped in the cycles of poverty (Bohr and McCreery 2019). In particular, Black
households are more likely to experience this pernicious cycle, which includes persistent
income inequality along with limited safety nets (i.e., savings, bill assistance, and social
capital) and thus limited ability to invest in homes or education, and high energy burdens
(Lewis, Hernández, and Geronimus 2019). Households that experience high monthly utility
bills are likely to engage in coping strategies such as using potentially dangerous secondary
heating equipment (e.g., stove, ovens, or space heaters) to compensate for failing heating
systems (Hernández, Phillips, and Siegel 2016). These coping measures can compromise
safety by creating fire hazards and/or increasing exposure to toxic gasses such as carbon
monoxide.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
10
Similar research on water burdens has recently emerged. The Environmental Protection
Agency measures affordable water bills as below 4.5% of income: 2.5% for water and 2% for
wastewater services (Kane 2018). Understanding that the percentage of income devoted to
an expenditure is “more important” to a household as income decreases, Colton (2020)
developed a range of affordable water burdens based on the ratio of income to Federal
Poverty Level (FPL). For those between 0%-200% FPL, the affordable water burden range is
3-4.5%. The base level of affordability was set at 4%. Colton applied this analysis to 12 cities
and found that all were in the midst of a water affordability crisis. Water and sewage prices
had grown by an average of 80% between 2010 and 2018, and in some cities 40% of residents
lived in neighborhoods with unaffordable bills. The research also found that the water
affordability crisis is likely to get much worse, with bills in many cities becoming
unaffordable (>4%) for the majority of low-income households over the next decade.
NATIONAL UTILITY AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
Household energy is central to maintaining an individual’s well-being, yet even before the
pandemic, one in three U.S. households experienced some difficulty affording their energy
bills (EIA 2018). In 2017, nearly 25% of U.S. households experienced high energy burdens
(>6%), and 13% faced a severe energy burden (>10%); similarly, 67% of low-income
households nationally faced a high energy burden, and 60% of those households faced a
severe energy burden (Drehobl, Ross, Ayala 2020).
Currently, the need for assistance outpaces the national resources available to support
highly burdened households. Many of the funds and services available through the
Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Weatherization Assistance
Program (WAP) reach a small fraction of households that are income qualified. In 2018,
about 30 million households qualified for LIHEAP benefits and only about 20% (6 million)
of those households received them (NEADA 2018). Through DOE and other leveraged
funding sources (such as HHS and state and city funds), WAP typically serves about 100,000
homes per year (NASCSP 2020). Based on this rate, it would take 360 years to weatherize all
eligible households in the U.S. (Drehobl, Ross, Ayala 2020; NASCSP 2020). The public health
crisis and recession are continuing to increase the need for bill assistance and
weatherization.
Several states, including the District of Columbia, California, Colorado, New York, and
Minnesota, have solar policies that expand and encourage low-income participation in solar
photovoltaics (PV). But despite efforts to increase participation from low-income
communities at the state level, many low-income households continue to face barriers to
accessing the benefits of solar energy. A recent study found that on average, Black-,
Hispanic-, and Asian-majority census tracts had significantly less rooftop PV installation
compared to white-majority census tracts (Sunter, Castellanos, and Kammen 2019). Even
after accounting for home ownership and income, the study found that significant racial
disparity remains (Sunter, Castellanos, and Kammen 2019).
Water affordability is a growing issue nationally as aging infrastructure, fluctuating
population growth, regulatory compliance, and the impact of climate change are leading
some water utilities to increase their rates to cover their increased costs (Bipartisan Policy
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
11
Center 2017). Many low-income renters may not see the direct impact of rising water costs
on their own finances because the cost of water is incorporated in their rent. In these cases,
rising water costs often contribute to increases in rent, higher housing cost burdens, and
housing instability (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2020).
In March 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced the Low-
Income Home Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP) as part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2021 (NEADA 2021). LIHWAP will provide federal funding for water
assistance, similar to LIHEAP. The program will provide grants to assist low-income
households who spend “a high proportion of household income for drinking water and
wastewater services,” by providing funds to owners or operators of public water and
wastewater facilitates to reduce arrearages (HHS 2021). This will be the first large scale
federal program to offer water assistance, which has historically left support for water
affordability to water utilities, local governments, and nonprofits. LIHWAP will provide
much needed support.
Many income-eligible families are often unaware of water assistance programs, unfamiliar
with the application process, and/or have feelings of mistrust or stigma associated with
receiving financial assistance. Additionally, some low-income households face barriers to
program participation, such as lacking internet or phone access to complete the application
or not directly receiving a water bill due to living in a master-metered building or being a
renter (EPA 2016). While many water assistance programs assist homeowners and do not
provide support for renters, DC Water recently launched a new program to support
multifamily building tenants (see next section for more details).
In addition to water bill assistance, leak reduction programs can help lead to long-term
water affordability (Wong et al. 2014). Often, high bills are the result of a household leak,
and programs that can identify and address these leaks can mitigate subsequent high bills.
Some water utilities offer programs to alert customers of high bills. For example, DC Water
has a High Usage Notification Alert (HUNA) system, which can let customers know if they
have high use and a potential water leak. Some water utilities pair leak repairs with water
efficiency programs and water bill discounts, helping to optimize the effectiveness of water
affordability benefits. Leak programs come in a few forms, such as deploying home kits that
include leak detection devices, offering a comprehensive leak detection routine program, or
providing financial assistance for in-home leak repairs (Wong et al. 2014).
DISTRICT UTILITY AFFORDABILITY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
In 2012, the District announced its Sustainable DC Plan, with ambitious citywide climate
and energy goals. Since then, the District’s clean energy policies and programs have
expanded and changed. The District published the initial draft of the Clean Energy DC Plan
in November 2016 and the final plan in August 2018. The recent adoption of the Clean
Energy Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018 introduces ambitious new policies and initiatives
focused on the District’s energy supply, energy use, and greenhouse gas emission from
vehicles. As a result, the District has implemented and expanded the number of programs
that aim to create new jobs and reduce household energy use and costs, all while
prioritizing community development investments (District of Columbia DOEE 2020). The
District is committed to embedding equity and affordability considerations into climate and
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
12
energy actions, policies, and priorities, and hopes to achieve this by engaging and
supporting residents who have been traditionally excluded from the energy planning
process (District of Columbia DOEE 2018).
Energy and Water Affordability Programs in the District
DOEE, DC Water, the District of Columbia Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU), energy
utilities, and nonprofits offer programs that aim to help District residents reduce their
energy and water bills. Table 4 summarizes these various programs that address energy and
water affordability by providing residents with utility bill discounts, home upgrades,
repairs and weatherization, and renewable energy options. See Appendix A for more
detailed descriptions of utility affordability programs serving District residents.
Table 4. Energy and water assistance programs offered by DOEE, DC Water, DCSEU, and local nonprofits
Program
Program implementer
Income
qualification
limit
Utility discounts
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
DOEE
60% SMI
Utility Discount Program (UDP)
DOEE
60% SMI
Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge (CRIAC)
Residential Relief Program
DOEE & DC Water
100% AMI
Multifamily Assistance Program (MAP)
DC Water
60% SMI
Residential Aid Discount Program (RAD)
PEPCO
60% AMI
Residential Essential Service (RES)
Washington Gas
60% AMI
Washington Gas Budget Plan
Washington Gas
No limit
Washington Area Fuel Fund (WAFF)
Salvation Army
60% SMI
Serving People by Lending a Supporting Hand (SPLASH)
Greater Washington
Urban League (GWUL)
60% SMI
PEPCO Energy Assistance
GWUL
60% SMI
Energy savings
Solar for All (SFA)
DOEE
80% AMI
DCSEU rebates
DCSEU
No limit
Home upgrades, repairs, and weatherization
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)
DOEE
60% SMI
Emergency HVAC
DOEE
60% AMI
Senior StayCool
Department of Aging
and Community Living
(DACL)
60% AMI
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Program (LHC)
DOEE
80% AMI
Lead Pipe Replacement Assistance Program (LPRAP)
DOEE & DC Water
No limit
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
13
DOEE offers direct bill relief to income-qualified residents. Funding for this assistance
comes from three sources, including LIHEAP, the Energy Assistance Trust Fund (EATF),
and District local funds. DOEE also automatically qualifies income-qualified LIHEAP
households for three utility discount programs to lower monthly bills for customers:
PEPCO’s Residential Aid Discount Program (RAD), Washington Gas’s Residential Essential
Service (RES), and DC Water Customer Assistance Program (CAP). For higher income
thresholds, DOEE also approves households for CAP2 and CAP3, part of the CRIAC
Residential Relief Program, and the Solar for All program. Additional funds administered
by area nonprofits can also provide supplemental support, though program funding for
DOEE and utility programs may be more consistent due to regulatory and legislative
requirements.
DOEE’s Affordability and Efficiency Division also offers weatherization, emergency HVAC,
and lead pipe replacement programs. The WAP program is implemented by two
community-based organizations. During the pandemic, DOEE partnered with the District’s
Department of Aging and Community Living (DACL) to offer a senior cooling program.
Income qualification across all the programs varies due to funding source. Programs with
federal funding have stricter requirements, which can make it challenging to cross enroll
households while also meeting these federal reporting and documentation requirements.
In February 2021, DC Water launched a new Multifamily Assistance Program (MAP), which
aims to support tenants who pay for their water bills through their rent. The MAP program
provides benefits to building owners or HOAs of multifamily affordable housing properties
(i.e., four or more units). Building owners can apply for the program, and DC Water will
provide a credit to the property’s water service account. The HOA or owner is then required
to post 90% of the credit to the qualifying occupant’s rental or HOA account in order to
provide the benefits back to income-qualified tenants (DC Water 2021b).
The city is working to embed and ensure equity in all energy actions and programs. DOEE
has begun several innovative efforts to build capacity with local groups. For example, in
2020, DOEE hired a new staff member who will be dedicated to engaging with the
community on energy issues and to ensuring that equity is at the forefront of energy
planning and programs (meeting with DOEE staff, February 2, 2021). In addition, DOEE
was awarded an equity grant from the Urban Sustainability Directors Network in
partnership with the Consumer Health Foundation to develop a racial equity assessment
tool (District of Columbia DOEE 2020). DOEE will use the tool in the form of processes to
assess policies, plans, and programs through a racial equity lens.
DOEE Utility Affordability Program Outcomes and COVID Impacts
The pandemic has affected utility assistance and affordability program enrollments. The
stay-at-home order closed down in-person enrollment centers and in-person outreach
events. Across energy assistance programs, including LIHEAP, RAD, and RES, enrollment
was down in FY20 compared to FY19. While WAP funds were spent in FY20, LIHEAP
enrollment was down by about 25% (meeting with DOEE staff, February 2, 2021). DOEE
also worked to leverage additional programs alongside WAP, such as the Senior StayCool
program and efforts to integrate lead removal. WAP pivoted to spending additional funding
on health safety and PPE, while continuing to perform the same audit and evaluation
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
14
process. In addition, although enrollment is down for these assistance programs, more
households are income eligible due to job losses and income changes. Table 5 includes total
program participants in FY2019 and FY2020 across all five utility assistance programs and
two energy utility assistance programs.
Table 5. Total program participants in FY2019 and FY2020
Program
FY2019
FY2020
LIHEAP
20,236
15,779
RAD
18,938
14,690
RES
9,019
7,017
WAP*
360
297
CRIAC (CAP, 2, and 3)
3,599
4,651
SFA
815
3,103
Data provided by DOEE through email. * Number of households receiving
energy efficiency services (e.g., WAP, Senior StayCool, emergency HVAC
repairs).
In contrast, both CRIAC and SFA enrollments have continued to increase, with FY21
enrollment on track to be at least twice as high as FY20. Both CRIAC and SFA are newer
programs and are continuing to ramp up enrollment and capacity each year. For FY21 (as of
January 2021), SFA has enrolled an additional 1,709 program participants, putting
enrollment on track to at least double if not triple compared to FY20 (data from DOEE
meeting on February 2, 2021). But even as interest in the SFA program remains steady, it is
now more difficult to interface with potential subscribers due to COVID, which makes it
more difficult for residents to sign up. DOEE currently relies on mailers for new SFA
subscriptions, whereas before the pandemic, DOEE staff enrolled about 30–40% of sign-ups
through energy enrollment centers (Mackenzie Mathews, in email to Ariel Drehobl, January
25, 2021).
Table 6 shows a summary of CRIAC participants across the three Customer Assistance
Program (CAP) levels and the new emergency assistance program in FY19 and FY20. The
Emergency Residential Relief Program (ERRP) benefit was established through the COVID-
19 Response Supplemental Emergency Amendment Act of 2020 in response to increased
average customer arrears in FY21.
7
CRIAC CAP 3 is now serving substantially more people
than before the pandemic: as of January 2021, CRIAC has assisted almost as many residents
in FY21 as in the entirety of FY2020. CRIAC wait times have not increased due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, and DOEE continues to respond to new applications within 1–2
business days (with up to 10 business days for very busy times).
7
COVID-19 Response Supplemental Emergency Amendment Act of 2020. 2020. D.C. Act 23-286.
code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/acts/23-286.html.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
15
Table 6. Number of DOEE customer approvals for CRIAC (CAP, 2, and 3) and Emergency
Water Assistance Programs in FY19, FY20, and FY21 (as of January)
Year
CAP 1
CAP 2
CAP 3
EERP
FY19
3,294
256
49
N/A
FY20
3,991
519
141
2,200
FY21 (as of Jan)
2,141
359
124
1,155
Data provided by email from DOEE on January 25, 2021.
Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated energy, water, and housing insecurity for
the District’s low- and moderate-income communities. Black and Hispanic District residents
are especially affected by the pandemic: they have the highest unemployment rates, highest
food and housing insecurity, and are more likely to experience homelessness or
displacement. Energy and water affordability programs geared to the most overburdened
households can support a fair and just recovery in the District by supporting residents who
face systemic inequities before and during the pandemic (Bohr and McCreery 2019).
Policymakers and program administrators have the opportunity to reevaluate and enhance
the process by which energy and water savings measures and bill assistance are distributed
to ensure that they support the most overburdened communities in a fair and equitable
manner (Reames, Reiner, and Stacy 2018).
Energy and Water Burden Analysis
Despite the number of utility affordability programs offered, many District residents
experience disproportionately high energy and water burdens. This utility burden analysis
provides an overview of how energy and water burdens differ for many households in the
DC metropolitan statistical area (MSA).
8
DOEE can use this information to better
understand which groups who do not currently receive utility assistance experience
disproportionately high utility burdens in order to better target utility affordability
resources towards these communities and households.
METHODOLOGY
This analysis follows the methodology used in ACEEE’s three energy burden reports
(Drehobl, Ross, and Ayala 2020; Ross, Drehobl and Stickles 2017; Drehobl and Ross 2016).
The study analyzes the American Housing Survey (AHS) 2019 data (released in October
2020), issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the
national population and for the Washington, DC metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The
AHS includes household-level income data and energy and water cost data that we use as
the basis of our energy, water, and combined burden calculations.
8
The DC metro area includes Washington, DC, Arlington, and Alexandria. For more information, see:
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/tech-documentation/help-guides/2015-
later/metro_oversamp_hist_2015.html.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
16
See Appendix B for the full description of the utility burden methodology and Appendix C for full
utility burden data tables.
For the utility burden analyses, we calculated energy burdens using the total annual cost of
electricity, natural gas, and other heating fuels and total annual household income. We
define households with high energy burdens as those spending more than 6% of their
income on electricity and heating fuel costs, and households with severe energy burdens as
those spending more than 10%.
9
These two categories are not mutually exclusive, as
households with severe energy burdens are a subset of those who have high energy
burdens. We calculated median water burdens for households in the DC metro area, and
then high water burdens as households spending more than 4% of their income on water
bills. For households with both water and energy data available, we calculated a combined
energy and water burden, and we calculated high combined burdens as those above 10% of
household income.
We analyzed energy, water, and combined burdens across a variety of factors including race
and ethnicity, age, education and ability, building tenure and age, and building type and
heating fuel. Figure 2 includes the demographic and housing-related groups included in the
analyses. We chose income thresholds to match those of DOEE’s utility affordability
program. For each analysis, we filtered out households who do not directly pay for their
energy and/or water bills and report a positive income. We also calculated energy, water,
and combined burdens for the 2019 AHS national sample to compare to the DC metro area
burden findings.
The dataset does not let us separate households who receive utility assistance and those
who do not. Therefore, these utility burden findings are representative of the DC metro area
as a whole, and likely include some households who receive assistance along with mostly
households who do not receive assistance. We recommend viewing these findings as
guidance on which households may be most in need of assistance for targeting and outreach
purposes. See Appendix B for additional limitations of this study.
9
HUD determines affordable housing costs to be 30% of total household income. Researchers have determined
that, typically, 20% of total housing expenses are energy costs. This equates to 6% of total income spent on
energy bills as an affordable level (Fisher, Sheehan & Colton 2020). We consider energy burdens above 6% to be
high burdens, with burdens above 10% to be severe. This method is in line with other research (APPRISE 2005).
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
17
Figure 2. Demographic and housing factors analyzed across the energy, water, and combined utility burden analyses, including
race/ethnicity, age, education, ability, building tenure and age, and building type and heating fuel.
Source:
data from 2019 American
Housing Survey.
