LIHEAP NETWORKER ISSUE #40

Compiled by the LIHEAP Clearinghouse

(Note: The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, organizations, or program activities imply endorsement by the U.S. Government or compliance with HHS regulations).

States Launch Programs Amid, Funding Uncertainties,
High Client Arrears, Economic Downturn

State LIHEAP directors have begun their FY 2002 LIHEAP with funding uncertainties, which is not unusual. What’s unusual is the unprecedented number of households with disconnections or high arrearages, combined with indications of an economic slowdown, made all the more dramatic by the terrorist attacks on the U.S. September 11.

Initially, many states had planned to launch their FY 2002 LIHEAP on the assumption that funding would be at last year’s core level of $1.4 billion (without emergency contingency funding). At the same time they allowed for program expansion should funding levels increase, which appears likely based on House and Senate mark-ups that provided $1.7 million in regular funding and $300 million in emergency appropriations.

Last year, due to increased LIHEAP funding, many states had increased their eligibility levels and experienced vastly increased caseloads. Last winter was colder than average and energy prices were higher in most parts of the country.

The National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association (NEADA) recently reported that the number of households receiving LIHEAP crisis assistance (an indicator of those who are at risk of utility shutoff) increased by 30 percent during FY 2001, and 21 states reported increases of more than 60 percent. As winter approaches, millions of households are faced with high arrearages or disconnections, and it is these households that states will be confronting as their programs open.

Many states contacted by the LIHEAP Clearinghouse had reduced benefits based upon the apparent reduction of funds and made plans to either issue supplemental benefits or serve more households should funding increase. Few had reduced their poverty income guidelines in anticipation of reduced funding.

Budget Status as of October 25

The full House and the Senate Appropriations Committee have both approved the FY 2002 Labor/HHS/Education appropriation with $1.7 billion for LIHEAP plus $300 million in emergency funds, a 21.4 percent increase over last year's core funding level. The $300 million in emergency contingency funds approved in July will also be carried over, meaning the Administration will have the authority to provide nearly the same level of funding as was provided last year. (FY 2001 funds totaled $2.25 billion -- $1.4 billion in regular funding plus $855 million in emergency funding).

Also, as part of an economic stimulus package, House members are seeking an additional $1.4 billion for FY 2002 LIHEAP.

.LIHEAP directors have addressed their clients’ arrearages and disconnections in a variety of ways. Some tried to address the problem before closing their doors last spring; for example, by using some of their remaining LIHEAP emergency funds to extend their crisis programs or by providing a supplemental benefit. Some states were able to tap back-up resources such as fuel funds or restructuring monies, or to partner with utilities. Following are examples:

Georgia PSC Addresses Low-income Seniors’ Arrears

In Georgia, where residents face some of the highest retail natural gas rates in the country, the Public Service Commission (PSC) released $10 million on October 2 to help low-income seniors pay off their astronomical natural gas bills from the winter of 2000-01. And, in response to a record number of residential disconnections for non-payment of natural gas bills, Governor Roy Barnes has announced that he will appoint a task force to investigate how to protect natural gas consumers.

As of October 1, at least 64,000 natural gas customers remained disconnected because of arrearages, and many did not have the means to have their gas turned back on. About 124,000 customers had their gas disconnected after April 1, when a 90-day moratorium on shut-offs for nonpayment expired.

After the moratorium, according to the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the Atlanta Gas Light Company (AGL) asked and received permission from the PSC to increase the limit on disconnections from 2,000 a day, four days a week, to 6,000 a day, five days a week.

Low-income advocates worry that many customers who have been disconnected may have trouble getting reconnected because of unusually high arrearages from the winter of 2000-01and because there is a lengthy waiting list for reconnection. The combination of a record cold winter and high gas prices left some consumers with unpaid bills of up to $2,000. The average LIHEAP benefit was reported to have been $134, while winter monthly gas bills went as high as $1,000 or more.

Even customers who have made payment arrangements with their natural gas supplier cannot be sure of timely reconnection. Once payment is received, the supplier must contact AGL, owner of the natural gas pipeline infrastructure and gas meters, because only AGL- qualified technicians can conduct the required safety inspection, restore service and re-light natural gas appliances.

