FDACS Study of Energy Equity Within Florida - Final Report

A Study of Energy Equity Within Florida
Draft Report
ff
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND

CONSUMER SERVICES
A STUDY OF ENERGY EQUITY WITHIN FLORIDA
Final Report
The Balmoral Group, LLC

165 Lincoln Avenue
The Balmoral Group Winter Park, FL 32789
0
Phone: 407-629-2185
Final Report
Prepared by Prepared for
The Balmoral Group Florida Department of Agriculture and

Web - www.balmoralgroup.us Consumer Services
Head Office 600 South Calhoun Street Ste B04

165 Lincoln Avenue Tallahassee
Winter Park Florida, 32399, USA
Florida, 32789, USA Phone 1 407 888 8700
Phone 1 407 629 2185
Sydney Office
Suite 1, Level 2
210 George St
Sydney, 2000, Australia
Phone +61 2 9247 9670
Report Authors – Valerie Seidel, Cortney Cortez, Daniel Dourte, Amy Bainbridge, Elizabeth Mandell,
Bronce Stephenson, Campbell Cole
Contact
Valerie Seidel
President
407 629 2185
vseidel@balmoralgroup.us
Suggested citation:
The Balmoral Group, 2022. A Study of Energy Equity Within Florida. The Balmoral Group, Winter Park,
FL.
The Balmoral Group Page |1

Final Report
Acknowledgment: This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy
under Award Number DE-EE0000800.
Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of
their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
States Government or any agency thereof.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) under Award Number 28188.
The Balmoral Group (TBG) appreciates the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Office of Energy for their contributions to this study, with special thanks to Tony Morgan, Kelley Smith-
Burk and Natasha Gonder.
Additionally, TBG would like to acknowledge Jayajit Chakraborty, Ph.D., for providing critical support
to the work that went into this report.
Furthermore, we are grateful for the support provided by the following organizations who assisted
with the report:
• Advanced Energy Economy • EcoCar Florida LLC

• Broward County • Environmental Defense Fund
• Catalyst Miami • Florida Department of Transportation
• Central Florida Clean Cities Coalition, Inc • Florida A&M University Cooperative
• Central Florida Regional Planning Council Extension
• City of Gainesville • Florida Center for Community Design and
• City of Hollywood Florida Research
• City of Key West • Florida Clinicians for Climate Action
• City of Miami • Florida Conservation Voters
• City of North Miami • Florida Municipal Power Association
• City of Orlando • Florida Power & Light (FPL)
• City of Tampa • Florida's Women in Energy Leadership
• Community Weatherization Coalition Forum
• Consulate General of Canada in Miami • Food & Water Watch
• Dream in Green • Gunster Law Firm
• Earth Ethics, Inc • Institute for Sustainable Communities
• East Central Florida Regional Planning • KPI Engineering Inc
Council • Lakeland Electric

Final Report
• City of Lakeland • Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance

• Lampl Herbert Consultants, Inc. • Southeast Florida Clean Cities Coalition
• LilaJaber Consulting • Southern Alliance For Clean Energy
• Lucas Enterprises • St. Peter St. Paul Community Council
• LULAC • Sunbelt Strategies LLC
• McKim & Creed • Tactical Energy Solutions, LLC
• Miami Catalyst • Tampa Electric Company
• Miami Dade College • The CLEO Institute
• Miami-Dade County • Ti Ayiti Preparedness and Relief
• Morrison Law Institution
• NAACP - Gainesville, FL • University of Central Florida, FSEC Energy
• North Florida TPO Research Center
• Orange County Government • University of Florida, Office of
• Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) Sustainability
• Palm Beach County • University of Florida IFAS Extension
• Planet Future Foundation • University of South Florida, Florida Center
• PowerFUL Solutions for Community Design & Research
• Sarasota County Sustainability • University of South Florida, Center for
• Sierra Club, Beyond Coal Campaign Urban Transportation Research
• Sierra Club, Florida • x3CNG
• Solar and Energy Loan Fund (SELF) • 3PSCD
• Solar United Neighbors

Final Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACEEE - American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
AFV - Alternative Fuel Vehicle
AHCA - Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
APTA - American Public Transportation Association
BEV - Battery Electric Vehicles
BIL - Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
BLS - U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
BTS - U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CDFIs - Community Development Financial Institutions
CELICA - Clean Energy for Low-Income Communities Accelerator Toolkit
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CFX - Central Florida Expressway Authority
Co-Op - Cooperatives
DHS - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOT - Department of Transportation
EE - Energy Efficiency
EFI - Energy Futures Initiative
EHEAP - Emergency Home Energy Assistance for the Elderly Program
EIA - Energy Information Administration
EJ Dashboard - Energy Justice Dashboard
EJScreen - Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESB - Electric School Bus
EUI - Energy Use Intensity
EV - Electric Vehicle
EVSE - Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FBC - Florida Building Commission
FDACS - Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FDEO - Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
FDEP - Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOR - Florida Department of Revenue
FDOT - Florida Department of Transportation
FEECA - Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act
The Balmoral Group Page | 4

Final Report
FPL - Florida Power & Light

FPSC - Florida Public Service Commission
FY - Fiscal Year
GHG – Greenhouse Gas
HIFLD - Homeland Infrastructure Foundation Level Database
HUD – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IECC - International Energy Conservation Code
IPCD - Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database
LEAD - Low Income Energy Affordability Data
LIHEAP - Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
LMI - Low and Moderate Income
LRTP - Long-Range Transportation Plan
MDXWAY - Miami-Dade Expressway Authority
NAFTO - National Association of Field Training Officers
NASEO - National Association of State Energy Officials
NATA - National Air Toxics Assessments
NEVI - National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
NFI - NFI Group Inc
NIEHS - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NOX - Nitrogen oxides
NPL - National Priorities List
NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OUC - Orlando Utilities Commission
PHEV - Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
PNNL - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REDI - Rural Economic Development Imitative
RMP - Risk Management Plan
SELF - Solar and Energy Loan Fund
SIYC - Solar in Your Community
SMI - State Median Income
SOX - Sulfur oxides
TBG - The Balmoral Group
THEA - Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority
TSDF - Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility

Final Report
U.S.DOE - U.S. Department of Energy

UHI - Urban Heat Island
USEER - U.S. Energy and Employment Report
USPS - United States Postal Service
WAP - Weatherization Assistance Program
WEC - World Energy Council
Units
C - Celsius
km - Kilometer
kWh - Kilowatt-hour
kWh/SqFt - Kilowatt-hour per square foot
µg/m3 - Micrograms per cubic meter
M - Million
T - Trillion