ENERGY BURDENS FINDINGS
We analyzed the DC metro area energy burdens across demographic and building
categories and found that the groups with disproportionately high burdens reflect
households with physical and socioeconomic factors that exacerbate their energy burden,
such as having low incomes, living in older buildings, and facing longstanding systemic
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
18
inequities.
10
We also analyzed what percentage of each group experience a high and severe
energy burden. These energy burdens reflect the landscape of households in the DC metro
aera, most of whom do not receive energy assistance. Figure 3 includes the median energy
burdens across demographic and housing type groups.
Figure 3. Energy burdens (i.e., electricity and heating fuel costs as a percentage of total income) across subgroups of houses in the
DC metro area, including income, education level, ability, age, race and ethnicity, housing type, year built, tenure status, and
heating fuels.
Source:
data from 2019 American Housing Survey.
10
Note that for the energy burden analysis, we analyze the DC metro area population of the AHS dataset who
directly pay for their electricity and main heating fuel (i.e., electricity, natural gas, or other) and report positive
income. Households who do not directly pay for their energy are excluded from this analysis.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
19
Main DC metro area energy burden findings include
11
• Across all households in the DC metro area, 64% of low-
income households face a high energy burden (above 6%),
and 40% of low-income households face a severe energy
burden (above 10%).
• One-fourth (25%) of low-income households experience
an energy burden of at least 15%, which is 7.5 times the
median for the DC metro area.
• Groups with above-median energy burdens in the DC
metro area include low-income households, households
who receive food stamps, non-high school graduates,
households with a family member with a disability, adults
over 65, Black households, Hispanic households, and
renters.
• Households with electric heat and natural gas heat did not
experience major differences in energy burdens (2.1% for
electric, 1.9% for natural gas).
12
The graphics to the right illustrate the greatest disparities
between groups in the energy burden analysis. For example, the
median low-income household experiences an energy burden 4.5
times higher than the median non-low-income household.
Energy Bills:
Of households who directly pay for their energy bills (excluding those
who pay for energy in rent), the median household in the DC metro
area spends $2,160 annually on electric and heating bills. While the
median low-income household spends less ($1,716 on annual electric
and heating bills), low-income families typically live in less efficient
buildings. So even though they are spending less overall, they are
often spending more per square foot as well as a greater portion of
income on these bills.
Energy Burdens by Income Threshold
We analyzed energy burdens by income thresholds that align
with DOEE’s utility affordability program qualification levels.
Among these groups, households at or below 200% FPL
11
These findings are based on data found in Appendix C.
12
This finding differs from findings in the 2020 APPRISE LIHEAP Energy burden
analysis (APPRISE 2020). We recommend further research into the impact of
heating fuel type on energy burdens in the District.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
20
experienced the highest energy burdens. The median household at or below 200% FPL had
an energy burden 2.6 times higher than the median household at 100% AMI. Some of the
most vulnerable groups across all low-income levels include homeowners, older adults,
single-family households, Black households, and households with a member with a
disability. Table 7 shows the median energy burden and the percentage of those with high
and severe energy burdens across other income thresholds.
Key takeaways related to income include
13
• Even as households with the lowest incomes (i.e., 200% FPL) have the highest energy
burdens, those with low to moderate incomes (i.e., 100% AMI) also have
disproportionately high energy burdens.
• Energy burdens for low-income groups were higher than for comparable non-low-
income groups. Households with income at or below
o 200% FPL had burdens 5.7 times higher
o 60% SMI had burdens 4.5 times higher
o 80% AMI had burdens 3 times higher
o 100% AMI had burdens almost 3 times higher
14
• One-fourth of households with incomes less than
o 200% FPL had an energy burden above 17%
o 60% SMI had an energy burden above 15%
o 80% AMI had an energy burden above 7.7%
o 100% AMI had an energy burden above 6.6%
These burdens are 8.5 to 3.3 times higher than the metro area median of 2%.
• Almost three-quarters of the lowest income households (200% FPL) and almost one-
third of low- to moderate-income households (100% AMI) experienced a high energy
burden.
13
These findings are based on data found in Appendix C.
14
These findings are comparisons of each low-income group to its corresponding non-low-income group. For
example, ≤200% FPL households are compared to >200% FPL.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
21
Table 7. Median energy burden and percent of households with high (>6%) and severe (>10%) energy burdens across low-
income and non-low-income groups.
Income
thresholds
Program(s)
Number of
households in
DC metro area
Percent of
households in
DC metro area
Median
energy
burden
% high
burden
(>6%)
% severe
burden
(>10%)
≤200% FPL
N/A
273,055
14%
9.8%
73%
48%
≤60% SMI
LIHEAP,
UDP, WAP
331,821
18%
7.7%
64%
40%
≤80% AMI
SFA
668,468
35%
4.5%
36%
20%
≤100% AMI
CRIAC
842,284
45%
3.8%
29%
16%
>200% FPL (non-
low-income)
N/A
1,611,601
86%
1.7%
3%
0%
>60% SMI
N/A
1,552,834
82%
1.7%
2%
0%
>80% AMI
N/A
1,216,188
65%
1.5%
0%
0%
>100% AMI
N/A
1042,372
55%
1.4%
0%
0%
All households
N/A
1,884,656
100%
2.0%
13%
7%
National Energy Burden Comparison
We found similar patterns of disproportionately high energy burdens across all categories
when comparing national energy burdens to DC metro area energy burdens. Table 8 shows
median energy burdens and the percentage of households with a high energy burden across
groups in the DC metro area and nationally. Energy burdens were relatively lower across
almost all groups in the DC metro area compared to the national sample, though the data
did show that the same groups (i.e., Black, Hispanic, older adults, renters) experience
disproportionately high burdens.
The one category in which the median energy burden was higher and more households
experienced a high burden in the DC metro area was for low-income households (≤200%
FPL). The DC metro area median low-income energy burden was 24% higher compared to
the national median low-income burden, and there was also a larger gap between low-
income and non-low-income energy burdens in the DC metro area. This suggests that the
low-income households who do not receive utility assistance experience more acute energy
burdens in the District as compared to the nation, and suggests that income inequality,
inefficient housing stock, and access to energy and water support programs may contribute
to the disproportionately high low-income energy burdens. With many District residents
experiencing massive job losses, reduced incomes, and potentially higher energy bills
resulting from the public health pandemic, the low-income energy burden comparison is
likely even more stark.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
22
Table 8. Median energy burden and percent of households with high (>6%) energy burdens across different categories and
subgroups in the DC metro area and nationally
Category
Subgroup
DC metro
energy
burden
median
% high
burden DC
metro
(>6%)
National
energy
burden
median
% high
burden
nationally
(>6%)
All households
2%
13%
2.7%
18%
Income
Low-income (≤200% FPL)
9.8%
73%
7.9%
67%
Non-low-income (>200% FPL)
1.7%
3%
2.1%
7%
Race/
ethnicity
Black
2.6%
21%
3.8%
31%
Hispanic
2.5%
13%
2.8%
19%
Asian
1.7%
7%
2.1%
12%
Other (Native American and
mixed race)
1.9%
17%
2.5%
18%
White (non-Hispanic)
1.8%
10%
2.5%
16%
Age
Older adults (over 65)
2.7%
22%
3.5%
29%
Younger adults (under 65)
1.8%
10%
2.5%
14%
Tenure
Renters
2.1%
16%
3%
23%
Owners
1.9%
12%
2.5%
16%
Building age
Built before 1980
2.3%
16%
3%
22%
Built after 1980
1.8%
11%
2.2%
14%
Building type
Single-family
2.1%
13%
2.6%
17%
Multifamily
1.7%
12%
2.5%
17%
WATER BURDEN FINDINGS
The water burden analysis showed similar trends to the energy burden analysis.
15
Energy
burdens on average were about three times higher than water burdens across categories.
Even so, we found that many groups experienced disproportionately higher water burdens
than others, and that water costs can prove significant for many households. For example,
both low- and moderate-income households, most of whom likely do not receive utility
assistance, experience disproportionately high water burdens compared to the average
household. This indicates that these households may be in need of water efficiency and bill
payment support. Figure 4 includes the median water burdens across demographic and
housing type groups.
15
Note that for the water burden analysis, we analyze the DC metro area population of the AHS dataset who
directly pay for their water bill and report positive income. This filters the data set differently than for the energy
burden analysis. Both analyses do not include households who do not directly pay for their energy and/or water
bills.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
23
Figure 4. Water burdens (i.e., water costs as a percentage of total income) across subgroups of households in the DC metro area,
including income, education level, ability, age, race and ethnicity, housing type, year built, tenure status, and heating fuels.
Source:
data
from 2019 American Housing Survey.
Main DC metro area water burden findings include
16
• Low-income households have a median water burden that is 4.5 times higher than
the metro area median; similarly, low- to moderate-income households (≤100% AMI)
have a median water burden that is about 2 times higher.
• One-fourth of low-income households experienced a water burden of at least 7.4%,
which is more than 12 times the metro median water burden.
• 38% of low-income households and 10% of older adult households experience a high
water burden above 4%.
16
These findings are based on data found in Appendix C.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
24
• Groups with above-median water burdens
include low-income households, non-high
school graduates, households who receive
food stamps, high school graduates without
higher/additional education, Hispanic
households, Black households, older adults,
households with a member with a
disability, renters, and households in older
buildings.
The graphic below illustrates the greatest disparities between groups in the water burden
analysis.
National Water Burden Comparison
For water burdens, the disparities among groups in the DC metro area reflect the disparities
found nationally. As with energy burdens, water burdens were also lower compared to
national levels, though the DC metro area had a similar percentage of low-income
households (≤200% FPL) with high water burdens compared to national levels (i.e., 45%).
Table 9 includes median water burdens and the percentage of households with a high water
burden (>4%) in the DC metro area and nationally.
Water Bills:
Of those that directly pay for their water bills, the
median household in the DC metro area spends
$1,980 annually on water bills. While the median
low-income household spends less ($720) on
annual water bills, low-income families are
spending a greater portion of their income on this
cost.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
25
Table 9. Median water burden and percent of households with high (>6%) energy burdens across different categories and
subgroups in the DC metro area and nationally
Category
Subgroup
DC metro
water
burden
median
% high
burden DC
metro
(>4%)
National
water
burden
median
% high
burden
nationally
(>4%)
All households
0.6%
6%
0.9%
9%
Income
Low-income (≤200% FPL)
3%
45%
3.4%
44%
Non-low-income (>200% FPL)
0.5%
1%
0.8%
2%
Race/
ethnicity
Black
0.7%
8%
1.4%
18%
Hispanic
0.8%
8%
1.1%
11%
Asian
0.6%
4%
0.8%
9%
Other (Native American and
mixed race)
0.5%
6%
1.2%
7%
White (non-Hispanic)
0.5%
4%
0.9%
8%
Age
Older adults (over 65)
0.7%
10%
1.4%
15%
Younger adults (under 65)
0.5%
4%
0.8%
7%
Tenure
Renters
0.7%
6%
1.1%
13%
Owners
0.5%
5%
0.9%
8%
Building age
Built before 1980
0.6%
8%
1.1%
11%
Built after 1980
0.5%
4%
0.8%
6%
Building type
Single-family
0.6%
6%
0.9%
9%
Multifamily
0.5%
6%
0.9%
10%
COMBINED UTILITY BURDEN FINDINGS
Combined energy and water utility burdens illustrate a more comprehensive picture of
household utility costs.
17
This analysis finds that similar groups are highly burdened by
these bills. Figure 5 shows the median combined energy and water burdens across
demographic and housing type groups.
17
Note that for the combined burden analysis, we analyze the DC metro area population of the AHS dataset who
directly pay for their electricity, main heating fuel, and water costs, as well as report positive income. This means
the subset of the population included in this analysis differs from that of the energy and water burden analyses.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
26
Figure 5. Combined energy and water burdens (i.e., electricity, heating fuel, and water costs as a percentage of total income) across
subgroups of households in the DC metro area, including income, education level, ability, age, race and ethnicity, housing type, year
built, tenure status, and heating fuels.
Source:
data from 2019 American Housing Survey.
Main combined energy and water burden findings include
18
• Taken together, the median combined energy and water burden accounts for up to
11.2% of income for low-income households, which is 4.3 times higher than the
combined burden for the median household.
• One-fourth of low-income households experienced a combined energy and water
burden of at least 23%, which is almost 9 times the metro median combined burden.
This means that one-quarter of low-income households are spending almost one-
quarter of their income on their energy and water utility bills.
18
These findings are based on data found in Appendix C.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
27
• 58% of low-income households experienced a high combined utility burden, as did
26% of households without a high school degree, 16% of households with a member
with a disability, 14% of older adult
households, and 13% of Black households.
• Groups with above-median combined energy
and water burdens include low-income
households, non-high school graduates,
households with a member with a disability,
Hispanic households, older adult households,
Black households, renters, households in pre-
1980 buildings, and households with electric
heat.
The graphic below illustrates the greatest disparities between groups in the combined
energy and water burden analysis.
National Combined Utility Burden Comparison
The combined utility burdens in the DC metro area mirrored the national energy burdens,
as all categories showed similarly disproportionate burdens, with only low-income (≤200%
FPL) households having higher combined burdens than the national median. Low-income
utility burdens were slightly higher at 14.4% as compared to 12% nationally, with 66% of
low-income DC households experiencing a high combined burden of greater than 10%
compared to 62% nationally. Table 10 shows median combined utility burdens and the
Combined Energy and Water Bills:
The median household in the DC metro area that
directly pays for both energy and water bills
(excluding those who have these bills included in
rent) spends $3,240 annually on these bills. The
median low-income household that directly pays for
energy and water bills similarly spends $3,000
annually.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
28
percentage of households with a high combined burden (>10%) in the DC metro area and
nationally.
Table 10. Median combined energy and water burden, and percent of households with high (>10%) energy burdens, across
different categories and subgroups in the DC metro area and nationally
Category
Subgroup
DC metro
combined
burden
median
% high
burden DC
metro
(>10%)
National
combined
burden
median
% high
burden
nationally
(>10%)
All households
2.6%
8%
3.5%
12%
Income
Low-income (≤200% FPL)
14.4%
66%
12%
62%
Non-low-income (>200% FPL)
2.4%
1%
3%
2%
Race/
ethnicity
Black
3.2%
13%
5.2%
23%
Hispanic
3.5%
8%
3.7%
11%
Asian
2.4%
7%
2.9%
9%
Other (Native American and
mixed race)
2.7%
9%
3.8%
9%
White (non-Hispanic)
2.3%
5%
3.4%
11%
Age
Older adults (over 65)
3.5%
14%
4.8%
21%
Younger adults (under 65)
2.5%
6%
3.1%
9%
Tenure
Renters
3.1%
9%
4.1%
16%
Owners
2.6%
7%
3.4%
11%
Building age
Built before 1980
3.1%
11%
4%
15%
Built after 1980
2.4%
5%
3%
8%
Building type
Single-family
2.8%
8%
3.5%
12%
Multifamily
2%
7%
3.3%
10%
Utility Affordability Interview Findings
Under the leadership of Dr. Diana Hernández, the research team conducted interviews of
DOEE utility assistance program staff and program participants to better understand
program components and the experience of energy and water assistance program users. We
developed semi-structured interview guides for each stakeholder group, which were then
reviewed and approved by DOEE as well as the Institutional Review Board at Columbia
University. Due to COVID-19 limitations, all data were collected remotely. The interviews
with program staff and administrators were conducted via Zoom, whereas participant
interviews were administered via Vonage for Business, an app-based phone system that
allowed the team to contact participants with a DC-based phone number and record
interviews in real time.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
29
INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY
Dr. Hernández spearheaded the development of the interview guides to reflect priorities
established by DOEE. The interview team conducted interviews with 10 DOEE program
staff to provide feedback about the roles of the participants, descriptions, and assessments
of the programs they worked for or oversaw, their views of client experiences, and the
impact of COVID on program delivery.
After completing the interviews with program staff, the project team recruited and
conducted interviews with 30 recipients of DOEE utility affordability services between
October and December 2020. We recruited participants across all five programs, including
interviewing those who had received multiple services. Based on participant data provided
by DOEE, we randomly selected participants in each program, and focused on recruiting
individuals who participated in multiple programs. Participants were invited to participate
in the study either through email or postcards mailed to participants’ homes. The
overwhelming majority of participants were recruited via email, whereas only 3 of 30
participants were successfully recruited by responding to the postcards. Respondents were
provided a $100 gift card to Visa as an incentive.
See Appendix D for the full interview methodology details, including more details on our recruitment
strategy and the interview and coding process. See Appendix E for the full interview guides for both
participant and DOEE staff interviews. Appendix F includes additional information on interview
participants.
Table 11 includes a demographic summary of program participants.
Table 11. Number of interview participants across demographic and other categories (total of 30)
Participants (not mutually exclusive)
Category
Subcategory
LIHEAP/UDP
WAP
SFA
CRIAC
Total
(of 30)
Total participants*
N/A
24
8
17
15
30
Recruitment type
Email
21
6
15
15
27
Postcard
3
2
2
0
3
District Ward
Wards 1–6
15
4
10
7
16
Wards 7–8
9
4
6
7
14
Age
29 and under
2
0
1
2
4
30–39
8
0
3
4
8
40–49
4
2
4
4
6
50–59
5
2
4
3
6
60–69
2
1
2
1
2
70–79
1
1
2
1
2
80 and above
1
1
0
0
1
Race/ethnicity
Black/African
American**
15
7
12
10
19
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
30
Participants (not mutually exclusive)
Category
Subcategory
LIHEAP/UDP
WAP
SFA
CRIAC
Total
(of 30)
Hispanic
1
0
2
1
2
White
1
0
0
2
2
Asian
1
0
1
0
1
Tenure status
Owner
9
5
8
8
14
Renter
9
3
8
7
15
Other
1
0
1
0
1
Building type
Single-family
17
8
12
15
23
Multifamily
7
0
5
0
7
* 25 of 30 participants indicated that they participated in more than one of the five programs (i.e., more than
one program or more than LIHEAP/UDP), so that the number participating in each program is not mutually
exclusive from other programs. Thus, the total participants for each category will not equal the sum across the
programs.