Once cold weather sets in, reconnection can take weeks. In response to these concerns, the PSC voted to provide $10 million to help low-income seniors 65 years of age or older with their natural gas bills. The money will come from the Universal Service Fund, as mandated by 2001 state legislation that requires the PSC to use the fund, which now totals about $25 million, to help low-income consumers.

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution reports that the money will help about 31,000 low-income seniors who are participants in an existing senior discount program. An estimated 4,500 participants collectively owe $1.5 million to gas marketers. Almost 1,000 of these consumers have had their service disconnected. Of the $10 million released by the PSC, $2 million will supplement LIHEAP and can be used to help seniors 65 years or older. The supplemental fuel assistance will permit both active and inactive consumer accounts to be credited with LIHEAP PSC payments.

The remaining $8 million of the recently released funds will be used for a "senior citizen residential discount," which entitles low- income seniors to a $50/month credit on their natural gas bills from November through March. It will be administered through AGL.

Low-income seniors, 65 years or older, can apply for both the supplemental fuel assistance funds and the monthly payment discounts through their local community action agencies. This is the third time the PSC has approved help for low-income seniors. They received $10 credits for their January, February and March gas bills, plus a refund of $50 for March gas bills.

Delaware Uses LIHEAP, Restructuring Funds

Customers of Conectiv, Delaware’s largest utility, are experiencing similar problems with high arrearages affecting about 34,000 households. The average amount owed on bills is $250 - $650, twice as much as last year. Current arrearages at Conectiv of more than $22 million are the result of a combination of higher fuel prices last winter and billing problems.

Billing problems ensued after Conectiv implemented a new billing system that resulted from a merger and requirements to modify the bill format to reflect changes due to electric utility restructuring. Artificially high bills, estimated meter readings, late bills and poor customer service were the most common complaints to the Public Service Commission (PSC). Prompted by consumer calls, the PSC put a moratorium on disconnects and late fee charges until Conectiv’s billing system was straightened out. After 16 months the moratorium was lifted and since July 2001, 1,397 disconnects have been implemented.

"By July 2001, the non-profits were bombarded with calls for financial assistance," said Leslie Lee, state director for Delaware LIHEAP. Faced with this challenge, the LIHEAP and Conectiv are in the planning stages of a pilot program to reduce arrearages and avoid further disconnects. LIHEAP is contributing $300,000 along with state funds of $300,000 - $400,000 to help customers pay arrearages. The state funds are part of an annual $800,000 contribution from Conectiv that also funds low-income energy assistance, weatherization and furnace replacements. The funds are a result of restructuring legislation that was passed in Delaware in 1999.

Other States Respond

Colorado plans to expedite the eligibility of households in an arrears or shut-off situation, and a unique feature of Colorado’s vendor agreement will also help them. The agreement requires that once a client is approved for regular LIHEAP benefits, the vendor must initiate service, continue service, or deliver fuel or restore service to the client within 24 hours of notification and continue utility services for at least 60 days after such notification. The vendor is also not allowed to terminate service or refuse service to a household during that 60 day period. The vendor must also make a good faith effort to work out an installment or budget billing payment plan with approved households.

New Jersey relied on a program it has used in the past called the Safety Net Partnership. Under that program, utilities supply LIHEAP with the names of households who are in danger of shutoff, but who have made a good faith effort to pay their bills. These households received a $250 account credit, which in some cases was enough to keep them connected. In the event the Safety Net payment was not enough, some households were eligible for help from the New Jersey Shares statewide fuel fund.

Pennsylvania reported that many households with arrearages were helped out because the state’s 2001 crisis program was extended until April 30; the state honored clients’ shutoff notices, and spent a record $60 million on crisis payments, which could be as high as $750.

In New Hampshire a statewide fuel fund called Neighbors Helping Neighbors operated in the summer and was able to help some households that had been shut off. Oregon has combined heating and crisis payments so that households with dire needs could get more money. Additionally, Oregon has funding from a meters charge that can be applied to electric disconnections and arrearages, but only for customers in the service territories of the utilities that pay the charge. North Dakota sent rebates to many households during the summer, which presumably helped many of them with higher bills.