Final Report
Executive Summary
As Florida transitions to a more resilient, renewable-energy based economy, the transition will have
varied impacts across socioeconomic and demographic groups. An important consideration in energy
policy will be energy equity, which recognizes that disadvantaged communities have been historically
marginalized with overburdens in environmental hazards, lack of energy efficient housing and
transportation, and underinvestment in the infrastructure for cleaner energy. A system designed with
equity at the forefront ensures that the benefits of the transition are shared equally across society.
Energy burden, or the share of household income spent on energy costs, exacerbates existing barriers
to financial stability. Low- to Moderate-Income (LMI) racial- and ethnic-minority, and rural
communities are disproportionately impacted by housing stock that is bereft of energy efficient
appliances, construction materials and insulation3. Affordable multi-family housing is less likely to
benefit from energy efficiency upgrades and emerging technologies that lower costs and conserve
energy4. Similar barriers exist to renewable energy-fueled transportation, which comprises the second
greatest share of household budgetary outlay.
Reducing energy burden can have a profound impact on the quality of life for LMI, minority, and rural
Floridians. This statewide study investigated the distribution of benefits and burdens from energy
production and consumption, and assessed the impact of environmental hazards on low- and
moderate-income Floridians and vulnerable populations including minorities and rural communities.
Compelling arguments to focus on improved energy equity include:
A 1% increase in participation
•
in Energy Efficiency (EE)
$5.1 MILLION
IN BENEFITS
programs could increase
disposable income available to
LMI households for other
household costs, like food, by
$5.1 million 1.
• A 1% increase in Electric
Vehicle (EV) adoption by LMI
households – whether use of
electronic buses, vehicles, or
micro-mobility options like e-
scooters and e-bikes – would add
$175 million in benefits from
reduced health care costs,
$220,000
INVESTMENT
avoided deaths and improved
quality of life 2.
1
An increase of 1% participation would result in an additional 26,000 households saving approximately $125 annually, a
conservative estimate. The calculation is based on the statewide average participation rate of LMI Energy Efficiency Programs
and total funding available from Utilities, FDACS, LIHEAP, EHEAP, & County Budgets.
2
Currently, 58,000 Florida households have an EV registered. Applying the same ratio to LMI households, an additional 1% of
LMI households with EV use would result in 17,000 households realizing an estimated $9,850 in benefits per household
(Hatzopoulou and Minet, 2020

Final Report
The study focused on four primary areas:
1. Demography and Geography of LMI Energy Burdened Households

2. Energy-related Environmental Justice, and distribution throughout Florida relative to LMI
and minority households
3. Energy Efficiency Programs, and housing-related topics including development codes,
benchmarking for multifamily units, and housing metrics
4. Transportation-related issues, including health issues and barriers to alternative fuels and
vehicles
A key component of the study was identifying a potential energy equity rating system that could
be used to monitor trends in energy equity over time. Proposed metrics were introduced and
discussed in a series of very productive workshops across the state, to vet and refine a potential rating
system. About half of workshop participants work directly with LMI and minority households and have
applied programmatic experience. The proposed rating system herein was vetted and refined based
on collective input.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) prioritized readily accessible data
to ensure the metrics could be updated on a regular basis. The proposed metric focuses on the net
positive effect of various funding sources on energy burden across LMI and racial- and ethnic-minority
households. The proposed rating system is included in this report, with calculated results using the
most recently available data. The results are provided in map form, to demonstrate geographic
variation.
In addition, this report includes findings of a comprehensive analysis of systemic barriers to equitable
access, and identification of programmatic factors that exacerbate or mitigate equity issues including
financial or economic incentives or products. Finally, this report identifies policy and program
recommendations for the state’s consideration, including the whole-of-government approach
required to successfully improve energy equity in Florida. Feedback received through the workshops,
individual interviews, and follow-up discussions informed the policy and program recommendations.
A diverse group of interested parties contributed to this effort. Project achievements include
consensus among varied individual missions across several areas:
• Access to an energy equity rating system that is updated regularly would be valuable,
preferably at zip code or census tract scale.
• The availability of data that tracks access to e-vehicles for LMI and minority households, which
is expected to increase from near-zero levels currently, would be valuable. Information about
specific programmatic approaches that improve access was also desired.
High priority goals include:

• Increasing participation rates for LMI households in energy efficiency programs.
• Increasing EV adoption rates for LMI households, including increased usage (through
availability) of e-bus options across transit, fleets and school buses, with a goal to increase air
quality and decrease toxin exposure among LMI and minority communities.
• Reducing gini coefficient scores for environmental justice indicators: air quality, diesel
exposure, cancer risk, asthma, and urban heat islands.

Final Report
• Increased outreach and awareness-raising activity, particularly due to upcoming federal

funding availability in relevant programs; this may be directed toward household-level
incentives and programs, or technical assistance to rural counties and smaller local
governments to ensure maximum use of available federal funds.
• Coordinated effort to increase maximum exposure of youth to EV access and job opportunities,
with a goal of increased minority and LMI youth in EV adoption and job training.
This report is organized as a series of maps with descriptive language, given the geographic variation
and focus of the underlying data. Policy implications, and key feedback, are summarized at the end of
the report. Appendices contain detailed information supporting each topic. Baseline data was delivered
concurrently with the report, including spreadsheets and GIS files.
Data Dashboard
To improve access to the data collected or generated for this study, additional interactive data visuals
are provided in the PowerBI dashboard here: https://datavisual.balmoralgroup.us/FL-Energy-
Equity. The dashboard summarizes key datasets on energy equity and environmental justice in Florida
and contains information on 1) energy burden, annual energy costs and demographics information, 2)
environmental justice metrics, 3) urban heat island map, 4) energy use intensity - zip code level
summaries of kw-hr/sq. ft., 5) energy efficiency program summaries, 6) energy equity ratings and 7)
transportation - EV ownership, transit availability, and electric school busses (ESBs).

Final Report
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................4
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 7
Data Dashboard .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
I. Demography and Geography of Energy Burdened Households ................................................14
Energy Burden and LMI households .......................................................................................................................... 15
Energy Equity Rating ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
Interactive Dashboard for LMI Energy Burden Data ............................................................................................ 24
II. Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................................25
Key Findings......................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
III. Housing and Energy Efficiency Programs .....................................................................................34
Energy Efficiency Programs ........................................................................................................................................... 34
Workforce ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Program Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Florida Ranking Relative to Other States ............................................................................................................ 37
Performance ................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Best Practice for Energy Efficiency ......................................................................................................................... 39
Local Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................................ 40
Energy Benchmarking for LMI Multifamily Units................................................................................................... 40
Solar Energy ......................................................................................................................................................................... 51
Statewide Analysis of Performance of The Energy Code for Multifamily Buildings ................................ 52
Development Codes and Tree Canopy ..................................................................................................................... 52
Feasibility of Revenue Sharing Models ..................................................................................................................... 53
Policy Considerations ....................................................................................................................................................... 55
Structural Equity ............................................................................................................................................................ 55
Procedural Equity.......................................................................................................................................................... 55
Distributional Equity .................................................................................................................................................... 55
Transgenerational equity – considerations for future generations ........................................................... 55
IV. Transportation Equity ......................................................................................................................56
Key Findings......................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Access to EV Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 58
EV Ownership Incentives ................................................................................................................................................ 59
FDACS Electric Vehicle Roadmap ................................................................................................................................ 60
FDOT EV Infrastructure Master Plan ........................................................................................................................... 61
Micro-mobility and e-bikes ........................................................................................................................................... 64
Alternative Fuel Transit Fleets ....................................................................................................................................... 66
Electric School Buses ................................................................................................................................................... 68
Policy Considerations ....................................................................................................................................................... 70
Structural Equity ............................................................................................................................................................ 70
Procedural Equity.......................................................................................................................................................... 71

