Utility Billing Supporting Statement final

Supporting Statement

Utility Billing

OMB Control Number 1910-5156

This supporting statement provides additional information regarding the Department of Energy (DOE) request for extension of approved emergency information collection OMB Number 1910-5156, on behalf of the Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs (OWIP).

The numbered questions correspond to the order shown on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Form 83-I, “Instructions for Completing OMB Form 83-I.”

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs (OWIP), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), within the Department of Energy is deploying grants to fund numerous program structures and business models for delivering retrofits to existing buildings. These activities include:

• The Weatherization Assistance Program - 58 states and territories, 984 community action agencies - Title IV of the Energy Conservation and Production Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6861 et seq.) as amended

• The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants program -over 2,350 state, local, and tribal governments - Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17151 et seq.)

• The State Energy Programs - Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) as amended

The Department of Energy (DOE) needs to gather utility bill data in order to manage these energy efficiency programs effectively. The utility billing data will help DOE determine the impacts and success of these programs in achieving savings, creating jobs, and expanding retrofit markets. In particular, DOE is interested in understanding:

• The results and relative impacts of different program structures/models on expanding market-reliant residential retrofit activities; and

• The relative performance of its recipients in order to improve program administration in the future

The authority for the data collections are provided by the following provisions:

Weatherization Assistance Program

Title IV of the Energy Conservation and Production Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6861 et seq.), as amended, authorizes the DOE to administer the WAP. Section 6867, 42 U.S.C., states that:

(a) Reporting requirements

The Secretary, in consultation with the Director, by general or special orders, may require any recipient of financial assistance under this part to provide, in such form as he may prescribe, such reports or answers in writing to specific questions, surveys, or questionnaires as may be necessary to enable the Secretary and the Director to carry out their functions under this part.

State Energy Program

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) as amended, authorizes DOE to administer the SEP. Section 6323, 42 U.S.C., states that:

(c) Records

Each recipient of Federal financial assistance under subsection (b) of this section shall keep such records as the Secretary shall require, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by each recipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the plan, program, projects, measures, or systems for which such assistance was given or used, the source and amount of funds for such plan, program, projects, measures, or systems not supplied by the Secretary, and such other records as the Secretary determines necessary to facilitate an effective audit and performance evaluation. The Secretary and Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination, at reasonable times and under reasonable conditions, to any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of any recipient of Federal assistance under this part.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program

Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17151 et seq.) authorizes DOE to administer the EECBG. Section 17157, 42 U.S.C., states that:

(a) In general

The Secretary may review and evaluate the performance of any eligible entity that receives a grant under the program, including by conducting an audit, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

1. Future prime recipients of DOE funds will oversee the distribution of the Authorization form, a standard energy-use disclosure form, to each participating site receiving retrofits funded fully or partially by OWIP funds. DOE will provide a standard energy-use disclosure form for use by future grantees. The grantee will aggregate the Authorization forms and provide to DOE, or a third-party evaluator specified by DOE. DOE will oversee the transfer of the information into an electronic database.

The Authorization form will allow an evaluator specified by DOE to obtain the site’s monthly energy usage and cost (electricity and natural gas) for at least each of the 36 consecutive months prior to the retrofit, and for up to 36 consecutive months post-retrofit, or as much usage and cost information as exists within this timeframe.

2. Once the Authorization forms have been completed, the third party evaluator will gather the specified monthly energy usage and cost information with the assistance of the utilities that serve our grantees. The third party evaluator will develop templates and information transfer processes for these data elements, designed to minimize burden to the utilities.

The purpose of the information collection is to estimate the direct impacts on energy and cost savings of DOE energy efficiency programs. DOE has a particular interest in identifying the most successful market-reliant retrofit activities and the necessary conditions for their spread.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

The third party evaluator will collect the authorization forms in batches from future grantees, who will have aggregated the individual waivers from the site owners. This portion of the data collection process will not require electronic submission, due to the high degree of variation in sophistication among recipients.