However, for all the states with some means of helping desperate households, there are many that have reported they have no additional resources. LIHEAP funds will have to go to address shut-offs and arrearages, leaving less money for regular benefits, several states pointed out. In states that are reducing benefits, the LIHEAP benefit would likely not be enough to reconnect a households or address arrears.

Economic Factors

To make matters worse, several states interviewed by the Clearinghouse predicted dire economic times, in part due to the September 11 attacks. In New York, the longer term impacts of the terrorist attacks will be seen as the weather gets colder, and persons displaced and unemployed apply for assistance. In Connecticut, home to insurance companies, the insurance industry will likely be impacted by the large amount of claims resulting from the terrorist attacks. In Florida, workers in the travel and tourism industries have already been affected by a reduction in travel to tourist destinations. The decline in air travel is expected to be felt in Washington state, where Boeing has announced layoffs.

Finally, several states that received state funding to supplement LIHEAP last winter – Colorado, Massachusetts, and Iowa -- have been informed that their state governments probably won’t be helping out this year.

State and tribal LIHEAP grantees received notice in July that they will share a total of $20.6 million in FY 2001 leveraging incentive awards. Thirty-seven states, 30 tribes and 1 territory reported over $685 million in leveraging activities conducted during FY 2000, about 10 percent more than the amount reported in FY 1999.

The number of states participating in the leveraging incentive program was the same as last year but was down from a high of 45 states that participated in the program in FY 1993. The number of tribes that reported leveraging was the highest since the program started in FY 1991.

Utility-funded resources totaling over $381million, accounted for 56 percent of the total leveraged resources. The categories of utility resources (most mandated by state legislatures or utility commissions) were: rate discounts and credits, $229 million; deposit and fee waivers, $46 million; arrearage forgiveness, $17 million; and weatherization, $89 million. The breakdown of remaining resources included 33 percent from state and local resources, seven percent from church, community and fuel fund donations, and four percent from miscellaneous resources.

As in FY 1999, Pennsylvania reported the largest amount of leveraged resources, almost $130 million. California was second with over $105 million and New Jersey was third with $91 million in reported resources. Each of the three reported more in leveraged resources than they received through their regular LIHEAP allotment plus emergency contingency funds. All three states received the largest leveraging awards, $2,475,000 each. California’s utility-funded resources were almost double those reported in FY 1999, attributed to an increase in the number of utility discount programs that are coordinated and integrated with LIHEAP.

Other top states reporting leveraged funds included Illinois, Ohio, New York and Massachusetts.

The Intertribal Council of Michigan and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians reported the highest tribal leveraging awards at $161,974 and $133,826 respectively. Both of these tribes leveraged more than they received in LIHEAP funding, as did the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Idaho. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma received the largest award of $162,241 and the Cheyenne River Sioux's award was the second largest at $150,039. The total leveraged amount of $1,606,392 by the tribes and the Northern Mariana Islands was the largest since the program began; $1,458,885 in awards was distributed. Tribal governments provided most of the leveraged resources for the tribes.

Leveraging History: FY 1991 - 2000
	STATES			TRIBES/TERRITORIES
FY	Leveraging	Awards*	# Participants	Leveraging	Awards	# Participants	Total Awards
1990-91	$403,973,635	$24,431,796	42	$161,410	$568,204	8	$25M
1991-92	$493,188,488	$23,663,576	44	$406,768	$1,136,424	19	$24.8M
1992-93	$566,771,983	$24,094,720	45	$537,265	$905,280	**24	$25M
1993-94	$623,055,518	$28,541,986	44	$589,484	$1,458,014	25	$30M
1994-95	$638,904,966	$15,961,246	43	$668,639	$913,754	26	$16.9M
1995-96	$574,618,350	$17,636,917	39	$760,884	$1,127,083	26	$18.8M
1996-97	$587,497,146	$17,671,364	39	$1,065,714	$1,078,637	**27	$18.8M
1997-98	$534,619,538	$19,606,616	33	$711,923	$1,018,384	23	$20.6M
1998-99	$619,689,057	$18,930,270	37	$1,497,735	$1,602,320	29	$20.5M
1999-00	$683,979,362	$19,166,115	37	$1,606,392	$1,458,885	**31	$20.6M

It took nearly two decades and numerous legal arenas to settle the Kansas Ad Valorem Tax refund issue, a battle that began in 1983 between Kansas’s natural gas producers and the rest of the natural gas chain.