** This includes households who identified as either Black, African American, or both.
Each interview lasted between 30–90 minutes, with most running close to one hour. The
interview team used a semi-structured interview guide that included questions about
participants’ home and family, their participation in the DOEE programs (repeating
pertinent questions if enrolled in multiple programs), household bills and financial
management strategies, energy efficiency and indoor temperature conditions, household
income and expenses, COVID-19 impact, and program recommendations. All interviews
were recorded, transcribed, and coded using an open coding methodology to develop a
codebook, which identified five key domains, including reasons for energy insecurity,
coping strategies used to manage financial hardship and thermal discomfort, experiences
with various aspects of DOEE program participation including barriers and facilitators to
accessing energy assistance, and perceptions of the impact of program participation. The
program staff codebook included domains of personal roles and responsibilities, program
descriptions, program assessments, client experiences, and COVID-19 impacts.
Following the codebook development and open coding process, Dr. Hernández identified
and assessed data patterns and potential causal relationships, contextual factors, and
impacting conditions. The key findings reflect this more interpretive analytical approach,
which highlights overarching themes across all participant transcripts, focusing on facets of
the programs that are serving participants well along with potential areas of improvement.
These insights have also been incorporated into the policy recommendations.
FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS
Interviews with DOEE program participants offered insights into the nature of energy
insecurity and common coping responses as well as details about the experience and impact
of receiving utility assistance benefits. Interviews with program staff and administrators
provided an overview of DOEE’s organizational priorities, recent changes and operational
adaptations spurred by COVID-19 lockdowns, and recommendations for strengthening
support for participants. Findings for each group are presented separately, though
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
31
recommendations in the following section reflect a synthesis of responses across both
groups.
Participant Perspectives on Energy Insecurity, Coping, and the Impact of Affordability Programs
For participant interviews, we set out to answer the following questions:
1) What factors contribute to participants needing energy assistance?
2) What is the DOEE customer experience like?
3) What benefits/impacts are derived from receiving energy assistance?
We summarize the answers to these questions below through firsthand participant
accounts.
Managing utility bills. Utility bills were a clear priority for most participants. Many
described energy and water bills as priority household expenses, along with housing and
food costs. Interviewees expressed that paying bills in full and on time was responsible and
respectable. Participants felt accomplished when the bills were financially manageable (i.e.,
reasonably priced and affordable relative to income), and when they were able to keep up
with their payments, thereby maintaining respectability and a sense of control. Despite their
best efforts, however, many respondents encountered recent and/or persistent challenges
paying for these essential services.
Nature of energy insecurity. Consistent with previous literature, participants reported that
experiencing energy insecurity was rooted in a number of factors including events or
situations that precipitated economic instability, such as the loss of employment or wages
(especially due to COVID-19); changes in household composition, such as relationship
dissolution or absorbing additional family members; unexpected expenses that
compromised the household budget; and a disability or health issue that was costly or
contributed to changes in work. Other factors included persistently low wages, fixed
incomes, or difficulty accessing entitlement benefits. In addition, respondents cited poor
housing quality, with dated energy infrastructure and other inefficiencies in their homes.
One participant described their experience with their energy bills as follows:
I guess me worrying about if I will be able to pay my electric bill even though my bill is lower
now. I guess me thinking about because of what's going on and how my hours have been
changing. And how I've been maybe working three days a week. I'm truly worried, like, can I
pay the bill? I don't want a shut off. I have a young child. I don't want to be in our home and
we come home one day and the power's out. I was just thinking about her.
Coping with energy insecurity. Participants coped with energy insecurity through several
strategies, which included reducing energy use. Strategies to reduce energy use included
opening windows or opting for a fan rather than running the air conditioner on hot days or
setting the thermostat at a lower temperature than desired and using extra layers of clothing
or space heaters to help manage the cost of heating. Some relied on a complex balancing act
with bills, prioritizing and juggling household expenses, making payment arrangements
with utility companies, and seeking financial assistance from family and friends to keep
afloat. Many also described seeking program support through DOEE programs as a key
coping strategy. The following are examples from participant interviews:
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
32
For me as far as layering, it really helps. It does wonders, and even using the special type of
bedding that makes it a lot warmer, with lining. Clothes that have lining inside. I find that
that has been really useful. Even the face coverings... If you were going outside, for instance,
can be applied inside. It's the same strategies.
Usually around about November 1st, we start putting the plastic [in] the window seals and
we take them off during the summertime… And you just take those types of plastic on the
windows and it [that] cuts off some drafts. We just go to the Dollar store, we get the plastic
and it is Dollar store plastic, but it's better than nothing.
Participation in DOEE programs. Participants described most program elements as
generally positive, from the initial application to the annual re-enrollment, customer service,
and amount of assistance. Most participants commended DOEE for its generous financial
assistance and for having a strong customer service ethos, treating participants in a more
respectful and dignified manner compared to other human services agencies. One
participant described their DOEE experience as follows:
You know what? Before this COVID, I used to go to the office, and you sit down with a
representative. They collect your stuff. They're processing it right there in front of you. So it
was a fast process. And the workers, they were nice, too. I never had any issues or problems
with none of the workers. And also, if you want to know about your benefits, or would you
qualify, or how much you got, in DC you call the 311, and the operator's able to access that
information.
Participants described learning of programs through online searches, reading bills and
materials from other organizations, word of mouth, and referrals from other agencies or
community organizations, including churches, especially when facing an energy crisis. The
following include how participants described learning about DOEE programs:
I first heard about the program when I guess I was living in Columbia Heights apartment
building on 14th and Irving. And, like I said, my lights had been out, and they were, at that
time, they were located in a red building, down on 14th and U Street, and someone had told
me... Actually, my pastor at the church had told me to go down there, and see if they could
help me get my lights on and ever since then, I've been with them every year.
So, I didn't have a job no more, so I had to apply for unemployment, and then TANF, and
then food stamps. And when I went to the office, I was in line. And the security guard asked
this lady if she was here to apply for food stamps, and she said, "No, I'm here for the Utility
Assistance Program." And that's when I asked around. And they were like, "Yeah, the office
is back there," and I did the application. I had my bills that day, because you need to prove
DC residency and they helped me out. So, it was a very simple application and it was nice.
Many respondents remained unclear about DOEE program details and the amount of
assistance they qualified for. When probed, few participants were able to distinguish
between LIHEAP, UDP, and SFA or were aware of other program offerings such as WAP
and CRIAC. The following are examples from participant interviews:
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
33
So, with the LIHEAP, I guess... it's more explanatory about how it works... Whereas the
CRIAC, it wasn't really explanatory on how it is decided benefit wise...CRIAC, the first time
I applied, which was during the pandemic, I received a one-time stipend, and I believe a
continued discount on it from there on out. This time I only received a discount.
...then, the other program, the solar one, I forgot about it, I just thought it just sounded good
at the time. I'm not even sure if you get a discount, but I'm assuming that her power comes
from solar power. I don't know much about that program.
In fact, while many participants expressed a desire and need for energy efficiency upgrades,
few were successfully enrolled in the Weatherization Assistance Program. For example, one
participant shared the following:
I heard about that [WAP] through the LIHEAP Program. That's like, when you used to go
down, like I said, you used to get appointments every year.
Were it not for cross-enrollments in LIHEAP, UDP, and SFA, it is likely that few would have
known to enlist in these additional programs they otherwise qualify for. (See the
recommendations section for more on this topic.)
Furthermore, a lapse in direct follow-up communication left many participants to await
their utility bills before knowing the final amount of subsidy applied to their account, since
the payments were made directly to the utility companies and participants did not receive a
Notice of Award letter.
Moreover, a backlog with the water company to process CRIAC discounts also put
households at risk of a water shutoff. The following interview participants indicated this
CRIAC issue:
Well, no. The water bill ... The problem with the water bill is, what I was explaining earlier is
that they will no longer front you the discount. They want the money from DOEE up front.
So, today is November. So, your November bill, December bill, and January bill spike until
DOEE physically sends them the money.
The water company, what they do is every year, they cut you off until they receive money
from the government for the [CRIAC] program, where energy and gas companies do not do
that… But to have the water company, as they ironically did this month, even with the
pandemic, where they have cut the discounts and have charged you an astronomical bill
without the discount, stating that they need to receive the money from the Department of
Energy before they will proceed with giving you those credits back. So, any money that you
have saved over the past year, you're now in a deficit because your bill that used to be $23
dollars a month is now $70 dollars a month.
Importantly, participants were conservative about applying for services. Many only applied
for energy assistance during times of financial hardship as they were concerned about
ensuring that services were available for those truly in need of help. Some participants,
however, applied for benefits annually, in large measure because they lived on a fixed
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
34
income or their household economic circumstances were otherwise stagnant. One
participant shared the following about the impact of the pandemic on their income:
I would say so because the goal was for me to go back to working, and when the pandemic hit,
I was not able to go back out there and find a job. Normally, I used to do paralegal. I could go
out to a temp agency and I could get to work. But right now, that has not been the case.
Impacts of DOEE program participation. Many respondents expressed deep gratitude for
the help provided by the programs, noting its invaluable impact on ensuring access to
affordable household energy services and preventing shutoffs. One participant shared the
following:
It definitely is a huge financial weight, and the worry is off for those months. As I said before,
not that I was using more, it maybe just cost more for the same use. Maybe that's how they
work it out at the electric company. I don't know, but whatever the case... Whatever the
reason is, the bill was always higher in the winter months, and it was always a good benefit
to have to lessen that cost so that it's more affordable, and manageable, those regular
expenses.
Moreover, the financial assistance also made it possible to meet other basic household
needs. Participants described applying the savings from the energy assistance payments and
water discounts to other household bills such as rent/mortgage, food, internet, phone bills,
and car expenses. One participant expressed how the CRIAC program helped them afford
to meet other household needs:
Well, as I said before, for the water program, we can speak about, because it's a great help in
regards to reducing our expenses. It has allowed us to funnel money from paying the water
into other aspects, to help with the increased gas bill in the colder months, and in the warmer
months, towards other expenses, for example, for school supplies, things that we need to get.
Many participants reported greater thermal comfort because they could manage the indoor
temperature with a little less concern for costs, as well as less stress and mental strain
attributable to more affordable bills. For example, one participated shared:
It's definitely all positive. Like I said before, if it wasn't for the program, it'll be a very cold
winter and a very hot summer.
Some reported looking forward to monthly bills that they could now afford rather than
dreading arrearages and unmanageable amounts due. This was especially true for CRIAC
participants, in part because of how the discount is structured to reduce monthly costs. We
found this sentiment across many interviews, with the following as an example:
Interviewer: “Now, when you receive your water bill, I guess especially in comparison to
what it used to be, now how does that make you feel?”
Participant: "I mean, elated, to be quite honest, because sometimes, I look at it, and I'm like,
"’Wow. This is really great.’”
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
35
As alluded to above, the discounts and services offered the possibility of respectability and
dignity rather than shame and stress.
Experience from participants enrolled in all five programs. Two interview participants are
enrolled in all five programs. Both had been participating in LIHEAP for at least 10 years,
and LIHEAP was the starting point for their participation in the other DOEE programs
(LIHEAP and UDP, followed by WAP, CRIAC, and SFA, in order of enrollment). Both
participants receive additional assistance through social security, food assistance, and one
receives Section 8 housing assistance. Both participants struggle to make ends meet each
month due to living on a fixed income with varying expenses.
I'm on a strict income. I get social security, so I have to really just get any type of savings or
anything that I can just to make ends meet. That's because sometimes they meet, sometimes
they don't.
As such, both participants are always on the lookout for programs that might help them
with their utility and other costs. Both participants expressed gratitude for the assistance
they cumulatively receive through the five DOEE programs, and appreciate that each
program is tailored to a different need. One participant expressed relief that “for the first
time in years, [the water bill] was zero”.
However, both noted that first researching, then applying, enrolling, and re-enrolling to
each program is burdensome on the participant end, and that not everyone has this
capacity. And at the end of the day, this is reason enough for other participants in similar
situations (with enough need to enroll in all five programs) to potentially miss out on these
programs. Both participants stressed the benefits of streamlining the enrollment and re-
enrollment processes across these programs to help participants keep track of their
participation.
Preference for benefit delivery. Most program participants expressed a preference for the
current delivery method for each program (i.e., annual, monthly), while a few were on the
fence since the benefits are the same in the end. The following LIHEAP, UDP, and SFA
participant describes this sentiment, stating:
I don't know if it makes any difference. I think most people who need this kind of assistance
are paid monthly. So then you would think that if they didn't have to worry about their bills,
their utility bills every month, that would be great. But if it works out to the same in the end,
if they give you $500 for the year and your bill is, and that covers 10 months of your... But on
the other hand, maybe it is better to do it monthly because some months there might be an
emergency, like you have a sick person and they need air conditioning or they need more
electricity, or they need more heat. God knows what. So maybe months would be better. I
think that that's a hard one to answer.
I prefer the lump sum because I like, me personally, I like to see, for example, my PEPCO bill,
right? So I get a bill... And then, I know how much I still have available in my credit, right?
And since I have $800, then I know for next month I'm going to have $750. So that, to me, is
better and clearer, versus percentage and this and waters cubic, and I don't understand none
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
36
of that. It says here that I got a discount on the first 400 cubic feet of water used each month.
I don't know what that is [in reference to CRIAC].
DOEE Staff and Administrator Perspectives
DOEE program staff and administrators conveyed a strong sense of service toward clients
and faithful execution of the organization’s mission. This was evident in the expressed
empathy toward clients and the situational hardships they often face. For example, one
DOEE program staff member shared the following:
I have a lot of empathy for our clients. I do. When I hear their stories, and I hear stories every
day all day of why they're in the situation that they're in, and I'm like, I understand. It's not
always something that, oh, you're just a bad parent or you're bad at utility management.
Sometimes you're just put in a situation that you don't want to be in. And when I talk to
them, I try to remember that time when I felt the way that they feel. You feel helpless, you feel
like a failure, you feel as though you're not doing the best that you can do, and who wants to
feel like that?
Such sentiments contributed to a high degree of dedication to program offerings and
improving the user experience. Two key examples of such efforts include the swift
transition and expansion of online capabilities and other accommodations during the
COVID-19 pandemic as well as streamlining enrollment across programs to ease the
administrative burdens on clients while meeting program goals. The following is
representative of sentiments we saw from DOEE staff across numerous interviews:
The most rewarding is just being able to see the change that we are able to effect every single
day. Like being in people's homes. And I know because of COVID, we've had to adjust and
do more or remote virtual type of interaction. But just ensuring that we have... We are
dealing with families and households in the District that are literally, as I'm sure, making the
choice between buying food and medicine and school supplies for their kids and just being
able to maintain some level of reasonable quality of life. So just knowing that we can provide
that relief to households that are most in need.
Office closures and social distancing measures due to the pandemic precluded meeting
clients face to face, including processing applications; therefore, DOEE staff described a
concerted effort to ramp up remote services and connect with clients directly to ensure the
continuity of benefits. Staff noted the benefits of timelier application processing and the
issuance and renewal of benefits. In some cases, clients received approval notices in as little
as a day, compared to a much longer processing time for paper-based applications
submitted in person or by mail. However, not all participants were able to navigate online
systems equally, especially the elderly and those with limited access to or proficiency with
online services. One participant shared their perspective on outreach and participation
barriers:
I think the seniors are underserved. A lot of them just don't know about our program. That's
why we try to have that outreach to go to the senior citizen apartment buildings and things.
But there are a group of senior citizens and elderly that I think we're not reaching because
oftentimes you'll hear in the news of somebody was lighting a stove or something, or
somebody didn't have adequate air or couldn't breathe or life support was disconnected, I
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
37
mean, oxygen, just a number of things. And I think it's tied to elderly. They just won't reach
out. I mean, the information is there. It's in their utility bills. But they just won't. And I
think they're underserved. And I think maybe eventually we come up with a plan that, and
maybe offer some broader outreach for that demographic.
Staff described taking additional measures to tend to such clients via outreach by telephone
and mail. They also emphasized establishing and/or continuing client relationships to
ensure they were supported throughout the application process. Nevertheless, incomplete
applications remain an unresolved issue for some clients. While DOEE has dedicated
resources to case management services to assist clients in completing the supporting
documents, many otherwise eligible clients go without services because they failed to
complete the application process.
Another example of streamlining efforts was reliance on a centralized application process to
enroll participants in multiple programs, namely LIHEAP, UDP and SFA. Doing so ensured
qualified enrollees in the various programs and, importantly, eased the administrative
burden for clients and staff alike. The investment in the new software was expected to
support cross-enrollment even more and many staff were eager to expand capacity in this
way. Program personnel also described forging relationships with other social service
agencies such as TANF, SNAP, Medicare, the Department of Aging and Community Living,
and nonprofit organizations to assist in their recruitment efforts. By doing so, they
successfully identified and enrolled eligible households by meeting potential clients in
trusted venues that target a similar client pool.