Final Report
Distributional Equity .................................................................................................................................................... 71

Transgenerational equity – considerations for future generations ........................................................... 71
Whole of Government Approach ........................................................................................................72
Interactive Dashboard of Data ............................................................................................................74
Areas for Further Research ..................................................................................................................81
Study Methods ......................................................................................................................................83
Data Collection ................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Workshops ........................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Works Cited............................................................................................................................................84
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................92
Appendix 1. Utilities in Florida ............................................................................................................93
Appendix 2. Community Development Financial Institutions in Florida .......................................95
Appendix 3. Energy Efficiency Program Matrix ................................................................................99
Appendix 4. EIA Energy Efficiency Program Reporting 2021 ....................................................... 100
Appendix 5. Used EV Prices .............................................................................................................. 101
Appendix 6. Workshop Breakout Themes ...................................................................................... 105
Appendix 7. Best Practice for Program Design Elements ............................................................. 106
Barriers to optimal energy efficiency program performance ......................................................................... 108
List of Figures
Figure 1. Average Household Expenditures ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2. Energy Burden Definition ................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 3. Profile of LMI Energy Burden in Florida ...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Average Energy Burden, LMI Owners .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5. Average Energy Burden, LMI Renters .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6. Average Energy Burden, LMI Multi-Family ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 7. Average Energy Burden, LMI Single Family ............................................................................................... 17
Figure 8. Average Energy Burden, All LMI Households ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 9. Utility Service Areas ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 10. Energy Equity Rating Systems ...................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 11. Proposed Energy Equity Rating System ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 12. Overall Results of The Rating System – Reduction in Energy Expenditures ............................... 22
Figure 13. Overall Rating System - Percent Reduction in Energy Expenditures for LMI Households ... 23
Figure 14. Energy Burden Dashboard Page ................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 15. Gini Coefficient Definition.............................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 16. Air Toxin Respiratory Hazards by County ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 17. Diesel Particulate Matter by County .......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 18. Air Toxic Cancer Risks by County ................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 19. Proximity to National Priorities List sites by County ........................................................................... 30
Figure 20. Proximity to Risk Management Plan Facilities by County ................................................................. 30
Figure 21. Proximity to Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities by County .............................................. 31
Figure 22. All Asthma Incidents ........................................................................................................................................ 32

Final Report
Figure 23. Asthma Incidents: Black or African American Populations ............................................................... 32

Figure 24. Urban Heat Islands and High Energy Burdens across Florida ......................................................... 33
Figure 25. Most frequent Incentive program upgrades .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 26. Programs That Aid with Specific Technologies ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 27. Calculations to Estimate the Average Energy Usage........................................................................... 41
Figure 28. EUI-Multifamily Buildings............................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 29. Average Energy Cost of Multifamily Homes Throughout Florida .................................................. 42
Figure 30. Average Cost Cents/kwh ................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 31. Energy Usage Intensity.................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 32. EUI Owners in Buildings Built Before 1940 .............................................................................................. 44
Figure 33. EUI Renters in Buildings Built Before 1940 .............................................................................................. 44
Figure 34. EUI for Owners in Buildings Built 1940-1959 ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 35. EUI for Renters in Buildings Built 1940-1959 ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 42. EUI for Owners in Buildings Built After 2010 .......................................................................................... 49
Figure 43. EUI for Renters in Buildings Built After 2010........................................................................................... 49
Figure 44. Energy Usage Intensity by Building Age .................................................................................................. 50
Figure 45. Housing Counts by Building Age ................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 46. Solar in Your Community ............................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 48. Performance-Based Leasing Guidelines ................................................................................................... 54
Figure 47. List of Green Lease Clauses for Shared Owner-Tenant Language ................................................. 54
Figure 49. Transportation Energy Equity Factors ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 50. EV Ownership by Income ............................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 51. Charging Ports by Income ............................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 52. Ports Available for The Charging Locations Across The State ......................................................... 59
Figure 53. Known Incentives Alongside Electronic Vehicle Ownership ............................................................. 60
Figure 54. Minority Populations in Relation to Electric Vehicle Ownership .................................................... 63
Figure 55. Examples of Micro-Mobility .......................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 56. Areas of Micro Mobility .................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 57. Electric or Hybrid Vehicle Fleets by Transit Authority ......................................................................... 66
Figure 58. Zero-Emission Buses Transit Buses across U.S....................................................................................... 67
Figure 59. Florida Bus Fleet by Fuel Type...................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 60. Electric School Buses in Florida..................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 61. Electric School Buses by State ...................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 62. Current income-based discounts for e-bikes/e-scooters .................................................................. 71
Figure 63. State Governments involved in Energy-Related Initiatives ............................................................... 72
Figure 64. Vertical government coordination in Energy Equity Policy .............................................................. 73
Figure 65. Important Note on Community Consultation ........................................................................................ 74

Final Report
Figure 66. Dashboard Landing Page ............................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 67. Dashboard Navigation Example .................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 68. Dashboard Page 2: LMI Energy Burden .................................................................................................... 76
Figure 69. Dashboard Page 3: Environmental Justice Metrics, Gini Coefficients ........................................... 76
Figure 70. Dashboard Page 4: Environmental Justice Metrics, Urban Heat Islands...................................... 77
Figure 71. Dashboard Page 5: Multifamily Benchmarking (EUI) .......................................................................... 77
Figure 72. Dashboard Page 6: Energy Efficiency Program Summaries .............................................................. 78
Figure 73. Dashboard Page 7: Energy Equity Rating System, Percent Reductions ....................................... 79
Figure 74. Rating System Reductions Explainer Page .............................................................................................. 79
Figure 75. Dashboard Page 8: Transportation Metrics ............................................................................................ 80
List of Tables
Table 1. Data Sources for Energy Equity Rating System ......................................................................................... 21
Table 2. National Scale Benefits to Health and Climate (Cumulative: 2020-2050) ....................................... 25
Table 3. Health Metrics: Data Sources............................................................................................................................ 26
Table 4. Financial Incentives included in Energy Efficiency Programs ............................................................... 35
Table 5. State Incentives and Policies Top 10 Ranking ............................................................................................ 37
Table 6. Programs and Corresponding Best Practices ............................................................................................. 39
Table 7. FDACS and FDOT EV Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 61
Table 8. Number of Electric School Buses by School District, Florida................................................................ 69
Table 9. Whole of government coordination examples, energy equity policy............................................... 74
Table 10. Summary or Workshop Topics ...................................................................................................................... 83
Figures in the Appendix

Figure A- 1. Average used EV prices by state, and used EV Inventory by state ........................................... 101
Figure A- 2. Share of EV Ownership by State ............................................................................................................ 102
Figure A- 3. Share of Used EV Market .......................................................................................................................... 102
Figure A- 4. Average Price of Used Electric Vehicles by Model Year in Florida ........................................... 103
Tables in the Appendix