While the battle was a lengthy, complicated legal process with long-term issues, it’s had favorable results for low-income households in Colorado and Kansas to the tune of $3.5 million in Colorado and $16.8 in Kansas to date, used for low-income energy assistance.

The battle stemmed from property taxes Kansas levied on its natural gas reserves. These taxes were passed through the supply pipeline and on to customers in Kansas and several other neighboring states. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled the pass-through unlawful and mandated that the producers refund anything they had collected for the Kansas tax, plus interest, paid from October 4, 1983 to June 28, 1988.

Benefits to Colorado

The refund to the Colorado Interstate Gas Company, Colorado’s supply pipeline, was initially slated to go back to its distribution companies, then the providers, and finally to the ratepayers who actually paid the tax. At the time the case was about five years old, the Colorado Energy Assistance Foundation (CEAF) intervened. CEAF appealed to the utilities to donate 25 percent of their refunds to low-income energy assistance. According to Larry Kinniard, CEAF’s Development Director, some refused, but seven or eight utilities agreed. The money was delivered to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, then allocated back to the CEAF.

The total amount CEAF received is $3.5 million, of which $3.1 million was donated by Excel Energy; the remaining $400,000 came from smaller utilities and cooperatives. During the winter of 2001, CEAF distributed the new funds among the state LIHEAP, Energy Saving Partners, the state weatherization program; and 46 non-profit agencies in Colorado. And, Kinniard said, CEAF will soon receive an additional $100,000 from the settlement.

Kinniard thinks the whole process has been mutually beneficial. By donating a portion of their refunds to low-income energy assistance, the utilities have gotten good public relations, and CEAF has enhanced its relationships with utilities.

Benefits to Kansas

Kansas is another state that has benefited from the ad valorem tax refund. During the winter and spring of 2001, the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) issued two orders that made some refund monies available for assistance with low-income households’ gas bills, mostly distributed through charities.

More is yet to come, pending the outcome of further litigation. The KCC issued an order on May 3, 2001 that made the entire fund of $40.4 million available for low-income energy assistance. The refund would be available to households at or below 300 percent of federal poverty guidelines. Four local gas distribution companies could select to either administer the plan themselves or work with an agency such as the Red Cross, Warm Hearts or the Salvation Army.

However, the state’s industrial customers are seeking a share. According to Rosemary Foreman, Director of the Public Affairs for KCC, a group of industrial customers has waged two legal challenges. KCC won the first round of litigation, which enabled the initial $16.8 million to go to low-income assistance. The industrial group has filed another legal challenge with the U.S. Court of Appeals, and, thus, has effectively held up another $23.6 million of refunds.

After 14 months of uncertainty, the low-income energy efficiency (LIEE) fund authorized by Michigan electric restructuring legislation has begun a slow move toward implementation. On October 11 and 12, the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) held a public hearing and received written comment on a process for operating and administering the fund and asked for suggestions on how to allocate the money among different energy-related projects. The PSC announced that it will issue "an expeditious final order" on the process and encouraged interested parties -- state agencies, community action agencies, utilities and businesses -- to submit proposals for use of the fund.

Until the PSC announces final plans, it will not be clear whether all or even most of the LIEE fund will actually be used for energy efficiency programs. The legislation creating the fund allowed the state's two largest electric utilities, Detroit Edison and Consumers Energy, to recover their stranded costs through securitization of bonds, which customers pay off on their bills. Savings from securitization were used first to reduce electric rates by five percent for all utility customers. Any savings thereafter go into the LIEE fund, established to provide financial assistance to low-income consumers and to provide energy efficiency programs for residential, commercial and industrial customers.

Up to $60 million/year may be deposited into the fund over the next six years. The fund began collecting money in the spring of 2001, and it now amounts to about $12 million. The legislative language describing the LIEE fund is vague, and government agencies, utilities and low-income advocates have expressed sometimes radically different ideas about how the money should be spent.