Points of Convergence and Divergence between Staff, Administration, and Participants
We identified points of convergence and divergence between staff and participant
interviews, including program impacts and alternatives to DOEE energy assistance services.
Impacts of support and repeat customers. Participants, program staff, and administrators
recognized comfort and economic support and relief as the key impacts of the program,
which also contributed to participant stress reduction. While staff and administrators had
the impression that participants were “repeat customers” and that self-sufficiency was a
primary goal of the benefits rendered, most participants prided themselves on seeking
services only when it was absolutely essential. Despite their own eligibility, many described
leaving the resource behind for others in greater need and applying only when absolutely
necessary. Those that did seek assistance annually did so because their circumstances were
unchanged from year to year and they relied on the benefits to make ends meet.
Alternatives to DOEE energy assistance services. Participants and program staff identified
other resources that assist with utility bill payments. Both groups agreed that the other
options were more limited in terms of the type and amount of assistance to be rendered and
in providing customer service. Participants also noted the superior customer service
experience at DOEE in comparison to other social service agencies:
No one does it on the scale that we do, but there are other resources that are for utility
assistance. The Salvation Army has been great at utility and rental assistance. So usually, if
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
38
they use up their benefit for us for the year, if they call and I check and I see that you've
already received your benefit this year, so we can't help, I'll usually send them to somewhere
else. And the Salvation Army is my first go-to because they usually have funding, and they
have a good turnaround rate for getting your utilities and rent paid. Another resource is our
councilmen. So your ward councilmen and councilwomen, they have the ability to pay. And
each one is different. For the most part, they will pay up to $200 to $300 to help with your
utilities. But it has to be within ... It can't be an outrageous bill. Like if you have a $2,000
bill, they are not, because they only have a limited amount of funds. So, they want to make
sure, if I give you $200, it's going to be enough to get your electric cut back on or your water
and so forth. So, your local council members, they are a big help. (DOEE staff)
While program staff and administrators emphasized the connection to larger environmental
goals related to sustainability and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions via renewable
energy technologies, most clients were not aware of how their participation in the energy
assistance programs positively contributed to environmental stewardship. The following are
examples:
But I think it's good that we do try to give people access to this new ... give them the
opportunity to participate in helping the environment, in the District. That's probably the
biggest argument for our program, like I said, we really could just turn over the money and
keep going. And there's certainly an argument for that, but allowing them to participate in
what the District's doing around solar and making the environment cleaner and making that
participation accessible to everyone, I think does have some community benefit, people feel
like they're helping the district. Usually when we say, "You're helping the District by doing
this," that is a selling point for folks, they gravitate to. (DOEE staff)
Aside from the solar for the community, I don't know for sure if I would say that I was
attracted to the program because of the environmental, because it was more of an affordability
issue. I don't know in their literature or in the program itself it specifically states applying to
this program means you're going to be environmentally sound. (DOEE participant)
This difference is explained by a) clients’ inadequate understanding of the Solar For All
program components and b) limited enrollment in weatherization services. One participant
also expressed that their perception was that environmental programs were utilized by
residents of whiter, wealthier neighborhoods in the District. This indicates that there may be
a need for additional outreach to participants in ways that they feel represented, heard, and
understood before they apply to DOEE’s programs.
If you go to Northwest, or you go to the other side of Southeast, you know where the uppity
people are, they're participating [in DOEE’s programs]. They're getting the programs, and
these are people that can afford it.
Participants cited recycling and conserving energy and water resources as examples of how
they prioritized environmentalism. Many participants were curious about other forms of
environmental stewardship and expressed interest in learning more via educational tools
and strategies tied to DOEE programs. Some of the longer-term participants suggested
reintroducing the weatherization kits distributed years ago as an example of a do-it-yourself
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
39
approach to conserving energy and mitigating drafts in the home. One participant
highlighted this:
After your appointment, after you apply and everything, the first time, well, years ago, they
would give you a little bag, and it had a lot of energy savings things. Like, the light bulbs, the
weather stripping and caulking, and all that kind of good stuff. (DOEE participant)
Participants described reluctance on the part of landlords to participate in DOEE programs,
thereby limiting their ability to participate fully in the agency’s offerings. DOEE staff
identified gaps in providing service to renters and those living in multiunit housing, such as
the following:
Yeah. So I would say the gaps in terms of those that we can assist, a lot of people will reach
out to us from multifamily homes, and we're not able to assist anyone in multifamily homes,
and that's kind of an area where I think DC Water is also interested in figuring out next
steps because just logistically, the way that we run it right now, we would not be able to do
that, but maybe on DC Water’s end, they would be able to help multifamily homes. So, I
think that's definitely a big gap in the program and something that hopefully we can address
in the next fiscal year. (DOEE staff)
Policy Recommendations
The following policy recommendations identify barriers and opportunities to increase the
effectiveness of DOEE affordability programs. These recommendations also aim to reduce
high energy and water burdens to improve utility affordability, home health and comfort,
and overall economic prosperity of District residents. Our recommendations include the
following.
Program Awareness and Accessibility Recommendations
• Increase targeted direct program outreach and re-enrollment efforts
• Align water and energy affordability support and outreach
• Employ diverse methods for program outreach and continued communication
• Provide follow-up confirmation on benefits and services
• Connect energy saving and clean energy messaging with environmental benefits
Program Targeting Recommendations
• Target resources towards households with disproportionately high utility burdens
• Target resources to households experiencing disproportionate health burdens
• Provide resources for affordable housing building owners to help keep rents
affordable
• Develop and include additional equity-related goals to measure program success
• Consider tiered benefits to support moderate-income household needs
Program Design and Delivery Recommendations
• Continue building robust stakeholder and community engagement practices
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
40
• Increase structural solutions, such as weatherization and solar energy
• Create a one-stop-shop model for program enrollment
• Maintain emergency water assistance and create a leak reduction program
• Validate and educate on energy conservation strategies
These recommendations rely heavily on the qualitative analysis findings, while also
reflecting findings from the literature review and quantitative utility burden analysis. The
recommendations consider how the energy assistance programs currently interact with one
another, and how they could better support each other’s goals and outcomes.
PROGRAM AWARENESS AND ACCESSIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
We heard from program participants that they did not always have a clear grasp of the
assistance programs available and the program objectives, and that many experienced
barriers to program awareness and accessibility. The following recommendations focus on
how DOEE can improve communication and program access for potential or current
program participants by improving program messaging, streamlining program enrollment,
and fostering trust.
Increase targeted direct program outreach and re-enrollment efforts. Program participants
experience barriers to navigating the system and accessing utility assistance programs.
DOEE can design enrollment campaigns to both identify newly income-eligible households
and reach out to past program participants. Using multiple channels for enrollment, such as
mail and email, proves especially important during COVID, when access to in-person
enrollment centers is not available or extremely limited. One participant expressed barriers
to enrolling and accessing programs:
I'm just so sorry for the person that may not have that understanding or knowledge as to how
to navigate the system, because the system is not easy to navigate... [such as] people that
maybe have mental challenges or struggle with computer knowledge or understanding the
process, if they're elderly or in need of help. (SFA, WAP, and LIHEAP participant)
DOEE can continue to provide direct and targeted outreach for their programs as well as
online pathways to enroll. Many program participants appreciated the opportunity to
complete applications online and found email reminders helpful. Some interview
participants who had participated in LIHEAP in the past indicated that, at the time of their
interview in September or October 2020, they had not yet received information about
enrollment for the year. From the interviews, we found that the most cross-enrolled
participants were also the most willing and able to do research themselves into available
programs, which does not represent the majority of participants interviewed. This means
that any households facing barriers to conducting research or finding assistance resources
may benefit from additional outreach efforts from DOEE.
In addition, program participants showed a preference and appreciation for automatic
enrollment. DOEE can also consider strategies to automatically enroll households who are
participating in other income-qualified programs, such as SNAP or TANF, into bill
assistance and SFA programs. The following two participants expressed their preference for
automatic enrollment:
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
41
It’s not cool at all that you have to subject yourself to [re-enrollment]. You got it last year.
Obviously, you'll get it this year… Why do you keep doing things when you know that it's
the same old, same old, same old? It doesn't make sense. (Participant of all five programs)
I think that will be ideal. Absolutely, because as I said before, not everybody has the time, or
then they're tired... A lot of people, they don't know, or they don't know how to find the
resources. So, if you qualify, I think that will be the best thing to do to qualify, you should be
automatically enrolled. (Participant of SFA and CRIAC)
Furthermore, providing participants with a receipt of benefits, with all benefits listed in one
format/notice (e.g., online and/or by mail), might help participants better understand their
benefits. One participant suggested that LIHEAP participants could be grandfathered in to
other DOEE programs that they qualify for, instead of having participants submit all their
documentation again. She also mentioned that the “neighborhood blitz” tactic of sending
representatives out to communities to explain these programs in person (when it is safe to
do so) would help outreach. Ideally, she suggested, these messengers would match the
demographics of the neighborhood itself.
Align water and energy affordability support and outreach. Based on the utility burden
analysis, households experiencing the highest water burdens are also experiencing high
utility burdens. Even if participants are enrolled in one of DOEE’s utility affordability
programs, they are sometimes unaware of the availability of other programs that they might
qualify for and benefit from. Aligning outreach for energy and water programs can help
provide the most robust and comprehensive solutions for highly energy- and water-
burdened households in the District. One participant expressed concerns and anxiety
around income qualification for programs:
Well, it's a little bit scary how much money you're making… Look, I know that they have to
have some kind of number [for income qualification], but maybe they could just take it off a
tax form to see what your income was last year… you should just automatically qualify
without having to prove every little nickel and penny. My kid made $250 at his local job. Is
that going to throw me off? We did qualify, but it's just like it becomes one more headache.
(Participant of LIHEAP, UDP, and CRIAC)
Moving towards a joint-application process and/or system that streamlines enrollment
across all five affordability programs⎯especially focused on cross enrollment between and
energy and water affordability programs⎯can help households receive all available
benefits. Furthermore, streamlining enrollment processes should happen during initial
outreach campaigns as well as during intake processes. Program participants indicated that
verifying income can prove an onerous process. Combining discounts and benefits across
these five energy and water affordability programs can lower enrollment barriers by
streamlining income qualification.
In addition, participants indicated that it was unclear how to balance assistance from both
energy and water utilities through payment plans and budget billing in addition to support
from DOEE. DOEE can work with the energy and water utilities to clarify and align
outreach messaging and support, especially as many more households may move to
payment plans due to the impact of COVID. DOEE can then improve communication about
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
42
program enrollment and cross enrollment across DOEE and utility programs, such as
payment plans, to help participants better understand the interaction and scope of available
utility affordability programs.
Employ diverse methods for program outreach and continued communication. DOEE
should continue to employ diverse methods of communications to meet the needs of
residents. Program participants indicated that email is an effective form of communication,
as phone calls and text messages can be difficult to respond to during work hours and can
be harder to verify. This indicates that it is important to make messaging clear and show
that it is obviously from a legitimate source (i.e., DOEE). One participant shared positive
feedback on DOEE using multiple forms of communication:
I think they're doing a great job because receiving email has been really good. Because
sometimes when I receive text messages, or phone calls, I'm not sure who's calling me. But
when it comes to emails, you guys are doing a great job. If y'all want to call me and leave
voicemails that's even better. Because seven o'clock in the morning, I'm at work. I'm not
even able to pick up the phone so if y'all leaving me a voicemail, that helps too. But I think all
together with the communication and reaching out to me about the program is great.
(Participant of LIHEAP)
Based on feedback from participant interviews, email proves to be an effective outreach
strategy for past participants who provided email addresses during enrollment; for
participants without an email address, additional phone follow-up or additional mailers
may be helpful to ensure equitable outreach and enrollment while in-person enrollment
centers remain closed. We acknowledge that we recruited most interview participants
through email recruitment for this study, indicating that these residents may be more likely
to prefer email communication.
19
DOEE should continue to employ multiple forms of
outreach and communication (i.e., mail, email, phone calls, text messages) to ensure that
effective communication reaches residents. Returning to in-person communication and
support, when safe to do so, is also especially helpful for residents who may lack computer
literacy or may need additional help to understand the enrollment process and
requirements. Interview participants also indicated the importance of outreach staff who
look like and represent the community. For example, one participant shared the following:
I think it's the messengers that bring the program to the area, because let's face it, if you have
a predominantly Hispanic area, then you send a Hispanic person in there. If you have a
predominantly African American area, you send one of them in there. The turnoff is when
you send people that don't [resemble the community]. (Participant in all five programs)
Provide follow-up confirmation of benefits and services. Unlike the CRIAC program,
LIHEAP, UDP, and SFA do not have systems in place to inform participants how much and
when benefits will be applied to their utility bills. Participants were often left uncertain of
19
We also conducted email recruitment before postcard recruitment, which meant we had fewer interview spots
available for those recruited through the postcards. This may have hindered the number of participants who
signed up through postcard recruitment.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
43
the status of their applications and awarded benefits. Participants appreciated the clarity
they received from CRIAC about their benefits.
Many participants also often felt a lack of clarity around where one program ended and
another began, as well as which District offices or departments were relevant for them to
seek and receive help. DOEE can confirm benefits for LIHEAP, UDP, and SFA, and can
work to increase clarity around the confirmation of benefits and who is providing them.
DOEE can also work to improve follow-up communication with WAP participants and
contractors to ensure all promised measures are installed successfully and participants are
satisfied with the program. One WAP participant expressed disappointment that they
never received the refrigerator they were promised and were unable to connect with the
right person to resolve the issue. They shared the following:
[WAP] was disappointing. They came in and did really good work, but then… there was no
follow-up. I'm supposed to get a refrigerator and it never came. And then I called multiple
times and I was told that it was the responsibility of the contractor… Everybody dropped the
ball and I still never got a refrigerator, even though my refrigerator is old and it’s not
working 100%. (Participant of WAP, SFA, LIHEAP, and UDP)
Other interviewees indicated that this type of situation was not uncommon. To avoid
potential miscommunication, DOEE can work to improve clarity of communication about
eligible and approved measures. DOEE can work with the WAP implementation contractors
to improve communication with participants about measures they will receive through the
program. This will help avoid disappointment, build trust, and improve clarity of program
outcomes for participants.
Connect energy saving and clean energy messaging with environmental benefits. Many
interviewees indicated that while they are concerned about the environment, they did not
see their participation in DOEE’s programs as an environmentally conscious act. One
participant shared the following:
I’m not too aware of [environmental issues], so maybe if I can get more information [about
climate change and how it connects to DOEE’s affordability programs], I can understand it
and make it as clear as possible. (Participant of SFA and LIHEAP/UDP)
Although financial support was the largest driver for DOEE’s five programs, many
interviewees indicated that they do take actions to benefit the environment and that they
generally valued environmental stewardship. DOEE has a clear opportunity to change the
narrative around how its programs benefit both affordability and the environment and can
do so by highlighting the environmental connection for program participants in more
visible or concrete ways, such as through stories, visuals and graphics, messaging on
advertising materials, and/or community workshops.
PROGRAM TARGETING RECOMMENDATIONS
We identified the need for utility assistance across a broad range of low- and moderate-
income households. Programs addressing utility affordability must work to balance this
breadth of need with a focus on historically and presently disadvantaged and highly
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
44
burdened communities. DOEE can work to better target households to participate in utility
affordability programs.
Target resources towards households with disproportionately high utility burdens. DOEE
can target energy and water affordability program outreach towards households with
disproportionately high energy and water burdens. This includes households with a family
member with a disability, older adults (over 65), Black and Hispanic households, renters,
households receiving food stamps, and households without a high school degree. DOEE can
build on current efforts to create outreach campaigns that cross enroll households in energy
and water affordability programs based on their income qualification and support needs.
DOEE staff has also identified older adults, residents who speak Spanish, and moderate-
income households as harder to reach and potentially underserved by affordability
programs. DOEE can target outreach campaigns and efforts to reach these overburdened
subgroups in order to direct resources towards those who may have disproportionately
high burdens and need for support.
Target resources to households experiencing disproportionate health burdens. In addition
to targeting groups with high utility burdens, DOEE can also focus resources on
communities in the District with disproportionate health impacts. Housing quality has a
direct effect on human health. Indoor air quality, allergens, cold drafts, excessive heat, and
pests can all exacerbate a number of health problems including asthma and other
respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), cancer, and cognitive
function. Some energy efficiency and weatherization programs aim to mitigate these indoor
health risks while also saving energy.
20
Many interviewees indicated that poor housing
quality negatively affected their health and energy use. One participant shared the
following:
I had problems with the heat throughout the time that I was there. Roaches, bugs, mice. I had
to complain the whole time because I didn't have heat going on at times. (Participant of
LIHEAP, UDP, and SFA)
Through our literature review, we identified that neighborhoods located in the Northwest
(i.e., Wards 1–6) had a higher health index (i.e., opportunity for good health) than
neighborhoods in the Southeast (i.e., Wards 7 and 8). This difference is influenced by social
determinants of health such as race, education, housing, income, and social environment.
More recently, COVID-19 has had the greatest impact on health outcomes in Wards 7 and 8.