Table A- 1. Investor Owned, Rural Electric Cooperatives, and Municipal Utilities in Florida .................... 93
Table A- 2. Average used EV prices by state. ............................................................................................................ 101
Table A- 3. Average Price of Used Electric Vehicles by Model Year in Florida ............................................. 103
Table A- 4. Florida Light-Duty PEV sales by year ..................................................................................................... 104
Table A- 5. Used Tesla Prices – Nationwide ............................................................................................................... 104
Table A- 6. Best Practice Summary ................................................................................................................................ 107
Table A- 7. Common Operational Constraints to successful energy efficiency programs. ..................... 108

Final Report
I. Demography and Geography of Energy Burdened

Households
As Florida transitions to a more resilient, renewable-energy based economy, the impacts will be felt
differently across socioeconomic and Figure 1. Average Household Expenditures
demographic groups. An important
consideration in energy policy will be
2% Housing
energy equity, to ensure that the benefits
of the transition are shared equally across 8% Transportation
society. A key measure of energy equity is
energy burden, or the share of household 12% 35% Other
income spent on energy costs. As housing Food
and transportation comprise the majority
12%
of typical household spending (35% and Insurance and
pensions
16% respectively, see Figure 1), and both
Health
are energy intensive, energy costs are 15% 16%
particularly important to Low and Apparel and services
Moderate Income (LMI) households. LMI
are any people that earn less than 80% of Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
median household income.
Researchers estimate housing costs should be no more than 30% of Figure 2. Energy Burden Definition
household income and of that, Energy costs should not exceed 6%.
Researchers and practictioners typically define energy burden as a
measure of the percentage of income spent on utilities rather than
affordability. In the context of total household income, households are
considered to have “high” energy burden if household energy costs are
greater than 6% of income, and “severe” energy burden if costs are
greater than 10% 3, as shown in Figure 2.
FDACS assessed the demography and geography of energy burden
across Florida, as described in this section. Key Findings include:
• Energy burden is consistently higher for renters than owners.

• Severely burdened households correspond to utility boundaries.
• Data is relatively new, and long-term trend data is unavailable.
Energy burden data is available from U.S. DOE’ Low Income Energy
Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool at the Census Tract scale. As an example,
for Orange County, the Average Energy Burden is 8.45% for LMI
households meaning that on average, LMI households are spending over
8% of income on energy costs. This population is nearly 58% of
households in Orange county. A smaller population is severely energy
3
APPRISE (2005)

Final Report
burdened with 5% of households spending greater than 10% of income on energy costs (avg. 12.20
for LMI households).
Energy Burden and LMI households
Using LEAD tool and Census data, energy burden was mapped across the State. Maps on the
following pages show the results for:
• LMI energy burden for owners vs. renter households

• LMI energy burden for single-family vs. multi-family units
• LMI energy burden by age of housing stock
• LMI energy burden by utility boundary
Energy burdened LMI households in Florida are typically owners who spend about 9% of their income
on energy costs, or an average annual cost of $2,229, and a household income close to $25,000. (For
reference, the LMI median income in these zip codes is around $42,000). There are an estimated 1.9
million energy-burdened LMI households in Florida (or around 35% of all households in these zip
codes). One-fourth of the population in these zip codes are minorities, 23% are over 65 years and 15%
have a disability (US DOE LEAD Tool).
Figure 3. Profile of LMI Energy Burden in Florida
Energy Burdened LMI Households

Income $25,000*
1.9M Estimated Number
of Occupied Housing Units
25%
23%
15%
9% of
income
spent on
energy costs**
Minorities Over 65 Disabled
*Median income is around $42,000 **average annual cost of $2,229
Source: U.S. Census, and U.S. DOE, LEAD Tool Data

Final Report
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show Average Energy Burden for LMI (low-moderate income) owner and renter households. Average Energy Burden can be defined
as at least 6% of your annual income being spent on utility bills. The gray areas are below the definition of being energy burdened with less than 6% of
average incomes being spent on utilities. Green areas are past the threshold of being energy burdened with 6-9% of incomes being spent on utilities.
Orange and blue show more severe energy burden with more than 9% and more than 13% respectively. Also, Figure 4 shows average energy burden
among home owners, while Figure 5 shows renters.
Figure 4. Average Energy Burden, LMI Owners Figure 5. Average Energy Burden, LMI Renters
Sources: LEAD Tool, EIA, Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR)

Final Report
Figure 6 and Figure 7 show average energy burden for multi-family and single-family households respectively. Gray areas are below the threshold of
being defined as energy burdened.
Figure 6. Average Energy Burden, LMI Multi-Family Figure 7. Average Energy Burden, LMI Single Family
Sources: LEAD Tool, EIA, FDOR

Final Report
Figure 8 shows a conjoining of data from Figures 4 through 7 with Average Energy Burden
across all housing types.
Figure 8. Average Energy Burden, All LMI Households
Sources: LEAD Tool, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), FDOR
Figure 9 shows the approximate utility boundaries across the state of Florida. The U.S. Department of
Homeland Security’s (DHS) Homeland Infrastructure Foundation Level Database (HIFLD) provides data
from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory on Electric Retail Service Territories. The boundaries in the
dataset have overlaps and best estimates of actual boundaries were utilized to refine the Florida service
boundaries for utility service providers. There are five Investor-Owned Electric Utilities operating in
Florida which are regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission and service approximately 75%

Final Report
of the state’s population. The remaining 25% of the population is serviced by electric cooperatives and
municipal utilities. The Florida Electric Cooperative Association has 18 rural cooperatives which are
member-owned, not-for-profit utilities serving approximately 2.4 million Floridians 4. Finally, there are
35 municipal electric utilities across the state of Florida who service over 3 million Floridians; most
utilities are represented by the Florida Municipal Electric Association 5. The Investor Owned, Rural
Electric Cooperatives, and Municipal Utilities in Florida are listed in Appendix 3.
Figure 9. Utility Service Areas
Source: USDHS, HIFLD, TBG Work Product
4
Florida Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (2022)
5Florida Municipal Electric Association Factsheet (2022); FMPA has 33 members, the other municipal utilities are not
members of FMPA. See Appendix for complete list.