Initially, the PSC wanted to include funding for renewable energy programs as well as the energy efficiency programs and, with the governor's support, for enhancement of the electric infrastructure. According to Tom Mathieu, executive director of the Michigan Community Action Association, the PSC asked the Michigan legislature to include language describing the three-way split of the money in the fund in its appropriations bill this summer. The legislature refused, Mathieu said, and removed any reference to renewable energy programs or electric infrastructure as part of the LIEE fund. Responsibility for allocating the fund was returned to the PSC. Even with that legislative guidance, it is still largely unclear what kind of programs the PSC may approve under the LIEE Fund. The MCAA plans to lobby for weatherization programs, shut-off protection, direct payment assistance, temporary shelter and other emergency protections and services, according to Mathieu. He said that the restructuring legislation indicates that LIEE-funded energy efficiency programs should be available to all income classes.

Tom Stanton, technical assistant for the PSC Electric Division, expects a wide range of proposals from different entities -- CAAs asking for shut-off protection and fuel assistance funds, utilities wanting to start energy-efficiency programs, and housing authorities seeking money to distribute low-interest loans for public housing improvements. Private business could also be represented.

Even renewable energy projects might be approved for LIEE funding on a case-by-case basis, Stanton noted, if they also addressed low-income issues. "For example, I can imagine a solar water heater installed in a low-income day care center," he said.

Although there has been concern that the new programs will be limited to Detroit Edison customers, because that company has so far provided all of the "excess savings" used for the LIEE fund, the consensus now is that the programs will be available throughout Michigan. Stanton said that the restructuring legislation doesn't point to a limited service area. Inclusion of the energy efficiency provisions in the restructuring legislation ensured its passage, according to Mathieu, so utilities are unlikely to object to statewide energy efficiency programs.

Young people hand out energy-conserving light bulbs. Community action agency and electric utility crews work together to haul away old refrigerators, water heaters and air conditioners and haul in new, high-efficiency units.

These and other conservation measures are part of California's unprecedented push for dramatically increased energy conservation in the face of tight and expensive energy supplies. In April 2001, Governor Gray Davis signed SB5X, releasing $850 million for energy conservation programs for all ratepayers and energy assistance payment programs for low-income individuals.

As part of its attempt to better serve low-income households, the measure created CAL LIHEAP and funded it with $120 million to supplement the federal LIHEAP program. The new state LIHEAP funds are effectively twice the amount available through the federal LIHEAP allotment. CAL LIHEAP also allows participation by households with incomes of up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level, compared with 60 percent of the state median income (or 200% of the FPL) under the federal program.

The bill included another $100 million to supplement the state California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program and $20 million in additional monies for the Low-Income Energy Efficiency program. Both programs are implemented through state utilities.

SB5X's immediate goal was to lower demand for electricity during summer, California's peak usage season. This meant that all of the players affected by the legislation - state and federal agencies, utilities and community action agencies (CAAs) - had to mobilize immediately. To respond, these groups joined with the California Public Utility Commission in a coordinating committee to "leverage, coordinate and collaborate," according to Toni Curtis, Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Community Services and Development (DCSD).

One of the challenges facing committee members was what Curtis calls "capacity issues." That is, SB5X required rapid implementation of new contracts with the new eligibility requirements, new programming for cash assistance programs, and additional workers and equipment for the weatherization programs. Timothy Dayonot, DCSD director, provided CAAs with $1 million from Community Service Block Grant funds to buy new trucks and hire new crews and other staff, if needed, to deliver weatherization services.

"The bill was signed in mid-April," Curtis said, "and the money was on the street, through local providers, by June 1."

Weatherization featured traditional services offered by utility and federal energy efficiency programs: attic insulation, caulking, weatherstripping, low-flow showerheads, water heater blankets, and door and building envelope repairs. Under SB5X, the utilities and CAAs coordinated efforts to provide these programs, along with duct sealing and repair, evaporative cooler maintenance, and installation of high-efficiency air conditioners, refrigerators, water heaters, microwave ovens, whole-house fans, and set-back thermostats.