DOE's intention is to develop an electronic system whereby DOE (or an evaluator specified by DOE) can transmit the list of necessary customers directly to the utility and gather the resulting information on energy usage and cost data electronically.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

This request does not duplicate other efforts. DOE currently does not have access to monthly energy usage data from its recipients. DOE is currently separately developing retrospective program evaluations for current grantees of the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program, and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program during the Recovery Act period. These evaluations will use utility billing information which may overlap that collected under this effort, in cases where current grantees are awarded future grants. To address that eventuality, DOE will identify a method by which to uniquely identify (e.g. account numbers) the information collected that obviates the need for duplicate collection during the conduct of the program evaluations.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

This request has minimal impact on small businesses, local governments and individuals. Site owners (including individuals and small businesses) will be asked to fill out the Authorization form, which is estimated to take 15 minutes to complete. Local governments will be asked to aggregate the disclosure forms from their subgrantees or sites and provide them to DOE. DOE will compile utility bill disclosure information into a database and work directly with utilities to gather energy usage data on a monthly basis.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

Utility billing data gives DOE a greater ability to manage and evaluate grant funding under management through the WAP, SEP, and EECBG programs. Provision of this data gives DOE a faster method by which to start understanding the actual impact of the investment made through the grants and an opportunity to start identification of best practices across the programs. If unable to undertake the collection, OWIP will be unable to use actual impact data for managerial purposes and will likely have to wait 18 months at minimum to begin to identify best practices off of actual result through process and impact evaluations, which is too far into the execution of the grants to be of any utility. There are no technical or legal issues to reducing burden.

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines. (a) requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly; (b) requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it; (c) requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document; (d) requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years; (e) in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to product valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study; (f) requiring the use of statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB; (g) that includes a pledge of confidentially that is not supported by authority established in stature of regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; (h) requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

There are none. The package is consistent with OMB guidelines

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

As published in the Federal Register on April 12th, 2011 (Vol. 76, No. 70 /), DOE provided a 30-day public comment period on Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), State Energy Program (SEP), and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program utility billing disclosure form. During this period, there were no comments received.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than reenumeration of contractors or grantees.

There is no remuneration given for submission of any of the information other than the fact that the expense of responding is treated as an allowable cost.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

As part of the collection of respondent utility billing data from utilities or other energy providers, DOE will require the third-party evaluator to sign non-disclosure agreements that restrict the disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) such as account numbers to any individuals or organizations external to the conduct of the analysis. In utilizing a third-party evaluator to implement this collection, storage, and analysis of this information, DOE will avoid the potential of utility billing data being released with PII through a Freedom of Information Act request.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

Utility billing information is considered to be sensitive in nature but its collection is essential to the effort DOE is undertaking. Signature of the waiver to disclose utility billing data is voluntary and will not affect respondent eligibility for programs under the Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs. These waiver forms will be provided to prime recipients for further distribution to the respondents. Furthermore, PII will be protected per Question #10 above.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

Prime and sub-recipient burden

Potential facilities: 3,629*

*This is an estimated number of facilities retrofitted across EECBG and SEP. WAP sub-recipients (CAAs) nominally provide utility billing waiver forms as a part of a program implementation. EECBG is assumed to be zero, as there is no base-year funding appropriated. SEP is based on a $75M funding request. Thus this collection imposes no additional burden.

Estimated hours required for distribution of waiver forms: (5 min to identify correct respondent and address correspondence)

Prime recipient burden: 3,629 potential respondents x 0.08 hr/respondent: 290 hours

Respondent burden

Facility respondents: 60,629 facilities *

*This assumes a 100% response rate for an estimated 60,629 facilities retrofitted across EECBG (0 facilities), SEP (3,629) and WAP (57,000) programs.

Estimated hours required for information submission: 0.25 hr (15 min for completion of the utility billing disclosure waiver)

Respondent burden: 60,629 respondents x 0.25 hr/respondent: 15,157 hours

Energy supplier burden

Facility respondents: 60,629 facilities *

*This assumes a 100% response rate for an estimated 60,629 facilities retrofitted across EECBG (0 facilities), SEP (3,629) and WAP (57,000) programs.

Estimated hours required for information submission: 0.16 hr (10 min for querying corporate systems for billing data and assembling response)

Usage ­­ Percentage Number Per unit burden Total

Electricity Usage 100% 60,629 0.16 hour 9,701

Natural Gas 50% * 30,315 0.16 hour 4,850

Total 14,551

*This assumes that half of respondents will have gas accounts in addition to electric accounts. This assumes that half the respondents will use electricity or another fuel source instead of natural gas for heating and cooking.

Total burden

Prime and sub-recipient burden: 290 hours

Respondent burden: 15,157 hours

Energy supplier burden: 14,551 hours

Total 29,998 hours

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14).

It is estimated that approximately one-half of the responses will require postage and materials for preparation of the information request. For the remaining responses, distribution of forms will occur in the normal course of business (i.e. the form will be included in other administrative paperwork) and as such, prime recipients will not incur a cost in distribution. For facilities retrofitted prior to inception of data collection, prime recipients will have to distribute waiver forms, likely via post. Costs to be incurred:

Estimated per recipient cost for waiver distribution:

Postage: $0.44/letter x 2 (return envelope)

Letter and envelope: $0.26 (two sheets of paper and A10 envelope)

Prime recipient cost burden: 64,258 forms x 50% x $1.14/form ($36,627)

14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal government.