Final Report
Energy Equity Rating

Energy burden on low-income households Figure 10. Energy Equity Rating Systems
exacerbates barriers to financial stability

for communities. Through the compilation Several frameworks exist, including The World Energy
of a profile of low- and moderate- income Council’s (WEC) World Energy Trilemma Index, US.
(LMI) burdened households, policymakers Department of Energy Justice Dashboard (EJ dashboard),
can more readily understand what burden and PNNL. The WEC framework assesses three key areas
across Florida and within communities – Energy Security (capacity to meet demand); Energy
looks like across various demographics. Equity (universal access to reliable, affordable, and
An energy equity rating system can be abundant energy); and environmental sustainability
established to see how energy burden is (productivity and efficiency of generation, transmission,
distributed across the state, what is being and air quality), but is not as relevant to Florida. The EJ
done to alleviate these problems, and how Dashboard provides a rating system for the U.S.
effective those attempts are. Several Department of Energy’s funding and investment
frameworks were reviewed (See Figure 10 distributions to overburdened and underserved
for brief summary). The proposed energy communities. The PNNL framework is supported by in-
equity rating system herein is largely depth literature review of energy equity and justice
modeled on the Pacific Northwest National metrics, and includes three key groupings of metrics -
Laboratory (PNNL) framework, refined target population metrics (relative energy burden,
through feedback. income, etc.); investment decision making metrics
(funding available to each targeted population) and
The proposed rating system measures the program impact assessment metrics (how well programs
program efficiency impacts in terms of have helped target communities).
avoided burdens for LMI Households. The
calculation uses three metrics:
1. Total funding available for energy efficiency and energy assistance programs. This includes
funding from utilities, and state, local and federal programs such as the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the Emergency Home Energy Assistance for the Elderly
Program (EHEAP), and the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP 6), and General Revenue
allocations specifically for energy conservation or efficiency.
2. Funding available per household is estimated by applying the participation rate of targeted
LMI households to total funding available.
3. Avoided burden is calculated as the percent reduction in energy expenditures, or funding per
LMI household applied to average energy expenditures for LMI households.
6 LIHEAP, EHEAP and WAP are administered by Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) with pass-
through federal funds, through Community Action Agencies and/or County administration. Groups with pass-through
federal funds administered

Final Report
Figure 11 provides the result in graphic form.
Figure 11. Proposed Energy Equity Rating System
Dollars Average Energy

Percent available per Expenditure for
Reduction in LMI Household Low- and
Energy to Reduce Moderate
Expenditures Energy Income
Expenditure Households
The metric uses readily available data. Table 1 lists the data sources for each step. Detailed sources
are listed in the Works Cited section.
Table 1. Data Sources for Energy Equity Rating System

Metric Source
Total Funding County Budgets, FDACS Office of Energy, FDEO, PSC
LMI households Census, via U.S. DOE LEAD data
Participation Rates Public Service Commission, Literature
Average Energy Expenditure LEAD data
The data sources listed vary in scale. FDACS’ objectives are best met with localized data, preferably at
zip code scale. While accepted methods exist to interpolate the census data to zip code level, allocating
funding per household in this manner would require assuming that Low-income program funding was
distributed pro rata across LMI energy burdened households. Feedback received throughout the study
cast doubt on this assumption. The data has been provided at both the zip code and county scale for
discussion. At the county level, the rating results will be more consistent than at zip code scale.

Final Report
Figure 12 represents the overall results of the rating system as a representation of the reduction of
average energy expenditure for LMI Households by County.
Figure 12. Overall Results of The Rating System – Reduction in Energy Expenditures
Source: TBG Work Product

Final Report
Figure 13 represents the overall results of the rating system as a representation of the reduction of
average energy expenditure for LMI Households by zip code.
Figure 13. Overall Rating System - Percent Reduction in Energy Expenditures for LMI Households
Source: TBG Work Product

Final Report
Interactive Dashboard for LMI Energy Burden Data

Data was assembled into an online interactive dashboard for use by FDACS and the public for
reference. The dashboard includes several datasets showing LMI energy burden-related information,
including:
• LMI Energy burdened households for racial- and ethnic- minority communities 7
• LMI Energy burden by housing type
• Energy cost at census tract level
A link to the dashboard is here: https://datavisual.balmoralgroup.us/FL-Energy-Equity.
Figure 14. Energy Burden Dashboard Page
7Racial- and ethnic- minority households were defined as populations that were not “White alone, non-Hispanic” as
defined by the U.S Census 2020 and The Office of Management and Budget.

Final Report
II. Environmental Justice

Energy policy and environmental decisions have monumental impacts on communities 8. It is
important to understand the impacts of environmental hazards on a person’s health, especially since
historically minority and lower socioeconomic status communities are disproportionately affected 9. For
example, on average, people of color make up approximately 56% of the population living in
communities with toxic release inventory facilities. 10 Living, working, or going to school in proximity to
these sites have been linked to adverse health effects. 11 Public health effects regarding environmental
disamenities such as poor air quality can cause emphysema, asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease 12. Additionally, research has shown that proximity to superfund sites can reduce
life expectancy of those in nearby communities, and can also negatively impact property values,
affecting economic growth in a community 13.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Regulatory Impact Analysis (2021) discusses the
health effects associated with non-greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants, including particulate matter,
ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide and air toxics, such as those
caused by car emissions. These non-GHG pollutants are linked to a number of adverse health effects
including cardiovascular morbidity, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
asthma, and increased hospital disease. A nationwide transition to electric vehicles, which produce
zero direct emissions, could improve lung health, help avoid asthma attacks, and improve morbidity
and mortality rates. An assessment completed by the American Lung Association (2022) finds a shift
to 100 percent sales of zero-emission passenger vehicles by 2035 and trucks by 2040, alongside with
renewable electricity would yield more than $1.2 trillion in public health benefits over the next 30 years.
Additionally, this would provide approximately $1.7 trillion in climate benefits nationwide. In Florida
this would account for $85.6M in health benefits, with 7,760 premature deaths avoided, 142,000
asthma attacks avoided, and 766,000 lost work days avoided (see Table 2).
“Rapidly eliminating emissions from the transportation and electricity generation sectors must be a
national priority. The nationwide transition to electric vehicles is urgently needed to improve lung health
and advance health equity.”
– Harold Wimmer, American Lung Association President and CEO
Table 2. National Scale Benefits to Health and Climate (Cumulative: 2020-2050)

Public Health Benefits 2020-2050 - National Value of Benefits 2020-2050 - National
Premature Asthma Attacks Lost Work Days Public Health
Deaths Avoided Avoided Avoided Benefits
110,000 2.78 M 13.4 M $1.2 T
Public Health Benefits 2020-2050 - Florida Value of Benefits 2020-2050 - Florida
7,760 142,000 766,000 $85.6 M
Source: American Lung Association, 2022
8
Browne, Gunn, & Davern, 2022
9
Spoer, Fedlman, et al, 2020.
10
Bullard et al., 2008
11
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2022
12
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 2022
13
Holden, 2021

Final Report
Environmental hazards related to energy occur throughout the state. Analysis considered whether
exposure to environmental hazards was borne disproportionately by LMI communities and
racial/ethnic minority communities. Existing data was used as a starting point for this analysis. Data
was evaluated from the U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen),
Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and other sources.
Data was used from EJScreen for six environmental justice indicators that were considered directly
relevant to energy equity; an additional two are based on other data sources. The data from EJScreen
is available at the block group level. All are defined in Table 3, with data sources.
1. National Air Toxics Assessments (NATA) Diesel PM

2. NATA Cancer Risk
3. NATA Respiratory Hazard Index
4. Hazardous Waste Proximity
5. Superfund Proximity
6. Risk Management Priorities List Proximity
7. Urban Heat Islands
8. Asthma
Table 3. Health Metrics: Data Sources