Coordination among the agencies and utilities means that households can get a variety of services from different providers under one program. As an example, Curtis noted that a utility might buy energy-efficient refrigerators for low-income households, and local CAAs would install them, and the utility would then haul off the old units.

SB5X makes the CAL-LIHEAP monies available through 2005, but Curtis predicted they will probably be depleted by the end of 2002.

In addition to the massive weatherization and assistance efforts authorized by SB5X, the California legislature approved AB29x, which provided $20 million to the California Conservation Corps for a mobile brigade to deliver high-efficiency lighting to low-income residences throughout the state. That effort, dubbed the Power Walk, mobilized CCC members in all 58 counties. Corps members walked almost 7,100 miles this summer as they delivered almost two million compact fluorescent lights to more than 650,000 homes. Compact fluorescent lights consume only 25 percent of the energy used by a regular incandescent light bulb to produce the same amount of light.

There are, as yet, no precise measurements of how much energy was saved by these conservation efforts. Governor Davis recently announced that Californians had reduced energy consumption by more than 12 percent in June and eight percent in July. To determine the energy savings of its weatherization programs, CAL-LIHEAP has hired a consultant to collect data on each household weatherized by the state program and estimate total energy savings. The first report from that data is due to the legislature and governor by January 2002.

On October 1, FY 2001 REACH grants were awarded to the following states: Alaska, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maine and Michigan.

The following tribes and territories also received grants: Tlingit Haida (AK), South Puget Intertribal Council (WA), Northern Cheyenne (MT), Lumbee Regional (NC), Shoshone Bannock (ID), Blackfeet Nation (MT), Grand Traverse Band of Ottowa and Chippewa (MI), Choctaw Nation (OK), and Mariana Islands Department of Community and Cultural Affairs.

A Report to Congressional Committees on the effectiveness of the Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option (REACH) program was released in August by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

The GAO is required to evaluate the REACH program and include the states' evaluations in its report to Congress. The evaluation includes a background summary, a description of state and tribal project activities, a review of each state's evaluation report and recommendations for improvements in program performance goals, evaluations and communication of results.

Since the start of the REACH program in 1996, the Office of Community Services (OCS) has awarded 54 grants to 24 states and 12 tribal organizations. Six states, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska and Oregon, received grants in 1996 and completed 3-year projects which have been appraised by third-party evaluators.

Titled "Effectiveness of Demonstration Program As Yet Undetermined" the evaluation noted the following:

The GAO is making recommendations to HHS to address the lack of program performance goals for REACH and to ensure that the results of demonstration projects are communicated to organizations involved in assisting low-income households with their home energy needs. It will conduct more evaluations as other states complete their projects.

Some REACH projects were termed innovative by the GAO. They included the installation of solar and/or wind power for low-income households in two tribal projects: the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (FY 2000 grant) and the Cherokee Nation (FY 1997 grant).

Another innovative activity used in three state projects (Vermont, New York and Connecticut) was the formation of consumer cooperatives to reduce the cost of energy to low-income households.

Pennsylvania’s fiscal year 2000 project is addressing cooling needs in urban areas, following a number of heat-related deaths among elderly residents, particularly in urban row houses. The project is both introducing an innovative use of heat-reflective coatings on roofs of inner city row houses and providing fans and safety devices that permit windows to be locked in both open and closed positions.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the Blackfeet Nation, both of Montana, have received second REACH grants. Following is a summary of their completed and planned project activities.

Northern Cheyenne

In July 2001, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, located in southeastern Montana, completed its first REACH project, resulting from a 1999 grant. According to Newta Manley, coordinator of low-income programs on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, 556 households were assisted during the program’s thirteen-month duration. Some of the $150,000 grant provided services that included credit counseling, utility intervention and energy education, and some of the money paid for the repair or replacement of furnaces. Action for Eastern Montana, a community action agency that provides weatherization services for the tribe, conducted the furnace work.

The tribes project goals were: 1) to reduce the number of clients receiving assistance by 25 percent and 2) to decrease the client’s energy needs by at least 20 percent. Manley said these goals were not attained, which she attributed primarily to the reservation’s high unemployment rate.

Undaunted, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe applied for another REACH grant to expand and continue the project. The good news arrived the first week in October that the tribe had, indeed, been awarded another REACH Grant for $150,000.