Therefore, targeting utility affordability resources to communities with lower health
indexes—especially energy efficiency and weatherization programs—can help address some
of the impacts of the home environment on resident health. In addition, DOEE could partner
to link asthma education materials with energy efficiency, weatherization, and other utility
20
See 2018 ACEE report, The Next Nexus: Exemplary Programs That Save Energy and Improve Health:
www.aceee.org/research-report/h1802.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
45
affordability program materials to cross-promote programs that will benefit residents’
health and well-being.
Provide resources for affordable housing building owners to help keep rents affordable.
Our utility burden assessments were unable to include households who do not pay their
energy and water bills directly (i.e., households whose utility costs are included in their
rent). Similarly, DOEE’s energy and water assistance programs are only provided to
households who pay their utility bills directly. Building owners who pay for utilities
directly will often pass on increased energy and water costs to residents through permanent
rent increases. Bill assistance misses households who face rising utility costs indirectly
through rent increases.
DC Water recently launched an effort to reach this population. In February 2021, DC
Water’s board approved a new multifamily emergency relief program to provide assistance
to households who pay for water bills through their rent (DC Water 2021a). The Multifamily
Assistance Program (MAP) aims to serve affordable housing and buildings with tenants
whose income is less than or equal to 80% AMI, and requires that participating landlords
provide 90% of the credit they receive back to the tenants through reduced rent. DC Water
estimates 10,000 potential multifamily buildings (180,000 units) could be eligible and plans
to dedicate $2.4 to $4 million of its cash surplus to the program, running through the end of
FY2021 (Fenston 2021).
DOEE can continue to make targeted efforts to reach multifamily and affordable housing
building owners with energy and water affordability programs, and especially to provide
low-income renters with weatherization, renewable energy services, and leak support to
help ensure that rents remain affordable. To ensure that the DC Water MAP multifamily
emergency relief program is successful, DOEE can also support outreach and enrollment, as
well as support accountability to ensure that landlords return the program benefit to the
tenants.
Develop and include additional equity-related goals to measure program success. DOEE
can work to develop and include additional equity-related outcomes and goals to measure
the success of its energy affordability programs. LIHEAP, SFA, and CRIAC currently have
goals around achieving a level of utility affordability. For example, DOEE has a goal to
reduce energy burdens to 3% for households participating in LIHEAP, SFA has a goal to
reduce electric bills by 50% for participating households, and CRIAC calculates benefits
based on estimated water burden reduction across income thresholds. In addition to these
affordability goals, DOEE can create additional targets such as using participant
demographic data to set participation goals across location (e.g., by ward or census tract)
and across factors such as race, ethnicity, and/or age. By setting these additional goals,
DOEE may be better able to track how well programs are reaching those most in need of
assistance, as well as ensuring that assistance and program enrollment is equitably
distributed.
The District government can also consider incorporating affordability goals and strategies
into wider clean energy and equity planning efforts. The District’s DC Clean Energy Plan,
Sustainable DC 2.0 Plan, and Climate Ready DC Plan do not include specific goals that aim
to address utility affordability across the District at large. By incorporating utility
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
46
affordability goals and strategies, such as lowering low-income energy burdens to 3%, into
city-wide plans, DOEE and other city departments can continue to consider how DOEE’s
programs fit into broader strategies to bring equitable health, environmental, and economic
benefits to residents and communities.
Consider tiered benefits to support moderate-income household needs. The qualitative
analysis found that many households with more moderate income (e.g., SFA at 80% AMI
and CRIAC at 100% AMI) experienced energy and water affordability as a major issue.
These families often have additional financial obligations (e.g., medical costs, childcare
costs), yet less access to sources of support. We recommend tiered approaches (e.g., CRIAC
model) to provide moderate-income households with access to much-needed assistance. For
programs where assistance funds are not capped, tiered support can allow for individuals to
qualify who may have limited disposable income due to expenses and circumstances. One
person expressed this as follows:
I'm a low-middle-class person, so right now, I'm very grateful that I still qualify for this
CRIAC program, because the more you make in this country, the more screwed up you are,
but they don't really look into family circumstances. They don't really see the difference
between a single parent versus a family where there are two working adults. These are things
that they don't really don't look into, since when you have bigger responsibilities that you
need to make more money, because you have to, not because you want to. (Participant of
SFA and CRIAC)
Tiered benefits allow for the lowest income households to receive the most assistance while
still providing support for households with limited disposable income and high utility
burdens, who can greatly benefit from additional energy assistance and clean energy
investment. Based on the qualitative analysis, we see CRIAC as a model program in terms of
the deep discount, support for higher income participants, and continued communication
about program benefits.
DOEE also has the opportunity to provide utility support to a higher income tier through
the U.S. Department of Treasury (USDT) Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which will
make $25 billion available to assist households who are unable to pay rent and utilities due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. DOEE can coordinate with the Department of Homeless
Services and the Department of Housing and Community Development on the
implementation of this program to provide utility relief to residents experiencing housing
insecurity. To be launched in 2021, this program will provide support to pay rent and
utilities to households at 80% AMI, which is higher than the 60% SMI limits for most of the
utility assistance programs (e.g., LIHEAP, RAD, RES) (Department of the Treasury 2021).
PROGRAM DESIGN AND DELIVERY RECOMMENDATIONS
DOEE can improve program design and delivery to address barriers to achieving longer-
term affordability outcomes for participants. Designing programs through robust
stakeholder engagement, expanding structural solutions, creating a one-stop-shop
enrollment model, maintaining and expanding water assistance, and providing energy
conservation education are strategies that can align programs with resident needs and
benefits in the long term.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
47
Continue building robust stakeholder and community engagement practices. DOEE can
build on the current efforts of its Equity Task Force and its new Racial Equity Impact
Assessment Tool to expand an equitable and robust stakeholder and community
engagement process. The Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership provides a model
to visualize types of community engagement (González and Movement Strategy 2019).
Engagement models that involve collaboration can lead to more equitable outcomes.
DOEE can work to identify community-based organizations that provide services and
support to overburdened communities, residents, and other key stakeholders to engage in
collaborative planning. Collaborative stakeholder engagement processes should set goals
and also include accountability structures and ways to evaluate and measure progress
towards goals. Community engagement should be transparent, acknowledge past harms,
resourced, build trust over time, provide compensation for participation, and set a
commitment to communication and follow-through.
21
Increase structural solutions for utility affordability, such as weatherization and solar
energy. Weatherization and renewable energy investments provide structural solutions to
achieving long-term utility affordability.
22
Through the interviews, many households
indicated the need for more resources to address thermal comfort, inefficiencies, poor
insulation, aged appliances, and other home factors that can be addressed through
weatherization. Household interviews indicated a great need for weatherization and energy
efficiency measures. In 2019, the District weatherized only 360 households through WAP,
and only 297 households in 2020. The scale of this program does not currently meet the need
in the District. DOEE can explore new funding sources to leverage funds to support
weatherization, such as from ratepayer, local, or health-related funding sources. For
example, DOEE could coordinate and leverage ratepayer funds through PEPCO and
Washington Gas’s new low-income energy efficiency programs to support WAP and other
weatherization efforts. DOEE can also continue to tie weatherization with health and safety
measures, such as the lead hazard control program, to ensure both energy and health
benefits for program participants.
DOEE can continue to partner with DCSEU and the energy utilities to cross-promote and
enroll program participants in energy-saving programs. As new energy efficiency programs
are implemented through ratepayer funds, DOEE can continue coordinating eligible
households across available programs. DOEE can also consider leveraging additional
funding opportunities, such as new federal funding sources for COVID recovery or
additional District funding, for energy efficiency and weatherization. Increased investment
in long-term solutions such as energy efficiency, weatherization, and solar energy can help
improve utility affordability and the property of residents in the long term.
21
See the Greenlink Equity Map Process Guide for City-Community Partnerships for a framework for collaborative
community engagement around data collection and analysis. See the Urban Sustainability Director’s Network
Guidebook on Equitable Clean Energy Program Design for Local Governments and Partners for a framework for
designing equitable clean-energy programs with community support.
22
See ACEEE research on energy burdens for more information. ACEEE finds that weatherization can reduce
high energy burdens for low-income households by 25% on average.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
48
Create a one-stop-shop model for program enrollment. A one-stop-shop model can
provide coordination across electricity, gas, and water and DCSEU programs and resources,
as well as help address program barriers.
23
Households with high water burdens typically
also have high utility burdens. Solutions that address both water and energy affordability
are important to ensure overall bill affordability as well as home health and comfort. DOEE
can act as a central location to coordinate energy assistance resources for residents while
providing information on DOEE, utility, and other available support. Appendix A includes
a summary of available utility assistance programs in the District; DOEE can coordinate
resources across these programs.
We learned from the program staff interviews that DOEE staff do have strategies to cross
enroll households. DOEE can continue to streamline this process across intake and
enrollment centers and strategies to create a more centralized single point of contact,
develop a standard universal intake application and income verification process across
programs, and provide streamlined support for potential applicants to identify available
programs for enrollment. This can help lower barriers to entry for program participants by
requiring only one application, as well as helping inform residents of all available programs.
Maintain emergency water assistance and create a leak reduction program. We
recommend that DOEE maintain the emergency water bill assistance program after the
Mayor’s Public Health Emergency ends. Interviewees indicated a need for emergency water
assistance through our interviews, highlighting that this was a programmatic gap before
this additional assistance was added in 2020. One participant expressed their experience
before DOEE had emergency water assistance available:
I went to Salvation Army for my water because DOEE does not give you emergency
assistance for water. They do that for gas and electric and oil, but not for your water bill.
(Participant in all five programs)
DOEE can also leverage the new federal LIHWAP to provide support to households with
water bill arrears through DC Water. In addition, District residents could benefit from a leak
reduction program that runs independently and/or is paired with CRIAC. Water leaks can
often lead to extremely high and unaffordable water bills; pairing a leak reduction program
that provides immediate assistance with leak repair and additional water efficiency and bill
discounts will help greatly reduce water cost burdens in the long term.
Validate and educate on energy and water conservation strategies. Most participants
shared a number of conservation strategies that reduce their carbon footprint and overall
energy and water use, yet they seemed unaware of the positive impact of their practices on
the environment. DOEE can explore messaging that can help to validate, support, and
encourage energy- and water-saving strategies and behaviors by linking these actions to
additional environmental, health, and financial benefits. Education campaigns that touch on
23
See the 2020 report by Innovate (funded by the European Union), How to Set up a One-Stop-Shop for Integrated
Home Energy Renovation, A step-by-step guide for local authorities and other actors, for ideas on how to set up a one-
stop-shop coordination model. energy-cities.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/INNOVATE_guide_FINAL.pdf.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
49
a number of benefits from energy- and water-saving actions will help District residents learn
how to conserve energy and water and connect these actions to not only lower bills but also
to other positive outcomes for the community. Participants also indicated that they liked the
Do-It-Yourself (DIY) goody bags that DOEE provided in the past, and supported the
relaunch of this or similar energy education efforts in the future. Once they reopen, DCSEU
could set up a table at the Energy Centers to provide their energy kits to residents as they
apply for energy assistance programs. This would help DCSEU distribute resources while
also providing a positive experience and interaction with residents.
Conclusion
This report finds that even before the pandemic, many District residents experienced
systemic inequality and high utility burdens that led them to much-needed assistance. Low-
income households in the District are especially overburdened by utility bills as compared
to households nationally; households with disproportionate burdens also include
households with a family member with a disability, older adults (over 65), Black and
Hispanic households, renters, households receiving food stamps, and households with less
than a high school education.
DOEE’s utility affordability programs reduce the District’s environmental impact while
improving affordability and comfort for low- and moderate-income District residents. While
DOEE’s utility affordability programs provide much needed support for many, resident
interviews provided us with insight into how DOEE can continue to improve the reach,
effectiveness, and outcomes of these programs through changes to program outreach,
targeting, design, and delivery. As the pandemic continues to affect the lowest income
residents, we hope that the recommendations from this report will increase equitable access
to and utilization of solar installations, energy efficiency, and weatherization investments.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
50
References
APPRISE (Applied Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation). 2005. LIHEAP
Energy Burden Evaluation Study: Final Report. Washington, DC: HHS (Department of
Health and Human Services). appriseinc.org/reports/LIHEAP%20BURDEN.pdf.
——— . 2020. District of Columbia LIHEAP Energy Burden Analysis. Washington, DC: District of
Colombia DOEE (Department of Energy & Environment).
doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/service_content/attachments/DC%20D
OEE%202020%20LIHEAP%20Energy%20Affordability%20Study%20-
%20Energy%20Burden%20Report%20-%20Final%20-%209-28-20.pdf.
Bipartisan Policy Center. 2017. Safeguarding Water Affordability. Washington, DC: Bipartisan
Policy Center. bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BPC-Infrastructure-
Safeguarding-Water-Affordability.pdf.
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2021a. “Consumer Price Index (CPI) Databases.”
bls.gov/cpi/data.htm.
——— . 2021b. “Economy at a Glance: District of Columbia.” bls.gov/eag/eag.DC.htm.
Bohr, J., and A. McCreery. 2019. “Do Energy Burdens Contribute to Economic Poverty in the
United States? A Panel Analysis.” Social Forces 99 (1): 155–77.
doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz131.
CBPP (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). 2021. Tracking the COVID-19 Recession’s
Effects on Food, Housing, and Employment Hardships. Washington, DC: CBPP.
www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-recessions-
effects-on-food-housing-and.
Colton, R. 2020. The Affordability of Water and Wastewater Service in Twelve U.S. Cities: A Social,
Business and Environmental Concern. Prepared by Fisher, Sheehan & Colton. New York:
The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/23/full-report-read-in-
depth-water-poverty-investigation.
Crawford, D., and Q. Huddleston. 2020. “The Black Burden of COVID-19.” DC Fiscal Policy
Institute Blog, April 16. dcfpi.org/all/the-black-burden-of-covid-19/.
DC Water. 2018. “DC Water’s Board Approves New Rates with Eye Towards Increasing
Affordability.” dcwater.com/whats-going-on/news/dc-waters-board-approves-new-
rates-eye-towards-increasing-affordability.
——— . 2020. “FY2021 and FY2022 Approved Rates.” dcwater.com/fy2021-and-fy2022-
approved-rates.
——— . 2021a. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority 272nd Meeting of the Board of
Directors, Thursday February 4, 2021. Washington, DC: DC Water.
www.dcwater.com/sites/default/files/event_attachment/DC%20Water-
%20272nd%20Meeting%20of%20the%20BOD-02-04-2021-%20website.pdf.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
51
——— . 2021b. “Welcome to the DC Water Cares Multifamily Assistance Program!”
www.dcwater.com/welcome-dc-water-cares-
multifamily%C2%A0assistance%C2%A0program%C2%A0.
Department of the Treasury. 2021. “Emergency Rental Assistance Program.”
home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/emergency-rental-assistance-program.
District of Columbia DHCD (Department of Housing and Community Development). 2019.
Housing Equity Report: Creating Goals for Areas of Our City. Washington, DC: District of
Columbia DHCD.
dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/Housing%20
Equity%20Report%2010-15-19.pdf.
District of Columbia DOEE (Department of Energy & Environment). 2018. Clean Energy DC:
The District of Columbia Climate and Energy Action Plan. Washington, DC: District of
Columbia DOEE.
doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Clean%20E
nergy%20DC%20-%20Full%20Report_0.pdf.
——— . 2020. Clean Energy DC Progress Report. Washington, DC: District of Columbia DOEE.
sustainable.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sustainable/page_content/attachments
/DOEE_CEDC_Progress%20Report_2020.pdf.
District of Columbia OPC (Office of the People’s Counsel). 2020. OPC Water Services
Division: 2019–2020 Progress Report. Washington, DC: District of Columbia OPC. opc-
dc.gov/images/pdf/WSD_2020_Progress_Report_Final_Online.pdf.
——— . 2021. 2019–2020 Annual Report: Empowering People through the Pandemic. Washington,
DC: District of Columbia OPC. opc-dc.gov/images/pdf/annual_reports/OPC2019-
2020AnnualReport.pdf.
Drehobl, A., and L. Ross. 2016. Lifting the High Energy Burden in America’s Largest Cities: How
Energy Efficiency Can Improve Low-Income and Underserved Communities. Washington, DC:
ACEEE. aceee.org/research-report/u1602.
Drehobl, A., L. Ross, and R. Ayala. 2020. How High Are Household Energy Burdens? An
Assessment of National and Metropolitan Energy Burden across the United States.
Washington, DC: ACEEE. www.aceee.org/research-report/u2006.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2018. “One in Three U.S. Households Faces a
Challenge in Meeting Energy Needs.” Today in Energy, September 19.
eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37072.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Drinking Water and Wastewater Utility
Customer Assistance Programs. Washington, DC: EPA.
epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/dw-
ww_utilities_cap_combined_508.pdf.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
52
EPI (Economic Policy Institute). 2018. “Family Budget Map.”
epi.org/resources/budget/budget-map.
Fenston, J. 2021. “DC Water Wants to Help Pay Your Rent During the Pandemic.” DCist,
February 6. dcist.com/story/21/02/06/dc-water-coronavirus-bill.
Fisher, Sheehan & Colton. 2020. “What Is the Home Energy Affordability Gap?”
homeenergyaffordabilitygap.com/01_whatIsHEAG2.html.
Gathright, J. 2020. “D.C.’s Black Residents Make Up Less than Half the Population, 80% of
COVID-19 Deaths.” National Public Radio, May 11.
npr.org/local/305/2020/05/11/853892794/d-c-s-black-residents-make-up-less-than-
half-the-population-80-of-c-o-v-i-d-19-deaths.