Health Metric Definition Source
Hazard indices for those air toxics, where each hazard
Air Toxics
index is the ratio of exposure concentration in the air
Respiratory Hazard EPA NATA
to the health-based reference concentration set by
Index
EPA.
Diesel Particulate Diesel particulate matter level in air in micrograms per
EPA NATA
Matter (level in air) cubic meter (µg/m3).
Air Toxics Cancer Lifetime cancer risk from inhalation of air toxics, as risk
EPA NATA
Risk per lifetime per million people.
Hazardous Waste Count of hazardous waste management facilities EPA RCRAInfo
Proximity within 5 km (or nearest one beyond 5 km). database 14
Risk Management Count of Potential chemical accident management
Plan (RMP) Facility plan facilities within 5 km (or nearest one beyond 5 EPA RMP database
Proximity km).
Count of proposed and listed NPL sites within 5 km (or EPA CERCLIS 15
Superfund Proximity
nearest one beyond 5 km). database
The age-adjusted rate per 100,000 of Hospitalizations
Asthma Incidents Florida AHCA 16
from or with Asthma as Any Listed Diagnosis
Temperature difference (in Celsius) between urban United States
Urban Heat Islands land surface temperature and rural land surface Surface Urban Heat
temperature Island database
A Gini Coefficient approach was used as a coarse measure of concentration of the hazards (see Figure
15). For the environmental justice indicators, the Gini Coefficient was calculated at the county level
14 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

15 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
16 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)

Final Report
using the census block group level data; this allows for a county to county comparison of the
distribution of environmental health hazards for LMI and minority populations across Florida.
Figure 15. Gini Coefficient Definition
The Gini coefficient is a score on a scale between 0 and 1 that measures concentration or dispersion. If
all environmental hazards were equally distributed throughout an area, the Gini coefficient would be 0,
or perfect equality. If all environmental hazards were concentrated on one area in particular, the
coefficient would be 1, or perfect inequality.
Key Findings
Key findings from workshops, interviews and analysis include:
• Interested parties found the Gini coefficient a useful metric for comparing trends over time.
• Air quality hazards were most pressing or sensitive for interested parties. High priority was
placed on researching correlation of air quality with transportation corridors, and opportunities
to improve the health of LMI residents through increased use of alternative fuels, and
retirement of coal-fired power plants.
• Interested parties felt that tree canopy and urban heat island effects would increasingly
become indicative of frequent health hazards for vulnerable populations, and encouraged
tracking of relevant data.
• Indoor air quality was a concern, as inferior housing and air conditioning common in LMI
neighborhoods often have mold and other issues that contribute to poor health.
Air Quality
Concerns about air quality data included the lack of sensors, although satellite data has proven
effective in offsetting some of this gap. Interested parties encouraged use of Florida Department of
Health data for air quality. Improved data was used for this study over that in use by EJScreen, which
has some known data issues with PM 2.5 data.
Figure 16 lays out the spread of air toxin respiratory hazards across the counties of Florida on a Gini
coefficient. Essentially if all environmental hazards were equally distributed throughout a county for
LMI and non-LMI populations, the coefficient would be 0 (perfect equality). If all hazards were
concentrated on one community within the county than the coefficient would be 1 (perfect inequality).
The lower the score the more equal the inter-county distribution across communities is in its exposure
to air toxin respiratory hazards. For purposes of this analysis, the Gini Coefficient for a county shows
how hazards are distributed across the county. Additionally, these values provide context between
counties where a county with a higher value compared to a neighboring county may show more
variation in the exposures toto LMI and minority populations. Counties in green are below 0.25, and
light green between 0.25-0.5; Counties in dark blue, such as Jefferson and Sumter county, are above
0.75, showing a higher degree of inequality.

Final Report
Figure 16. Air Toxin Respiratory Hazards by County
Source: EPA, EJScreen, TBG Work Product

Final Report
Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the distribution of exposure to air quality measures, with Figure 17 showing Diesel Particulate matter exposure measured
by Gini coefficient at the County level. In this case, the Diesel Particulate Matter is measured as the diesel particulate matter level in air in micrograms per
cubic meter (µg/m3). Figure 18 shows the distribution of lifetime cancer risk from inhalation of air toxics measured by a Gini coefficient at the county
level. There is significant variation in the distribution of concentrations of air quality disamenities between counties which may exacerbate inequalities
among LMI and minority populations. Notably, several counties in the panhandle that show higher energy burdens for LMI and minority populations also
have higher degrees of disproportionate exposures to air quality hazards.
Figure 17. Diesel Particulate Matter by County Figure 18. Air Toxic Cancer Risks by County
Source: EPA National Air Toxics Assessments

Final Report
Figure 19 shows proximity to National Priorities List sites (NPL) as measured by a Gini coefficient. . The metric for the National Priorities List sites
(Superfund) is the count of proposed and listed NPL sites within 5km or the nearest if beyond 5km. Thousands of contaminated sites exist across the
United States, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), informally called Superfund, provides the EPA the
ability to clean up contaminated sites. Additionally, Figure 20 shows the proximity to RMP facilities as a Gini coefficient. The RMP facilities list is defined
as chemical accident management plan facilities within 5 km. Most counties show a disproportionate impact on LMI for RMP proximity. Both Figures 19
and 20 make intuitive sense, since property values will tend to be lower near contamination sites or riskier plants, and more affordable to LMI households.
Figure 19. Proximity to National Priorities List sites by County Figure 20. Proximity to Risk Management Plan Facilities by County
Source: EPA CERCLIS database, EjScreen, TBG Work Product

Final Report
Figure 21 shows the proximity to Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) on the same Gini coefficient,
and the same definition of proximity being within 5 kilometers. TSDFs are facilities where hazardous waste is
intentionally paced and where it will remain after closure 17. These facilities engage in activities including receival
off-site hazardous waste, treatment of hazardous waste, or dispose of hazardous waste such as landfills,
incinerators, or surface impoundments.
Figure 21. Proximity to Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities by County
Source: EPA RCRAInfo database, EJScreen, TBG Work Product.
17
U.S. EPA
Final Report
High energy burdens may drive LMI households to compromise for insufficient heating or cooling, which can increase incidents of Asthma. According to
the CDC, an estimated 7.3% of Florida's population currently has asthma (1,276,625 individuals). Asthma has been linked with exposure to air pollutants
such as asbestos, lead, benzene, perchloroethylene, etc. (EPA, 2018). Additionally, research has shown that children exposed to coarse particulate matter
in the air were more likely to develop asthma and be hospitalized. Air toxins and particulate matter are localized issues and tend to impact minority and
low-income groups, who are more exposed to higher levels than other communities (Rura, 2022). Figure 22 and Figure 23 displays the prevalence of
asthma incidences throughout Florida in 2020. Asthma data is from the Florida Department of Health, Division of Public Health Statistics and Performance
Management. Many areas suffering from energy burden and lower air quality have a higher rate of asthma incidences. Areas with higher prevalence of
heat islands or poorer air quality experience higher incident rates of asthma-related emergency room visits 18.
Figure 22. All Asthma Incidents Figure 23. Asthma Incidents: Black or African American Populations
Source: Florida Department of Health, TBG Work Product
18
U.S. EPA
Final Report
Urban Heat Island (UHI) data was mapped against areas where the average energy burden is greater than 6%. Hsu, Sheriff, Chakraborty, Manya (2021)
found that the average person of color lives in a census tract with higher UHI intensity than non-Hispanic whites in all but 6 of the 175 largest urbanized
areas in the continental United States. A similar pattern emerges for people living in households below the poverty line relative to those at more than two
times the poverty line. Individual exposure to heat is associated with adverse health and economic outcomes. In Figure 24 red areas represent a larger
annual daytime temperature difference (in Celsius) between urban land surface temperature and rural land surface temperature. The map shows the
average annual daytime temperature differences representing where heat islands are present.
Figure 24. Urban Heat Islands and High Energy Burdens across Florida
Source: LEAD Tool; Surface Urban Heat Island Database (Hsu, Sheriff, Chakraborty, Manya (2021)

