Key Heating Fuels Efficiency Questions
At our first meeting, we introduced some preliminary issues and challenges that we are interested in to help inform Efficiency Maine's proposal for future funding for the Heating Fuels Efficiency and Weatherization Fund.
At that meeting, we indicated that we would be sending around an updated list of the key questions building on the preliminary list. We would appreciate any comments you could send us in writing on the questions below.
1. Guiding Principles
a) What principles should guide our thinking in proposing funding sources and uses for the Heating Fuel Efficiency and Weatherization Fund?
2) Funding
a) Amount, Duration and Timing of Funding – The triennial plan calls for $14.3 million for FY2012 (ending June 30, 2012) and FY 2013 (ending June 30, 2013)
i) Should the Fund continue at the end of FY2013?
ii) If the Fund should extend beyond FY2012, what should guide the Trust’s proposal regarding the appropriate amount and duration of funding? (e.g., should heating fuel funds be based on: a Btu/basis comparable to the level of funding for natural gas conservation programs, an estimation of “all cost effective” efficiency resource from Summit Blue study, GDS Associates all fuels all cost effective study from VT extrapolated to Maine, other?)
iii) What is a useful timeframe over which we should propose program funding (e.g., remainder of Triennial Plan period, 10 yrs, 20 yrs, etc.)
iv) What is the appropriate timing for establishing new funding (e.g., should a new funding stream start summer of 2011? January 2012? Other?)
b) Sources of funding
i) What are your comments on the advantages (or disadvantages) of potential options for funding sources options?
ii) What exemptions from funding should apply and why?
c) Collection/Exemption Mechanism
i) If applicable, what are the pros and cons of the options for collecting funds for the Fund (e.g., if a system benefit charge were to be assessed, should it be assessed/collected at the point of sale, at the terminal, somewhere else?)
ii) If exemptions from collection are applicable, what are the pros and cons of the options for exempting customers (e.g., providing a discount at the point of sale, using tax rebates, providing refunds in LIHEAP payments or other low income payments, other kinds of rebates, etc.)
3) Evaluating Overall Benefits and Costs (or risks) of Funding Sources and Uses
a) In developing its proposals for the heating fuels efficiency funding sources and uses, what benefits and costs should Efficiency Maine consider and/or explore further in developing its proposals [Please note the question here is about benefits and costs to how the program is funded and/or structured, not the benefits/costs of specific measures that may be covered]
i) What information should we consider about how to quantify these benefits and costs?
ii) What unquantifiable benefits and costs should we also consider?
4) Uses – Keeping in mind what is already in Sec. 10119 of 35-A MRSA (the statute establishing the Heating Fuels and Efficiency and Weatherization Fund), and also the existing programs MaineHousing offers to weatherize homes of low income homes residential customers, and Efficiency Maine now offers for rebates on weatherizing, heating systems, appliances, and lighting:
a) What uses should be eligible for funding from the Fund?
b) What uses should be ineligible for funding from the Fund?
c) Should fuel switching be allowed (and why, or why not)?
d) Regarding residential consumer uses, should Efficiency Maine’s proposal focus only on non-low income residential customers (currently being served by MaineHousing’s Weatherization Assistance Program) or on all income levels?
For more information
If you would like more information about this program, please contact Peter.Roehrig@efficiencymaine.com.
To request a hard copy/printed version of any of the PDF or PowerPoint documents listed above, please contact Peter.Roehrig@efficiencymaine.com, or call 1-866-376-2463. Please allow 10 days for delivery from the time of request.