Blackfeet Nation

The Blackfeet Nation of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation is now into the second, or implementation, phase of its 2000 REACH project, but has plans for a new program under the grant it just received.

Jerry Blevins, project coordinator, said the first grant’s focus is a study that attempts to reduce energy consumption by 10 percent by providing energy education. The program phases are: 1) to teach the clients no/low cost energy conservation practices and techniques; 2) to provide home visits that include hands-on training to help them understand how to install the conservation materials; and 3) to provide non-monetary incentives to REACH clients who successfully complete the 17-month program.

The energy education materials include a home energy survey and a do-it-yourself energy audit, both of which Blevins developed. Once clients determine what energy conservation materials (ECMs) are needed in their homes, then Blevins and an energy auditor show them how to install the ECMs. The tribe has selected the 50 homes for the study group and budgeted $500 per home to address the ECMs.

Blevins explained, "On our reservation, we have a lot of homes that were built under government housing contracts with no regard to energy efficiency. There’s little or no insulation in the attic and crawlspace. The kitchen and bathroom exhausts are generally vented into the attic. The windows and doors don’t fit well or are broken. We can’t do all that’s needed with $500, but we can tighten up the home and add insulation and proper ventilation. For those houses that are structurally bad, we try to get the Housing Authority to take responsibility. But, we have made a difference with what we’ve done already. People tell us they can’t believe the difference in the comfort level of their homes. We’ve reduced the energy consumption by more than 10 percent. I’d say it will be closer to 50 percent when we’re done."

He added that the tribe is working with Xenergy, an energy service company, to track the energy use before and after the ECMs have been installed using Xenergy’s weather-normalizing software.

With the second REACH grant, the tribe plans to develop a Department of Energy Conservation on the reservation, which will help to streamline and coordinate the existing assistance programs available to tribal members so that all households receive some help.

The National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT), through the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, has received funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to offer a national toll-free referral service on LIHEAP.

By calling 1-866-674-6327 (or 1-866-NRG-NEAR), callers will be referred to their state LIHEAP office toll-free line, if available, or to local LIHEAP service providers.

NCAT and HHS have found the need for a referral service to be critical as energy prices have skyrocketed during the past year and as LIHEAP funding has risen. Both HHS and the Clearinghouse, operated by NCAT, have received an increasing number of queries from the general public on how to obtain LIHEAP; however, the Clearinghouse was not designed or equipped to serve the general public.

The NEAR service will be staffed by participants in the federally-funded Green Thumb program, operating from NCAT’s Butte, Montana, office Monday-Friday 6 am to 6 pm Eastern time. The Green Thumb program seeks placement of low-income older workers in environments that can provide them job training and help them achieve economic self-sufficiency.

In addition to calling the toll-free line, persons seeking LIHEAP referrals may also send an email message to energyassistance@ncat.org

ACF’s new design features family-focused graphics, improved navigational features, and secondary level pages that help users locate the information they need more easily and quickly. The website was redesigned in response to feedback and information from the public and constituents. The ACF site now allows visitors to locate information via a topical listing or the new search engine. It includes information about ACF programs, grants/contracts, state and local information, research and publications, budget and policy, ACF conferences, contact information and opportunities for employment. The ACF website may be viewed at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/index.html. Comments and reactions are welcome, and may be sent by clicking on "feedback" to access a user survey.

The DEA website was redesigned to provide faster and easier access both to agencies that administer LIHEAP as well as to consumers seeking information about it. It includes a section titled "LIHEAP Consumer Support Center," where questions about LIHEAP are answered. In most cases, the Support Center can respond to individual questions quickly; however, it cannot do so on weekends and federal holidays.

History of REACH Funding
Year	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001
# States	6	6	8	5	5	*5
# Tribes, Territories	4	3	4	7	7	9
State Funding	$5.1 m	$5.4 m	$5.2 m	$5.6 m	$5.5 m	$4.5 m
Tribe/Territory Funding	$379,3	$361,5	$436,4	$804,7	$969,1	$1.3 m
Year Total	$5.5 m	$6.0 m	$5.6 m	$6.4 m	$6.4 m	$5.8 m