Final Report
III. Housing and Energy Efficiency Programs

Energy Efficiency Programs
FDACS investigated how well energy efficiency programs achieve their objectives, including if
weatherization and retrofit programs address sufficient household numbers, result in lower bills, are
cost-effective, and are competitive with best practice in other parts of the country with similar
characteristics. Specific communities in Florida have taken leadership roles in addressing inequitable
disparities in access to energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources. For example, the
City of Orlando has launched engagement sessions to understand how to better target LMI households
with energy efficiency programs and building performance standards. Some key statistics from the
investigation include: Figure 25. Most frequent Incentive program upgrades
• Over 380 unique programs are

offered across Florida. The three most
frequent upgrades supported include Window Improvements 47%
windows, air conditioning and
insulation, as shown in Figure 25 Air Conditioning 49%
• The nine largest utilities offer 120
programs for energy efficiency Insulation 52%
improvements. Average participation
rate for targeted low-income 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
households 19 is 1.69%.
• Of the 67 Florida Counties examined, 17 report budgeted funds for county specific energy
conservation efforts.
In Florida, the largest electric and gas utilities are required by law (through the Florida Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Act, or FEECA) to meet energy savings goals set by the Florida Public Service
Commission. The programs are intended to provide incentives for the implementation of projects or
goods that reduce or minimize energy use. Nine Florida Utility Companies representing energy,
electric, water, sewer, and natural gas provide approximately 120 various programs. Residential
programs include home improvements such as ENERGY STAR roofing, window tinting, and better
insulation. There are additional programs to assist with energy audits and analysis, air conditioning,
and metering services.
Including programs offered by local and state government, over 380 programs were identified that aid
in the form of rebates, loans, and tax incentives for residential communities, as well as commercial,
government, and industrial businesses 20.
Utility companies, as well as local, state and federal sectors also provide an array of financial incentives
for customers. Programs range from rebates to loan options, to credits. Table 4 shows the list of
financial incentives which are available to the customers in the Energy Efficiency Programs.
19
Low income programs from utilities define low-income households as those that have a total household gross income of no more
than 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines;
20
Data was collected from 32 utilities as well as Federally from HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of
Energy, locally from the Solar and Energy Loan Fund, individual cities and counties, and FDACS.

Final Report
Table 4. Financial Incentives included in Energy Efficiency Programs

Types of Financial Incentives Available to Customers
• Rebate Program • Personal Tax Credit
• Green Building Incentive • Personal Tax Exemption
• Sales Tax Incentive • PACE Financing
• Property Tax Incentive • Loan Programs
The primary drawback to many of the financial incentives is that they are still out of reach to income-
constrained households. Rebate and tax credit programs are not productive where income is
insufficient to afford the up-front investment. Several resources currently exist across Florida that
provide additional access to capital for LMI populations including Community Development Financial
Institutions (CDFIs), Impact Investors, and Green Banks. CDFIs are community based financial
institutions that promote economic development by providing financial services to communities
underserved by traditional financial institutions, particularly in low income communities. Green banks
are generally defined as institutions which leverage limited public dollars to attract private investments
in clean energy. The investments are typically made in energy efficiency upgrades, renewable energy
projects and other clean energy technologies 21.
There are more than 30 CDFIs servicing the State of Florida which are described in Appendix 2. A
successful example of green bank financing organizations in Florida includes the Solar and Energy
Loan Fund (SELF) which offers unsecured personal loans based on applicant’s ability to pay rather than
credit scores or equity. SELF finance’s high-efficiency air-conditioning units, new roofs and roof repairs,
and upgrades to homes including impact windows, doors, shutters, solar tech, etc.
Local partnerships provide opportunities for the whole-of-government approach to incorporate

private investment through organizations that can supplement the resources of utilities and local
governments in the space of energy equity. Local governments can work with CDFIs to provide
financing for clean energy projects or establish independent nonprofit organization to provide the
financing. Across the U.S., there are a number of examples where communities have worked with green
banks including California, Connecticut, New York, and others. In Florida, several communities are
already undertaking partnerships with CDFIs and Green Banks such as the City of St. Petersburg’s work
with SELF that resulted in the financing of 263 sustainable home improvement projects.
The assistance offered for rebate programs include percentage discount off or actual monetary value.
For example, Florida Keys Electric provides for 100% rebate assistance for residential customers opting
for window film or solar screen, or for caulk/weatherization. Other programs offer amounts such as
25% off solar attic fans, 30% off insulation (Florida Keys Electric), 100% up to $500 for ENERGY STAR®
Heat Pump Water Heater (OUC). Other initiatives include $75 towards ENERGY STAR® Refrigerators
(Ocala Utility Services Electric and Telecommunications), up to $700 for a natural gas furnace (City of
Tallahassee), or programs like receiving monetary bonuses such as $2 per ton/month for citizens who
run their air conditioners specifically during off-peak times (FPL).
21 U.S. EPA (2018)