Gebriel, T. 2018. “Economic Inequality in DC Reflects Disparities in Income, Wages, Wealth,
and Economic Mobility. Policy Solutions Should Too.” DC Fiscal Policy Institute Blog,
August 6. dcfpi.org/all/economic-inequality-in-dc-reflects-disparities-in-income-wages-
wealth-and-economic-mobility-policy-solutions-should-too/.
González, R. 2019. The Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership. Oakland:
Facilitating Power. movementstrategy.org/directory/spectrum/.
Goyal M., J. Simpson, M. Boyle, G. Badolato, M. Delaney, R. McCarter, and D. Cora-
Bramble. 2020. ”Racial and/or Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities of SARS-CoV-2
Infection among Children.” Pediatrics 146 (4).
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/4/e2020009951.
Hernández, D. 2016. "Understanding ‘Energy Security’ and Why It Matters to Health.” Social
Science & Medicine 167: 1–10. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5114037/.
Hernández, D., D. Phillips, and E. Siegel. 2016. “Exploring the Housing and Household
Energy Pathways to Stress: A Mixed Methods Study.” International Journal of
Environment Research and Public Health 13 (9): 916–28.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27649222.
HHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 2021. Action Transmittal: Notification and
Action Request for FY 2021 Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program. Washington,
DC: Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
neada.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LIHWAP_AT022621.pdf.
Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2020. The State of the Nation’s Housing 2020. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Graduate School of Design and Harvard Kennedy School.
www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_The_State_of_
the_Nations_Housing_2020_Report_Revised_120720.pdf.
Kane, J. 2018. “Water Affordability Is Not Just a Local Challenge, but a Federal One Too.”
The Avenue, January 25. www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/01/25/water-
affordability-is-not-just-a-local-challenge-but-a-federal-one-too/.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
53
Kathpalia, S., and K. Zickhur. 2020. “COVID-19: At-Risk Population in the District.” D.C.
Policy Center, April 27. dcpolicycenter.org/publications/coronavirus-populations-at-
risk.
Kijakazi, K., R. Brooks Atkins, M. Paul, A. Price, D. Hamilton, and W. Darity. 2016. The Color
of Wealth in the Nation’s Capital. Durham, NC: Duke University. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute. New York: The New School. Oakland: Insight Center for Community
Economic Development. urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/85341/2000986-2-
the-color-of-wealth-in-the-nations-capital_0.pdf.
Kontokosta, C., V. Reina, and B. Bonczak. 2019. “Energy Cost Burdens for Low-Income and
Minority Households: Evidence from Energy Benchmarking and Audit Data in Five U.S.
Cities.” Journal of the American Planning Association 86 (1): 89–105.
doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1647446.
Lassieter, L. 2017. Still Looking for Work: Unemployment in DC Highlights Racial Inequity.
Washington, DC: DC Fiscal Policy Institute. dcfpi.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/Still-Looking-for-Work-Unemployment-2017_fnl.pdf.
Leifheit, K., S. Linton, J. Raifman, G. Schwartz, E. Benfer, F. Zimmerman, and C. Pollack.
2020. “Expiring Eviction Moratoriums and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality.” SSRN
November 30. dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3739576.
Lewis, J., D. Hernández, and A. Geronimus. 2019. “Energy Efficiency as Energy Justice:
Address Racial Inequalities through Investments in People and Places.” Energy Efficiency
13: 419–32. doi.org/10.1007/s12053-019-09820-z.
McCargo, A., J. Choi, and J. Walsh. 2020. A State Framework for Delivering Targeted Housing
Assistance to People and Places Hit Hardest by COVID-19. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/102699/a-state-framework-for-delivering-
targeted-housing-assistance-to-people-and-places-hit-hardest-by-covid-19_1.pdf.
NASCSP (National Association for State Community Services Programs). 2020.
Weatherization Assistance Program Funding Report PY 2018. Washington, DC: NASCSP.
nascsp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NASCSP-2018-WAP-Funding-
Survey_Final_May12.pdf.
NEADA (National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association). 2018. 2018 National Energy
Assistance Survey. Washington, DC: NEADA. neada.org/program-policy-
reports/liheapsurvey/.
——— . 2021. “HHS Announces Water Assistance Program.” neada.org/hhs-announces-
water-assistance-program/.
NLIHC (National Low Income Housing Coalition). 2020. “Out of Reach 2020: District of
Columbia.” reports.nlihc.org/oor/district-columbia.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
54
ONE DC (Organizing Neighborhood Equity DC). 2017. DC’s [Mis] Education on Housing
Policy. Washington, DC: ONE DC.
d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/onedctrac/pages/71/attachments/original/151172830
4/Housing_Education.pdf?1511728304.
Rabinowitz, K. 2017. “A Decade of Demographic Change in D.C.: Which Neighborhoods
Have Changed the Most?” D.C. Policy Center, March 2.
dcpolicycenter.org/publications/demographic-change-d-c-neighborhoods/.
Reames, T., M. Reiner, and M. Stacey. 2018. “An Incandescent Truth: Disparities in Energy-
Efficient Lighting Availability and Prices in an Urban U.S. County.” Applied Energy 218:
95–103. doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.02.143.
Richardson, J., B. Mitchell, and J. Edlebi. 2020. Gentrification and Disinvestment 2020.
Washington, DC: NCRC (National Community Reinvestment Coalition).
ncrc.org/gentrification20/.
Richardson, J., B. Mitchell, and J. Franco. 2019. Shifting Neighborhoods: Gentrification and
Cultural Displacement in American Cities. Washington, DC: NCRC.
ncrc.org/gentrification/.
Rivers, W. 2015. Going, Going, Gone: DC’s Vanishing Affordable Housing. Washington, DC: DC
Fiscal Policy Institute. dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Going-Going-Gone-
Rent-Burden-Final-3-6-15format-v2-3-10-15.pdf.
Ross, L., A. Drehobl, and B. Stickles. 2018. The High Cost of Energy in Rural America: Household
Energy Burdens and Opportunities for Energy Efficiency. Washington, DC: ACEEE.
aceee.org/research-report/u1806.
Sunter, D., S. Castellanos, and D. Kammen. 2019. “Disparities in Rooftop Photovoltaics
Deployment in the United States by Race and Ethnicity.” Nature Sustainability 2: 71–6.
doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0204-z.
Tatian, P., and S. Lei. 2021. “Chapter 1: Demographics.” Washington, DC: Our Changing City.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute. urban.org/features/our-changing-city-collection.
Taylor, Y. 2020. “Pandemic-Induced Unemployment Has Hit the District’s Hispanic, Latino,
and Younger Workers More Intensely.” D.C. Policy Center, May 26.
dcpolicycenter.org/publications/hispanic-latino-pandemic-unemployment/.
Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. 2019. Fact Sheet on Homelessness and Housing
Instability in DC. Washington, DC: Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless.
www.legalclinic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Fact-Sheet-on-Homelessness-and-
Housing-Instability-in-DC.pdf.
Wedeen, S. 2021. “Black and Hispanic Renters Face Greatest Threat of Eviction in
Pandemic.” JCHS Blog, January 11. www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/black-and-hispanic-
renters-face-greatest-threat-eviction-pandemic.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
55
Wong, D., D. Dusman, C. Appleby, C. Baker, B. Meisenheimer, M. Schuling, and J. Long.
2014. Review and Recommendations for Implementing Water and Wastewater Affordability
Programs in the United States. Boston: NCLC (National Consumer Law Center).
www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=003648161422057331449:vebwfk-
euv4&q=https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/pr-reports/report-water-
affordability.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjkk7-
OuLfvAhW2GFkFHVX_CfIQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0VzfedICzEYMkJtH-
C3Arl.
Woolf, S., D. Chapman, L. Hill, H. Schoomaker, D. Wheeler, L. Snellings, and J. Lee. 2018.
Uneven Opportunities: How Conditions for Wellness Vary across the Metropolitan Washington
Region. Prepared by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Center on Society and
Health. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
mwcog.org/documents/2020/10/26/uneven-opportunities-how-conditions-for-
wellness-vary-across-the-metropolitan-washington-region-health-health-data.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
56
Appendix A. District Utility Affordability Programs
Table A1. Utility assistance programs offered to DC residents through DOEE, DC Water, DCSEU, and local nonprofits
Program
Program
implementer
Income
qualification
limit
Description
Utility bill discounts
Low Income Home
Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP)
DOEE
60% SMI
Income-eligible households can receive a one-time, regular energy-bill assistance between $250 and
$1,800. Bill assistance is determined based on household size, total household income, heating source,
and dwelling type.
Utility Discount
Program (UDP)
DOEE
60% SMI
The program offers a discount to low-income District residents to reduce their utility costs. Eligible
residents can receive up to $475 per year on their electric bills, up to $276 during the winter season on
their gas bills, or over $400 annually on their water and sewer bills.
Clean River
Impervious Area
Change (CRIAC)
Residential Relief
Program
DOEE
100% AMI
Income-eligible residents receive a monthly discount on their single-family and individually metered DC
Water bills. The program offers three tiers of assistance ($75, $50, and $15 per month), which are
determined by household size and income. DC Water ratepayers fund the two lower tiers of the program,
and the District government funds the third tier. During the coronavirus pandemic, Mayor Muriel Bowser,
the Council for the District of Columbia, and the District government authorized a one-time emergency
benefit up to $2,000 to help residents struggling with unpaid DC water bills. In addition, eligible
households will receive one bill discount from one of the CAP tiers available through the CRIAC program.
Multifamily
Assistance Program
(MAP)
DC Water
60% SMI
HOA representatives of eligible multifamily properties can apply for water bill support. For each unit
where a qualifying tenant resides, DC Water will post a credit to the property’s water service account.
The participating HOA or owner will then post 90% of the credit to the qualifying occupant’s rental or HOA
account. The intended purpose is to reduce the amount due in rent or HOA fees by the amount due for
the tenant’s share of the water bill.
Residential Aid
Discount Program
(RAD)
PEPCO
60% SMI
Income-eligible DC residents receive a monthly credit for their distribution charges. RAD customers will
receive a discount of about 25% on their overall bill, which covers the distribution charge, the Residential
Aid Discount surcharge, and the residential aid credit surcharges.
Residential Essential
Service (RES)
Washington Gas
60% SMI
Income-eligible Washington Gas customers receive a 25% discount on their bill. This discount covers
both customer and distribution charges. If the price of natural gas per therm rises above 50% of the
base year for a given month, customers will automatically receive an increase to the discount of up to
70%.
Washington Gas
Budget Plan
Washington Gas
No limit
The Budget Plan is a 12-month program designed to spread the cost of winter heating over the entire
year for customers. Each month, customers will receive their gas usage and bill amounts along with
budget installments. Customers must ensure that they make their monthly budget payment or they may
be removed from the plan and will be required to pay the full amount of the balance.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
57
Program
Program
implementer
Income
qualification
limit
Description
Washington Area
Fuel Fund (WAFF)
Salvation Army
60% SMI
This program assists customers who do not qualify for or have exhausted government-funded energy
assistance. WAFF offers funds for all types of fuel services during the winter heating season. The
program is funded by Washington Gas and private donations.
Serving People by
Lending a Supporting
Hand (SPLASH)
Greater
Washington Urban
League (GWUL)
60% SMI
In partnership with DC Water and Sewer Authority, GWUL offers one-time emergency assistance to DC
Water customers experiencing a financial emergency. The program is funded by DC water employees,
customers, and community members. Eligible residents can apply for assistance once per year and
receive up to $350.
PEPCO Energy
Assistance
GWUL
60% SMI
In partnership with PEPCO, GWUL provides assistance to families needing assistance with their electric
and gas bills. Once per year, eligible families can apply for up to $500 to help pay for their utilities.
Energy-saving programs
Solar for All
DOEE
80% AMI
Income-eligible DC homeowners can qualify for a free installation of solar photovoltaic systems in their
homes or a subscription to a community renewable energy facility, regardless of whether they live in a
single-family home with a roof to install solar or not. Participants of the program are expected to save
approximately $500 annually. The Renewable Energy Development Fund funds the program.
DCSEU rebates and
energy efficiency kits
DCSEU
No limit
DC residents can receive rebates for purchasing ENERGY STAR appliances, HVAC equipment, lighting,
and smart thermostats. DCSEU also offers energy efficiency kits to income-qualified households.
Home upgrades, repairs, and weatherization
Weatherization
Assistance Program
(WAP)
DOEE
60% SMI
WAP is a federally funded program from the U.S. Department of Energy. DOEE also elects to set aside up
to 15% of the LIHEAP grant for weatherization, funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Service. In the District, this program is administered through selected community-based organizations
and non-profits. WAP provides participants with energy audits and installs energy efficiency measures
like insulation, duct sealing, heating and cooling systems repair or replacement, air infiltration mitigation,
and installing ENERGY STAR lighting and appliances to reduce energy bills by making homes more
energy efficient.
Emergency HVAC
DOEE
60% SMI
The program assists income-eligible District residents with the repair or replacement of hot-water tanks,
and heating systems for single-family homes. If funding remains after the heating season, the program
provides for the repair or replacement of air-conditioning systems.
Senior StayCool
DOEE and the
Department of
Aging and
Community Living
(DACL)
60% SMI
This is a one-time COVID program that DOEE offered in partnership with DACL to income-eligible District
residents over 60 years old for the repair or replacement of window air-conditioning units for single-
family homes.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
58
Program
Program
implementer
Income
qualification
limit
Description
Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Control
Program (LHC)
DOEE
80% AMI
The program provides funding to eligible single-family and multifamily properties to reduce or eliminate
lead-based paint hazards. Households can receive up to $11,000 per unit for lead-based-paint-related
repairs. The program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Lead Pipe
Replacement
Assistance Program
(LPRAP)
DOEE
No limit
DC homeowners can receive up to a 50% discount (up to $2,500) to replace lead pipes connected to the
city water supply. While there are no income restrictions to apply, homeowners with income at or below
the program limits can receive a free replacement or an 80% discount.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
59
Appendix B. Energy and Water Burden Methodology
This analysis follows ACEEE’s methodology, used in its three energy burden reports
(Drehobl, Ross, and Ayala 2020; Ross, Drehobl and Stickles 2017; Drehobl and Ross 2016).
For this study, we analyzed the American Housing Survey (AHS) 2019 data (released in
October 2020), which is issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). The AHS is a biennial household-level survey by the Census Bureau that collects a
variety of housing and demographic data from national and regional cross-sections of
households across the United States, as well as in a subset of metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs). The Washington, DC metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is included in the 2019
AHS dataset. The AHS includes household income data and energy and water cost data that
we use as the basis of our energy, water, and combined burden calculations. The AHS
models its energy cost data based on household characteristics ascertained through its
survey and also uses data collected through the Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(RECS) for a different national set of households.
24
We analyzed the weighted sample data
for our calculations.
For the utility burden analysis, we calculated energy burdens using the total annual cost of
electricity, natural gas, and other heating fuels and total annual household income. We
calculated median energy burdens and the percentage of households with high and severe
energy burdens across a variety of demographic groups and household building
characteristics for individuals in the Washington, DC MSA. We define households with high
energy burdens as those spending more than 6% of their income on electricity and heating
fuel costs, and households with severe energy burdens as those spending more than 10% of
their income on energy costs.
25
These two categories are not mutually exclusive, as
households with severe energy burdens are a subset of those with high energy burdens. We
compare the energy burden findings to ACEEE’s 2020 national energy burden findings
(Drehobl, Ross, and Ayala 2020).
We also calculated median water burdens for households in the Washington, DC MSA
across a variety of demographic groups and household building characteristics as well as
the percentage of households with a high water burden of more than 4%. For households
with both water and energy data available, we also calculated a combined energy and water
burden, as well as the percentage with a high combined utility burden of above 10%. We
24
Beginning with the 2015 edition, the AHS stopped including questions on energy costs. Previously, most of
those data were self-reported. As part of the 2015 AHS redesign, researchers began estimating energy costs
through regression-model imputation. They created the utility estimation system (UES) to estimate annual
energy costs using regression models developed from the RECS, which collects administrative data from
suppliers on actual billing amounts. This estimate was used to calculate average monthly energy costs. The RECS
also collects some housing characteristics similar to those the AHS collects, which allows the construction of
models that can then be applied to the AHS. For more on the energy cost estimation model development and
decisions for the 2015 AHS, see www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/American-Housing-
Survey.pdf.
25
HUD determines affordable housing costs to be 30% of total household income. Researchers have determined
that, typically, 20% of total housing expenses are energy costs. This equates to 6% of total income spent on
energy bills as an affordable level (Fisher Sheehan & Colton 2020). We consider energy burdens above 6% to be
high burdens, with burdens above 10% to be severe. This method is in line with other research (APPRISE 2005).
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
60
also calculated energy, water, and combined burdens for the national sample in the 2019
AHS dataset to compare to the DC metro area.
We analyzed energy, water, and combined burdens for the Washington, DC metro area
across a variety of factors including race and ethnicity, age, education and ability, building
tenure and age, and building type and heating fuel. We chose the income thresholds to
match those of DOEE’s utility affordability program income thresholds.
Figure B1 includes the demographic and housing-related factors included in the analysis.
Figure AB1. Demographic and housing factors analyzed across the energy, water, and combined utility burden analyses,
including income, race/ethnicity, age, education and ability, building tenure and age, and building type and heating fuel.