Data analysis is to be completed by a third-party evaluator. Management and guidance for this effort will be provided by DOE, but all further collection (data from utilities and energy providers) will be conducted by a third-party evaluator. This effort would supplement planned evaluation efforts and it is estimated that the incremental cost for the data collection would be $100,000. This estimate is based on DOE’s previous experience with procurement of data analysis services and would not affect the respondants, utilities, or prime recipients. The cost will be borne by DOE.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I.

The current authority is retrospective (applies to grants that have already been awarded) whereas the new ICR will be forward-looking only (apply only to future grantees). As the current authority covers grants issued under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) whereas the new ICR will cover future grants, there is a large reduction in burden. ARRA provided an infusion of funds into DOE’s grant programs.

Burdens for this proposed ICR were calculated using the same methodology as for the emergency ICR. However, the scale of the effort is greatly reduced due to decreases in anticipated budget. The emergency ICR covered ARRA funded grants – approximately $2.7 billion in funding to EECBG, $5 billion in funding to WAP, and $3.1 billion in funding to SEP. The proposed ICR burden is derived from FY2010 program funding levels for the SEP and WAP, which serve as the best reference for future funding levels that are unknown at this time. The non-ARRA funding is as follows: no funding to EECBG, $210 million in funding to WAP, and $750 million in funding to SEP. As the non-ARRA funding is less than 3% of the ARRA finding, the amount of facilities affected, and this the burden, is greatly reduced. Additionally, since WAP already distributes and collects waivers as part of their program, they will not need to conduct an additional collection to direct grantees under this ICR. They anticipate weatherizing 57,000 homes in FY2010.

Previous ICR Prime and sub-recipient burden

Potential facilities: 150,000 in previous ICR submission*

* The estimated number of facilities has decreased from 150,000 down to 3,629. This is an estimated number of facilities retrofitted across EECBG and SEP. WAP sub-recipients (CAAs) nominally provide utility billing waiver forms as a part of a program implementation. EECBG is assumed to be zero, as there is no base-year funding appropriated. SEP is based on a $75M funding request. Thus this collection imposes no additional burden. This is calculated using the 150,000 facility estimated under the emergency ICR divided by ARRA’s SEP budget of $3.1 billion times the non-ARRA SEP budget of $75 million.

Estimated hours required for distribution of waiver forms: (5 min to identify correct respondent and address correspondence)

Prime recipient burden: 150,000 potential respondents x 0.08 hr/respondent: 12,500 hours

Previous ICR Respondent burden

Facility respondents: 600,000 facilities in previous ICR submission *

*The estimated number of facility respondents decreased from 600,000 down to now 60,629 facilities. The initial number of 600,000 facilities assumed approximately an 80% response rate for an estimated 750,000 facilities retrofitted across EECBG, SEP and WAP programs.

Estimated hours required for information submission: 0.25 hr (15 min for completion of the utility billing disclosure waiver)

Respondent burden: 600,000 respondents x 0.25 hr/respondent: 150,000 hours

Previous Energy supplier burden

Facility respondents: 600,000 facilities in previous ICR submission *

*This assumes an 80% response rate for an estimated 750,000 facilities retrofitted across EECBG, SEP and WAP programs.

Estimated hours required for information submission: 0.16 hr (10 min for querying corporate systems for billing data and assembling response)

Usage ­­ Percentage Number Per unit burden Total

Electricity Usage 100% 600,000 0.16 hour 100,000

Natural Gas 50% 300,000 0.16 hour 50,000

Total 150,000

Total burden

Prime and sub-recipient burden: 12,500 hours

Respondent burden: 150,000 hours

Energy supplier burden: 150,000 hours

Total 312,500 hours

The associated burden reductions comparing the previous ICR submission to the current ICR submission are as follows:

Emergency ICR responses from previous ICR submission (600,000) minus proposed ICR responses from current ICR submission (60,629) = Reduction 539,371

Emergency ICR burden hours from previous ICR submission (312,500) minus proposed ICR burden hours from current ICR submission (29,998) = Reduction (282,502)

Emergency ICR burden costs from previous ICR submission ($427,500) minus proposed ICR burden costs (36,627) from current ICR submission = Reduction ($390,873)

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

The information collected is not intended to be published at this time. No complex analytical techniques will be employed.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Not applicable. DOE is not seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of this information collection.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19, "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions," of OMB Form 83-I.

Not applicable. There are no exceptions to the certification statement.