Source:
AHS 2019 data.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
61
Limitations
AHS includes modeled energy costs, which are determined by matching characteristics of
households in the AHS to characteristics of households in the RECS. This means that the
annual energy bills may differ from actual bills.
We also exclude households from the burden analyses that do not report income and do not
pay for their electricity, water, and main heating fuel. Thus, our report findings do not
include data on renters who pay for their electricity, water, or heat in their rent, or
households with no annual income reported. Our exclusion criteria for each analysis
includes the following:
• Energy burden analysis excludes households who do not report positive income, do
not pay for their electricity, and/or do not pay for their main heating fuel.
• Water burden analysis excludes households who do not report positive income and/or
do not pay for their water costs.
• Combined utility burden analysis excludes households who do not report positive
income, do not pay for their electricity, do not pay for their main heating fuel,
and/or do not pay for their water costs.
This study does not explore causality and therefore cannot conclude why certain
demographic groups or housing types have higher utility burdens than others. Additional
research is needed to determine the causes of disproportionate utility burdens, which may
include building efficiency, income and poverty rates, and other economic factors. The data
for this study is also from 2019, so it does not take into account the impact of COVID-19 on
energy and water affordability.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
62
Appendix C. Energy, Water, and Combined Burden Data
ENERGY BURDEN DATA
Table C1. Median energy burden, upper quartile energy burden (25% of households above this burden level), and percent of
households with high (>6%) and severe (>10%) energy burdens across income thresholds
Income
thresholds
Program(s)
Number of
households in
DC metro
sample
Percent of
households in
DC metro
sample
Median
energy
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
burden
(>6%)
Percent
severe
burden
(>10%)
≤200% FPL
WAP
273,055
14%
9.8%
17%
73%
48%
≤60% SMI
LIHEAP, UDP
331,821
18%
7.7%
15%
64%
40%
≤80% AMI
SFA
668,468
35%
4.5%
7.7%
36%
20%
≤100% AMI
CRIAC
842,284
45%
3.8%
6.6%
29%
16%
>200% FPL (non-
low-income)
N/A
1,611,601
86%
1.7%
2.8%
3%
0%
>60% SMI
N/A
1,552,834
82%
1.7%
2.6%
2%
0%
>80% AMI
N/A
1,216,188
65%
1.5%
2.2%
0%
0%
>100% AMI
N/A
1042,372
55%
1.4%
1.9%
0%
0%
All households
N/A
1,884,656
84%*
2.0%
3.6%
13%
7%
* The analysis included 84% of households in the sample; 16% of households were filtered out due to lack of energy bill or income data.
Table C2. Median energy burden, upper quartile energy burden, and percent of households with high (>6%) and severe
(>10%) energy burdens across demographic factors including race/ethnicity, age, ability, education, and SNAP status
Category
Demographic
factors
Number of
households in
DC metro
sample
Percent of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Median
energy
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
burden
(>6%)
Percent
severe
burden
(>10%)
Race/
ethnicity
White (non-
Hispanic)
920,295
49%
1.8%
3.1%
10%
6%
Black
508,924
27%
2.6%
5%
21%
12%
Hispanic
225,701
12%
2.5%
4.3%
13%
5%
Asian
220,267
12%
1.7%
3%
7%
4%
Other race*
51,322
3%
1.9%
4.2%
17%
5%
Age
Older adults
(over 65)
478,866
25%
2.7%
5.1%
22%
12%
Younger adults
(under 65)
1,405,790
75%
1.8%
3.2%
10%
6%
Ability
Member with
disability
271,298
14%
2.9%
5.8%
24%
13%
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
63
Category
Demographic
factors
Number of
households in
DC metro
sample
Percent of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Median
energy
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
burden
(>6%)
Percent
severe
burden
(>10%)
No members
with disability
1,613,358
86%
1.9%
3.2%
11%
6%
Education
Not high school
graduate
126,452
7%
4.0%
7.7%
30%
20%
High school
graduate
272,527
14%
3.1%
5.3%
24%
14%
Higher
education (AA,
BA, MA, etc.)
1,259,709
67%
1.7%
2.8%
8%
3%
SNAP
status
Receives food
stamps
72,268
38%
7%
14.6%
62%
38%
Does not
receive food
stamps
920,315
49%
2.5%
4.5%
18%
10%
All households
1,884,656
84%**
2.0%
3.6%
13%
7%
* Includes households with American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and/or mixed-race head of households. ** The
analysis included 84% of households in the sample; 16% of households were filtered out due to lack of energy bill or income data.
Table C3. Median energy burden, upper quartile energy burden, and percent of households with high (>6%) and severe
(>10%) energy burdens across building characteristics such as structure type, tenure status, year built, and heating fuel type
Category
Building
characteristics
Number of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Percent of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Median
energy
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
burden
(>6%)
Percent
severe
burden
(>10%)
Structure
Single-family
1,373,740
73%
2.1%
3.7%
13%
7%
Multifamily (5+
units)
463,109
25%
1.7%
3%
12%
7%
2-4 units
38,593
2%
2.3%
4.2%
15%
11%
Tenure
Renter
601,851
32%
2.1%
4.1%
16%
9%
Owner
1,276,325
68%
1.9%
3.4%
12%
6%
Year
built
Before 1980
812,614
43%
2.3%
4.4%
16%
9%
After 1980
1,072,042
57%
1.8%
3.2%
11%
6%
Heating
fuel type
Electric heat
952,807
51%
2.1%
4%
15%
9%
Natural gas heat
923,530
49%
1.9%
3.3%
11%
5%
All households
1,884,656
84%*
2.0%
3.6%
13%
7%
* The analysis included 84% of households in the sample; 16% of households were filtered out due to lack of energy bill or income data.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
64
WATER BURDEN DATA
Table C4. Median water burden and upper quartile water burden (25% of households above this burden level) across income
thresholds
Income
thresholds
Program(s)
Number of
households
in DC metro
sample
Percent of
households
in DC metro
sample
Median
water
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high water
burden
(>4%)
≤200% FPL
WAP
143,524
12%
3%
8.2%
45%
≤60% SMI
LIHEAP, UDP
173,447
13%
2.7%
7.4%
38%
≤80% AMI
SFA
390,174
30%
1.4%
2.9%
19%
≤100% AMI
CRIAC
511,506
40%
1.1%
2.2%
14%
>200% FPL (non-
low-income)
N/A
1,149,399
88%
0.5%
0.9%
1%
>60% SMI
N/A
1,119,476
87%
0.5%
0.8%
1%
>80% AMI
N/A
902,749
70%
0.4%
0.7%
0%
>100% AMI
N/A
781,417
60%
0.4%
0.6%
0%
All households
N/A
1,292,923
55%*
0.6%
1%
6%
* The analysis included 55% of households in the sample; 45% of households were filtered out due to lack of water bill or income data.
Table C5. Median water burden and upper quartile water burden across demographic factors including race/ethnicity, age,
ability, education, and SNAP status
Category
Demographic factors
Number of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Percent of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Median
water
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
water
burden
(>4%)
Race/
ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic)
653,958
51%
0.5%
0.9%
4%
Black
327,445
25%
0.7%
1.3%
8%
Hispanic
138,857
11%
0.8%
1.4%
8%
Asian
161,090
12%
0.6%
0.9%
4%
Other race*
34,909
3%
0.5%
1.0%
6%
Age
Older adults (over 65)
345,801
27%
0.7%
1.5%
10%
Younger adults (under
65)
947,122
73%
0.5%
1.0%
4%
Ability
Member with disability
177,144
14%
0.7%
1.3%
8%
No members with
disability
1,115,779
86%
0.6%
1.0%
5%
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
65
Category
Demographic factors
Number of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Percent of
households
in DC
metro
sample
Median
water
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
water
burden
(>4%)
Education
Not high school
graduate
62,757
5%
1.3%
2.7%
21%
High school graduate
182,284
14%
0.9%
1.6%
11%
Higher education (AA,
BA, MA, etc.)
902,560
70%
0.5%
0.9%
3%
SNAP
status
Receives food stamps
33,153
3%
1.0%
3.5%
23%
Does not receive food
stamps
648,050
50%
0.7%
1.3%
8%
All households
1,292,923
55%**
0.6%
1%
6%
* Includes households with American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and/or mixed-race head of households. ** The
analysis included 55% of households in the sample; 45% of households were filtered out due to lack of water bill or income data.
Table C6. Median water burden and upper quartile water burden across building characteristics such as structure type,
tenure status, year built, and heating fuel type
Category
Building
characteristics
Number of
households
in DC
metro area
Percent of
households
in DC metro
area
Median
water
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high water
burden
(>4%)
Structure
Single-family
1,124,391
87%
0.6%
1.1%
6%
Multifamily (5+ units)
157,581
12%
0.5%
1.0%
6%
2-4 units
8,528
1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Tenure
Renter
281,450
22%
0.7%
1.3%
6%
Owner
1,004,568
78%
0.5%
1.0%
5%
Year built
Before 1980
573,190
44%
0.6%
1.3%
8%
After 1980
719,733
56%
0.5%
0.9%
4%
Heating
fuel type
Electric heat
512,835
40%
0.6%
1.2%
6%
Natural gas heat
739,806
57%
0.6%
1.0%
6%
All households
1,292,923
55%*
0.6%
1%
6%
* The analysis included 55% of households in the sample; 45% of households were filtered out due to lack of water bill or income data.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
66
COMBINED ENERGY AND WATER BURDENS
Table C7. Median combined energy and water burden and upper quartile combined burden (25% of households above this
burden level) across income thresholds
Income
thresholds
Program(s)
Number of
households
in DC metro
area
Percent of
households
in DC
metro area
Median
combined
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
combined
burden
(>10%)
≤200% FPL
WAP
133,776
11%
14.4%
28%
66%
≤60% SMI
LIHEAP,
UDP
162,631
13%
11.2%
22.5%
58%
≤80% AMI
SFA
349,916
29%
6.6%
11.0%
27%
≤100% AMI
CRIAC
466,976
38%
5.1%
8.8%
21%
>200% FPL
(non-low-
income)
N/A
1,088,967
89%
2.4%
3.7%
1%
>60% SMI
N/A
1,060,112
87%
2.3%
3.5%
0%
>80% AMI
N/A
872,826
71%
2.0%
3.0%
0%
>100% AMI
N/A
755,766
62%
1.9%
2.7%
0%
All households
N/A
1,222,742
51%*
2.6%
4.6%
8%
* The analysis included 51% of households in the sample; 49% of households were filtered out due to lack of energy bill or income data.
Table C8. Median combined energy and water burden and upper quartile combined burden across demographic factors
including race/ethnicity, age, ability, education, and SNAP status
Category
Demographic factors
Number of
households
in DC metro
area
Percent of
households
in DC metro
area
Median
combined
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
combined
burden
(>10%)
Race/
ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic)
625,008
51%
2.3%
3.8%
5%
Black
302,929
25%
3.2%
5.5%
13%
Hispanic
128,347
10%
3.5%
6.0%
8%
Asian
155,742
13%
2.4%
4.1%
7%
Other race*
30,066
2%
2.7%
5.0%
9%
Age
Older adults (over 65)
316,888
26%
3.5%
5.8%
14%
Younger adults (under
65)
905,854
74%
2.5%
4.0%
6%
Ability
Member with disability
163,516
13%
3.6%
6.6%
15%
No members with
disability
1,059,226
87%
2.6%
4.3%
7%
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
67
Category
Demographic factors
Number of
households
in DC metro
area
Percent of
households
in DC metro
area
Median
combined
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
combined
burden
(>10%)
Education
Not high school
graduate
59,987
5%
5.6%
10.0%
26%
High school graduate
160,394
13%
4.2%
6.8%
16%
Higher education (AA,
BA, MA, etc.)
863,865
71%
2.2%
3.6%
4%
SNAP
status
Receives food stamps
29,461
2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Does not receive food
stamps
617,765
51%
3.2%
5.5%
12%
All households
1,222,742
51%**
2.6%
4.6%
8%
* Includes households with American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and/or mixed-race head of households. ** The
analysis included 51% of households in the sample; 49% of households were filtered out due to lack of energy bill or income data.
Table C9. Median combined energy and water burden and upper quartile combined burden across building characteristics
such as structure type, tenure status, year built, and heating fuel type
Category
Building
characteristics
Number of
households
in DC metro
area
Percent of
households
in DC metro
area
Median
combined
burden
Upper
quartile
(25%
above)
Percent
high
combined
burden
(>10%)
Structure
Single-family
1,077,519
88%
2.8%
4.7%
8%
Multifamily (5+ units)
136,378
11%
2.0%
3.4%
7%
2-4 units
6,422
1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Tenure
Renter
253,362
21%
3.1%
5.0%
9%
Owner
964,962
79%
2.6%
4.4%
7%
Year
built
Before 1980
524,801
43%
3.1%
5.6%
11%
After 1980
697,942
57%
2.4%
3.8%
5%
Heating
fuel type
Electric heat
501,241
41%
3.0%
5.0%
9%
Natural gas heat
716,505
59%
2.5%
4.1%
7%
All households
1,222,742
51%*
2.6%
4.6%
8%
* The analysis included 51% of households in the sample; 49% of households were filtered out due to lack of energy bill or income data.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
68
Appendix D. Interview Methodology
Dr. Hernández spearheaded the development of the interview guides to reflect priorities
established by DOEE. Interviews were conducted with program staff associated with
DOEE’s utility assistance programs as well as program participants. The interviews with
program staff targeted staff and administrators across the various DOEE programs with
organizational oversight. We deliberately chose 10 DOEE employees with experience in one
or more programs, those that directly interface with consumers, some with supervisory
experience, others that transitioned from one program to another, or led the administration
of multiple programs. All 10 program staff that we approached agreed to be interviewed.
They were asked standard questions from a semi-structured interview guide, which also
allowed for probing and tailoring of questions where appropriate. The guide included
questions about the jobs and roles of the participants, descriptions and assessments of the
programs they worked for or oversaw, client experiences of the program from their
viewpoint, the impact of COVID on program delivery, and any final thoughts. Interviews
with program staff were conducted by Dr. Hernández, Ariel Drehobl, and Lauren Ross and
lasted one hour on average. Dr. Ross and Ms. Drehobl observed one interview conducted by
Dr. Hernández followed by a debrief prior to conducting interviews on their own.
Participant interviews were conducted with 30 recipients of DOEE utility assistance
programs between October and December 2020. We sought representation from across the
five programs offered by DOEE, including those that had received multiple services. Based
on participant data provided by DOEE, we randomly selected participants in each program;
those enlisted in more than one program were included in separate spreadsheets.
The research team conducted interview selection based on the following criteria:
• LIHEAP/UDP: 10 participants (5 from Wards 1–6, 5 from Wards 7–8)
• SFA: 10 participants (5 from Wards 1–6, 5 from Wards 7–8)
• WAP: 5 participants (2 from Wards 1–6, 2 from Wards 7–8, 1 from any Ward)
• CRIAC: 5 participants (2 from Wards 1–6, 2 from Wards 7–8, 1 from any Ward)
In the end, 28 of the 30 residents interviewed participated in more than one of the programs.
DOEE program participants were recruited for interviews by random selection through
email and postcard outreach. From October through November 2020, we sent emails to 476
DC residents and postcards to 125 District residents. Ultimately, we recruited 27
participants through email outreach and 3 through postcard outreach. Participants received
a $100 Visa gift card by mail for their participation.
Table D1 includes a demographic summary of program participants. Appendix F includes
additional information on interview participants.
Table D1. Number of interview participants across demographic and other categories (total of 30)
Participants (not mutually exclusive)
Category
Subcategory
LIHEAP/UDP
WAP
SFA
CRIAC
Total
(of 30)
Total participants*
N/A
24
8
17
15
30
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
69
Participants (not mutually exclusive)
Category
Subcategory
LIHEAP/UDP
WAP
SFA
CRIAC
Total
(of 30)
Recruitment type
Email
21
6
15
15
27
Postcard
3
2
2
0
3
District Ward
Wards 1–6
15
4
10
7
16
Wards 7–8
9
4
6
7
14
Age
29 and under
2
0
1
2
4
30–39
8
0
3
4
8
40–49
4
2
4
4
6
50–59
5
2
4
3
6
60–69
2
1
2
1
2
70–79
1
1
2
1
2
80 and above
1
1
0
0
1
Race/ethnicity
Black/African
American**
15
7
12
10
19
Hispanic
1
0
2
1
2
White
1
0
0
2
2
Asian
1
0
1
0
1
Tenure status
Owner
9
5
8
8
14
Renter
9
3
8
7
15
Other
1
0
1
0
1
Building type
Single-family
17
8
12
15
23
Multifamily
7
0
5
0
7
* 28 of 30 participants indicated that they participated in more than one of the five programs, so that the number
participating in each program is not mutually exclusive from other programs. This means the total participants for each
category will not equal the sum across the programs. ** This includes households who identified as either Black, African
American, or both.
Dr. Hernández and her research assistants, Tasfia Rahman and Miranda Simes, conducted
all participant interviews. Ms. Rahman and Ms. Simes separately observed Dr. Hernández
administer one interview, and she observed each of them conduct an interview, after which
they debriefed to discuss techniques and ways to improve the administration of interviews.
Ultimately, Dr. Hernández led or observed 8 interviews, Ms. Rahman conducted 10
interviews, and Ms. Simes administered 12 interviews. The team used a semi-structured
interview guide to move the interviews along. The participant interview guide asked
questions about the participant’s home and family, participation in the DOEE programs
(repeating pertinent questions if enrolled in multiple programs), household bills and
financial management strategies, energy efficiency and indoor temperature conditions,
household income and expenses, COVID impact, and policy recommendations. Each
interview lasted between 30–60 minutes, though most were closer to one hour long. The
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
70
team met weekly to review the interviews and discuss any issues encountered while
administering the interviews.
All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim using REV professional
transcription services. Interview transcripts were then coded using NVivo version 12 for
MAC. We used an open coding methodology to develop a codebook. Open coding is part of
a ground theory research method whereby raw research data are first interpreted and
systematically analyzed and then categorized. Coding for DOEE program participant
interviews included reasons for energy insecurity, coping strategies used to manage
financial hardship and thermal discomfort, experiences with various aspects of the DOEE
program participation including barriers and facilitators to receiving and benefiting from
assistance and navigating local resources, and perceptions of the impact of program
participation. Coding for interviews with program staff included domains of personal roles
and responsibilities, program descriptions, program assessments, client experiences, and
COVID-19 impacts. We discussed the domains as a team to converge on meanings and
applications of codes and revisited all transcripts to ensure the systematic application of
codes throughout. Ms. Rahman and Ms. Simes led the open coding and codebook
development process with oversight from Dr. Hernández.
Following the codebook development and open coding process, Dr. Hernández led the axial
coding procedure to identify and assess data patterns, potential causal relationships,
contextual factors, and impacting conditions. Axial coding is a technique used to identify
core themes during qualitative data analysis through the process of relating codes
(categories and concepts) to each other. The results reflect this more interpretive analytical
approach, which highlights overarching themes across all participant transcripts, focusing
on facets of the programs that are serving participants well along with potential areas of
improvement. These insights have also been incorporated into policy recommendations.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
71
Appendix E. Interview Guides
PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW GUIDE
Interview tracking number: _______________________
Name of interview respondent: _________________________________________
Date: ________________________________
Ward: __________________________
Primary heating fuel: ____________________________________________
Introduction
We’re speaking with you today because we’re doing a research study in partnership with DC’s
Department of Energy and the Environment to better understand people’s issues with their homes
and energy bills, and your recent experience with DOEE programs.
We’d like to take an audio-only recording that will be used for informational and educational
purposes. We’ll keep it confidential and we won’t use your name. Is it okay if we record the
interview?
[Confirm permission to record after the tape recorder is on]
We acknowledge you’ve already spent a lot of time sharing your personal information with the
program staff from (reference program participation). We have some similar questions but our focus
here is on your personal story, so we’d like to ask that you answer the questions as honestly as
possible. There is no right or wrong answer here. The interview should take about one hour and we
will ask you about your home, your household bills and sources of income, and your experiences
with the energy assistance program. At the end of the interview, we will confirm your information to
send you the $100 gift card. Does this sound ok to you? If so, let’s get started.
Your home and family
1. Tell me about your home.
a. Probe: Do you rent or own? How long have you been living in your current home?
2. What is it like living in your home?
a. Probe: What do you like best about your home?
b. Probe: Anything you don’t like or would change about your home?
3. Tell me about your family.
a. Probe: how many people live in the household, ages.
b. Probe: How would you describe your household in terms of race/ethnicity? What
language(s) do you speak at home?
c. Probe: How old are you and other members of your household?
Participating in DOEE programs
1. Tell us about your experience with—bill assistance through the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP)/ Utility Discount Program (UDP)/ Solar for All (SFA)/
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)/ Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge
(CRIAC)?
a. Probe: What do you know about these programs?
b. Probe: How did you hear about the program?
c. Probe: When was the first time you received services and how often do/have you
returned?
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
72
2. How often do you seek utility (elec, gas, water) support services? (this applies more for
LIHEAP/UDP and CRIAC; WAP and SFA are one-time programs)
a. Probe: every year, only when needed, every other year?
b. Probe: What factors contribute to when you do/do not decide to apply for services?
3. If you have been involved in more than one program, what is your impression of combining
the benefits?
a. Probe: What are positive aspects, negative aspects of being enrolled in more than one
program?
4. Some programs such as LIHEAP currently provide an annual stipend. How would you feel
about the assistance being distributed on a monthly basis rather than one large lump sum?
a. Probe: What are your thoughts about other ways that benefits are delivered such as
onsite solar installation, community solar, one-time utility bill credit, monthly utility
bill credit, direct cash assistance, etc.
b. Probe: What is the most helpful to you? Which is hardest for you?
5. Please tell me a little bit about your experience with the application process.
a. Probe: Based on your experience, do you have any recommendations about what can
make the application process easier or simpler?
b. Probe: How would you feel about being automatically enrolled in the program each
year?
6. What has been your experience with the DOEE reaching out to you? Do you feel they have
been effective in connecting with you and connecting you to services?
7. Where else do you go (or have you gone in the past) for help with your utility bills?
a. Probe: How would you compare your experience at DOEE versus these other
places?
8. How do your interactions with DOEE compare to your experiences with other organizations
or agencies that offer assistance (i.e., food stamps, cash assistance, eviction protection,
Department of Aging, Department of Human Resources, etc.)?
a. Probe: Do you trust DOEE more or less than these alternative agencies?
9. How satisfied do you feel with the service(s)? Why?
a. Probe: What went well with receiving services? What challenges, if any, did you face
with applying for or receiving services?
b. Probe: How satisfied are you with the customer service aspect of the program? Do
the DOEE staff treat you well?
10. Are the services that you have received enough to meet your needs?
a. Probe: Is it the right kind of help?
b. Probe: What else would help you better meet your household energy needs?
c. Probe: Is there a way that they can help families, the elderly, people from different
wards, or people that speak languages other than English?
11. What challenges did you face with this program?
a. Probe: Was it easy to enroll and receive the program benefits?
b. Probe: Would you change anything about how the office where you apply for
services is organized or how it runs?
12. How important is it for you to be environmentally friendly? Is that something that attracts
you to the DOEE program(s)? If yes, say more.
13. Overall, what do you like most about participating in the program? Is there anything you
would change about the program?
Your household energy and bills
The following questions are about the last year.
1. Please tell me about your household energy use. What sources of energy do you use at
home—electricity, natural, fuel oil, propane, kerosene? Any other energy sources?
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
73
2. What is your main energy source (typically, natural gas or electricity; less common sources
are fuel oil, wood, kerosene and propane) for heating? Cooling? Cooking? Water heater?
Appliances?
a. Probe: Are any of these costs shared by a landlord or included in condo/HOA fees?
3. When you get your utility bills (electric, gas, or water), how do you feel?
a. Probe: What kind of challenges have you had paying your electricity/gas bill?
b. Probe: What kind of challenges have you had paying your water bill?
c. Probe: Have you carried a balance on your electric/gas/water bills?
4. How often have you needed someone else’s help to pay the electric/gas/water bill?
a. Probe: Negotiated a payment plan with the utility company to avoid a shut-off?
b. Probe: Enrolled in budget billing?
5. Have you ever gotten a disconnection notice for your electricity, gas or water service?
a. Probe: What did you do to avoid the shut off?
b. Probe: Have you ever lived through a shut-off?
c. Probe: How were you able to get service back?
6. Tell me about what you’ve done to save energy or water.
a. Probe: What strategies or behaviors do you use to reduce energy or water use?
b. Probe: What about energy/water efficiency measures?
c. Probe: Have you made any upgrades to your home, appliances, or heating
equipment to save energy?
7. What did your parents/household teach you about energy or water? Clarification: This could
be to save on your energy/water bills, or it could be just to save energy/water. It can include
behaviors or home improvements.
a. Examples: turn off lights, change the thermostat temperature, upgrade windows or
appliances, insulate, change light bulbs, don’t let the water run, limit time in
showers, etc.
8. Have you ever had to reduce your energy/water consumption to uncomfortable or
inconvenient levels to save on your energy bill?
a. Probe: Tell me more about that and what you’ve done.
Energy Efficiency and indoor temperatures
1. Overall, how do you feel about the energy efficiency of your home?
a. Probe: How well-insulated would you say your home is? (By insulation, we mean
free of drafts, generally able to feel comfortable in terms of temperature)
2. How do you feel about the temperature in your home during the winter months?
a. Probe: What types of heating equipment do you use?
b. Probe: During winter, what do you usually do to keep warm in your home?
3. What about the summer?
a. Probe: What types of cooling equipment do you use?
b. Probe: During summer, what do you usually do to try to keep cool in your home?
4. Tell me about any changes you’ve made to improve your comfort in terms of temperature.
a. Examples: supplemental heating or cooling- stove, space heaters
5. Tell me about any changes you’ve made to home or behaviors you use to reduce your
household energy use and costs.
Your household income and expenses
These questions are about your overall economic situation over the past 12 months. We ask these questions
because it will help us to understand how you balance household energy bills and other expenses according to
your income.
1. Tell me about how you support your family financially? What are sources of household
income for yourself and others?
a. Salary from work:
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
74
b. Pension/Social Security:
c. Cash Assistance:
d. Other sources (i.e., child support, investments):
e. Probe: if employed, what do you do for work? What is your highest level of
education you’ve obtained?
2. Now I’m going to ask you about household expenses. What are your top three priorities in
terms of your household expenses (i.e., housing, food, energy expenses, medical expenses,
transportation, childcare costs, other)?
a. Rent/Mortgage:
b. Food:
c. Electricity:
d. Gas:
e. Water:
f. Property taxes (if applicable):
g. Broadband:
h. Telephone (home and/or mobile):
i. Medical expenses:
j. Transportation:
k. Childcare costs:
l. Other household expenses:
3. How do you prioritize different kinds of bills?
a. Probe: How often do you make decisions between paying utilities and paying for
other necessities such as food, medicine, rent, or other basic needs?
b. Tell me more about that? When? How often?
4. Have you experienced a loss of wages or added costs as a result of the current pandemic?
a. Probe: How have you coped with these changes?
Closing
Thank you so much for speaking with us. Real people and stories are so important. We’re doing this
so that we learn, and so that other people learn as well. So we have one last question for you, and
that is: who should know about these stories and what we learn?
DOEE PROGRAM STAFF AND ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW GUIDE
Interviewee tracking number:
Name of interview respondent:
Job Title:
Date of Interview:
Background Script: Thank you for speaking with me today. For background, my team was awarded a
grant from DOEE to provide recommendations on how to improve DOEE’s energy affordability
programs. To do this, we are conducting an energy burden assessment of the city and we are also
conducting interviews with individuals who participated in DOEE’s energy affordability programs.
Before we conduct interviews with program participants, we are now conducting interviews with key
informants who work directly with DOEE’s energy affordability programs. We are hoping to hear
your perspective on how these programs work, how they can improve, and what’s been successful.
To start, I’m going to ask you a few questions about your current position and the program(s) that
you work under.
I. Job title and role
1. Please tell me about your current position at DOEE.
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
75
a. Probes: What are your day-to-day responsibilities?
b. How long have you worked with the organization—has it always been in the same
capacity?
c. What’s the most challenging aspect of your job? What is the most rewarding aspect
of your job?
II. Program description and assessment
2. Please indicate which program(s) you administer or work under?
a. LIHEAP, UDP, CRIAC, WAP, SFA
Now we will ask you to describe and assess each of these programs.
b. Probes: How would you describe the mission of this program? [Repeat if involved
with multiple programs]
c. How well does this program(s) fit within the larger mission/vision of the DOEE?
d. Please describe the various components of the program such as client
outreach, referrals, application, certification, receipt of services, follow-up etc.?
e. Which of these components would you say are going well? Which are not?
f. Are there any recent changes to the program to improve how it operates? Note: this
does not refer to COVID adaptations; we will ask about that later.
i. If you could change anything about how this program is run, what would
you do differently?
g. How efficiently are you able to provide clients with assistance? How long does the
process typically take from start to finish?
h. Besides your program, where else in the DC area might clients receive similar
services? In other words, are you part of a larger referral network or are there other
well-known entities in the District providing complementary resources? Are there
any key programmatic differences between how services are delivered by you and
the others?
i. Do you think this program is adequately funded and staffed?
j. What additional information do you wish you had to better serve your clients?
III. Client experiences with energy issues and the programs
3. What are the most significant energy issues presented by clients in your program?
4. What factors do you think contribute most to clients’ experience with hardship with their
household energy?
5. Please describe your client base in terms of demographic factors such as income/poverty; age
of householders—elderly/children; housing tenure (owners/renters),
race/ethnicity, immigration status and language proficiency, service areas/wards.
a. In what ways does your program(s) serve these various populations?
b. How does the program(s) differentiate its approach(es) to better serve different
clients?
c. Who among these groups is best served and why?
d. Which populations are underserved and why?
e. Are you able to offer clients the “right kind of help”? Is the help enough to
meet their needs?
f. What additional supports can be implemented to better address client needs?
6. How common is it for clients to be enrolled in multiple programs offered at DOEE? What are
the barriers/facilitators to accessing the other services?
7. What do you think are the most notable impacts of this program from the client’s
perspective?
IV. COVID and Parting Thoughts/Questions/Comments
8. We would be remiss not to acknowledge the current moment.
a. How has the COVID pandemic impacted your work and ability to serve clients?
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
76
b. What new pressures does the organization now contend with and how have you all
adapted to the current circumstances?
c. How has the pandemic and accompanying economic fallout affected your clients
and, in turn, the demand for services?
9. We have covered a lot in the interview so far; is there anything we missed or that you think is
important for us to understand about your program(s)?
a. Do you have any parting thoughts/questions/comments?
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
77
Appendix F. Interview Participant Data
Table F1. Demographic data on interview participants
Identifier
Recruit-
ment
Ward
Programs
Age
Race/
ethnicity
Average
monthly
income of
interviewee
Tenure
status
Building type
Participant 1
Email
1
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA
n/a
Asian
$2,500
Owner
Multifamily
Participant 2
Email
4
LIHEAP/ UDP,
CRIAC
57
n/a**
$850
Owner
Single-family
Participant 3
Postcard
6
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA
57
Black,
African
American
$886
Renter
Multifamily
Participant 4
Email
4
LIHEAP/ UDP,
CRIAC
36
Black,
African
American
Unemployed
Renter
Single-family
Participant 5
Postcard
5
LIHEAP/ UDP,
WAP, SFA
51
Black
Unemployed
Renter
Single-family
Participant 6
Email
7
LIHEAP/ UDP,
CRIAC
42
Black
$2,166
Renter
Single-family
Participant 7
Email
8
LIHEAP/UDP
29
African
American
$988
Renter
Single-family
Participant 8
Email
8
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA, CRIAC
35
African
American
n/a
Renter
Single-family
Participant 9
Email
8
LIHEAP/ UDP
39
African
American
n/a
Renter
Multifamily
Participant 10
Email
8
LIHEAP/ UDP
31
Black,
African
American
$1,200
Renter
Multifamily
Participant 11
Email
5
SFA, CRIAC
44
Hispanic
$7,915
Owner
Single-family
Participant 12
Email
4
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA
35
African
American
$1,007
Renter
Multifamily
Participant 13
Email
6
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA
63
n/a
n/a
n/a*
Multifamily
Participant 14
Email
3
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA
74
n/a
$3,000
Owner
Single-family
Participant 15
Email
4
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA
38
Hispanic
$4,000-
$5,000
Owner
Single-family
Participant 16
Email
7
SFA, CRIAC
57
African
American
n/a
Renter
Single-family
Participant 17
Email
7
SFA, CRIAC
46
Black
$4,000-
$5,000
Owner
Single-family
Participant 18
Email
7
SFA, WAP
LIHEAP/ UDP
44
Black,
African
American
Unemployed
Renter
Single-family
Participant 19
Email
8
SFA, WAP,
CRIAC,
LIHEAP/ UDP
44
African
American
$1,200
Owner
Single-family
DOEE AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS © ACEEE
78
Identifier
Recruit-
ment
Ward
Programs
Age
Race/
ethnicity
Average
monthly
income of
interviewee
Tenure
status
Building type
Participant 20
Email
7
LIHEAP/ UDP,
SFA
29
African
American
$800-$900
Renter
Multifamily
Participant 21
Email
4
SFA, WAP,
CRIAC,
LIHEAP/ UDP
62
African
American
$883
Renter
Single-family
Participant 22
Email
4
SFA, WAP,
LIHEAP/ UDP
50
African
American
Unemployed
Owner
Single-family
Participant 23
Email
7
WAP, SFA,
CRIAC
71
African
American
$2,500
Owner
Single-family
Participant 24
Email
7
WAP, LIHEAP/
UDP
45
Black
American
$1,600
Owner
Single-family
Participant 25
Postcard
5
WAP, LIHEAP/
UDP
84
n/a
$1,250
Owner
Single-family
Participant 26
Email
4
LIHEAP/ UDP,
CRIAC
32
n/a
Unemployed
Renter
Single-family
Participant 27
Email
4
LIHEAP/ UDP,
CRIAC
36
n/a
$1,500–
$4,100
Renter
Single-family
Participant 28
Email
8
CRIAC
29
White
$5,000
Owner
Single-family
Participant 29
Email
7
CRIAC
25
African
American
$3,700
Owner
Single-family
Participant 30
Email
4
CRIAC,
LIHEAP/ UDP
57
White
$2,900–
$4,100
Owner
Single-family
* The participant’s daughter owns the property and allows the participant to live rent free. ** N/A indicates that interviewees declined to
answer the question.