Final Report
Of the 222 programs that aid with specific Figure 26. Programs That Aid with Specific
technologies, over half of them (117) cater to insulation Technologies
services, while 109 include air conditioning efficiency,
Heat Pump Efficiencies 97
105 include windows, 101 include water heater, and 97
Water Heater 101
include heat pump efficiencies (See Figure 26).
Windows 105
Data was utilized from Florida Public Service
Air Conditioning Efficiency 109
Commission (FPSC) to examine whether energy savings
goals have been met by the FPSC. In 2021, 87 programs Insulation 117
by six utilities provided incentives for energy services 0 50 100 150
such as air conditioning, energy saver methods,
insulation, duct repair, etc across all households. The projected target rate was to reach 5% of their
customers through these methods. Actual program participation was around 3% 22, or around 36,000
people. When examining Low income specific programs only, such as weatherization assistance or
energy savings, the average percentage of program participants is 1.69%, with participation of 1,846
fewer households than the projected target participation per year. See Appendix 3 for additional
information related to these programs.
Eighteen rural electric cooperatives (Co-Op) were also examined, thirteen of which provided some type
of assistance program. The majority of these were rebate programs for heat pumps and home energy
efficiency projects. Two offered loans for generator and home energy efficiency projects. One offered
a discount for air filters, and one offered a credit for a smart thermostat. Four of these programs
catered to manufactured homes and upgrades to these living spaces. For example, one Co-Op is
offering homeowners of manufactured homes a $400 per ton rebate to upgrade to a high-efficiency
pump. Another offers members in manufactured homes $200 to $2,000 for upgrading their heating
and cooling system. They also offer a $100 rebate to manufactured home dealers and $100 to air
conditioning and heating contractors who install a qualified heat pump in an existing manufactured
home.
Seventeen of the 67 counties in Florida mention energy conservation efforts directly in their budget.
Expenditures can take the form of an energy management program, such as Alachua County has, or
additional energy performance improvement measures, like LIHEAP, or additional home energy
assistance that Charlotte County provides.
Workforce
The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the Energy Futures Initiative (EFI)
release energy employment data annually providing state reports. The 2022 U.S. Energy and
Employment Report (USEER) provides a consistent tool for states and other stakeholders to track
changes in energy and energy-related employment. Overall, Florida has a low concentration of
employment in energy sectors representing 3.7% of all U.S. transitional energy jobs. Energy efficiency
22 Not including one outlier program with 2 participants that had 200%

Final Report
jobs comprise the largest share across the technology applications 23 and represent 5.2% of all jobs in
the sector nationwide 24.
Research from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) supports that
investments in energy efficiency creates more jobs than an equivalent investment in other sectors with
20 jobs created by a $1 million investment in energy efficiency improvements compared to 17 in the
economy as a whole. Beyond the direct job creation benefits of investments in energy efficiency
improvements, consumer savings on energy bills allow for households to spend elsewhere in the
economy 25. Additionally, given the energy efficiency involves installation or maintenance of
equipment, jobs are more frequently local retaining higher local value-added benefits. The data from
ACEEE supports that the economic benefits of energy efficiency extends beyond lowering energy
burdens for households. Designing programs to provide opportunities for ripple effects including
lower costs for LMI households and small businesses, opportunities for workers in disadvantaged
communities and economic activity for underserved communities can further address inequalities.
Program Design
The study assessed energy efficiency program objectives, including if weatherization and retrofit
programs address sufficient household numbers, result in lower bills, are cost-effective, and are
competitive with best practice in other parts of the country or world with similar characteristics.
Because Energy Efficiency Programs vary in program design elements it is important to understand
where Florida currently is in terms of incentives and policies, as well as examine current best practices,
and barriers to access.
Florida Ranking Relative to Other States

Florida is ranked 9th in the nation for incentives and policy for renewables and efficiency according to
data maintained by North Carolina State University 26. See Table 5.
Table 5. State Incentives and Policies Top 10 Ranking

State Number of State Incentives and Policies
California 167
Minnesota 140
Texas 117
New York 107
Colorado 103
Oregon 102
Washington 84
Maryland 77
Florida 73
North Carolina 70
Source: NC Clean Energy Tech Center, 2022
23 Technology applications represent the f fields of electric power generation; transmission, distribution, and storage;
fuels; energy efficiency; and motor vehicles and component parts.
24 U.S. Department of Energy, United States Energy and Employment Report 2022
25ACEEE How Does Energy Efficiency Create Jobs Fact Sheet and the ACEEE Energy Efficiency and Economic
Opportunity Fact Sheet

26 NC Clean Energy Tech Center, 2022, Database of State Incentives and Policies for Renewables & Efficiency

Final Report
The 2021 ACEEE State Progress Report noted Florida as the 13th lowest state when it comes to state
spending on low income programs per income-qualified resident . Florida utilities spent $3.58 million
spending on low-income energy efficiency programs in 2020. Using FDACS Office of Energy only (not
including LIHEAP, EHEAP, and WAP funding), the state spent an additional $4.35 million, for a total of
$7.93 million or $1.13 per income-qualified resident. For comparison, the highest state spending on
low-income programs per income-qualified resident was Massachusetts at $61.13. West Virginia was
above Florida with $1.19 per income-qualified resident and North Carolina was below Florida with
$0.74 per resident.
In an earlier (2019) report, ACEEE noted that Florida ranked 24th, scoring 16.5 out of 50 points.
According to the score card. According to the score card-
“Florida has shown support for energy efficiency through proactive building energy code
adoption and compliance efforts and through a variety of state-funded incentive programs.
However, utility savings continue to lag behind most states in the wake of regulatory decisions
to scale back demand-side management programs (ACEEE, 2019).”
Worth noting was that, out of the categories (utilities, transportation, building energy efficiency
policies, combined heat and power, state government-led initiatives, and appliance standards), Florida
ranked highest on Building Energy Efficiency Policies with 6 out of 8 points. It received the same score
in the 2020 scorecard, noting that, “In late 2019 utility regulators rejected utility proposals to weaken
efficiency goals to near zero, and instead approved modest programs under the previously approved
2014 goals (ACEEE, 2020).”
BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICIES

“Florida law requires residential and commercial buildings to comply with the Sixth Edition Florida
Building Code, equivalent to the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with state-
specific amendments. Florida worked with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Energy Codes
Program to conduct a compliance study in 2018. The state convenes a stakeholder advisory group
and provides energy code training (ACEEE, 2020).”
Other states in the southeast region such as Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama received a 27, 29,
45, and 44, respectively. Texas ranked higher than Florida with regards to Building Energy Efficiency
Policies at 6.5.
Performance
Data provided from six public service commission utilities was examined to determine how well the
programs achieved their objectives in Florida. Data for programs that cover themes such as Residential
Low Income, Neighborhood Energy Efficiency, and Weatherization for LMI residential areas begins
around March of 2005. As of 2021, projected average cumulative penetration was around 7%,
compared to actual penetration of about 5.9%, which represents about a 19,000-household difference.
Additional information regarding programs that specifically address low income communities can be
found in the Energy Efficiency Matrix (Appendix 3).

Final Report
Best Practice for Energy Efficiency

Best practices for Energy Efficiency have been gradually evolving since the 1980s to ensure results and
optimize access 27. Recent reports offer updated guidance in overcoming barriers to significant energy
efficiency programming. The guidance includes program planning, design and implementation, and
evaluation. Table 6 provides a concise summary of best practice in energy efficiency program design
elements. Appendix 4 provides a brief overview of several energy efficiency planning guidance
documents, including Energy Star, a comprehensive report by Texas State Energy Conservation Office
planning summary of energy efficiency program and utility reports.
Table 6. Programs and Corresponding Best Practices

Program Best Practices
Equipment • Program design flexibility
Rebate Programs • Accommodate market trends
• Offer benefits including technical or program training
• Community based and social marketing
• Participation in industry related events
• Provide customers with array of application mechanisms (mail-in rebates,
online rebate applications, instant rebates)
Appliance • Create retail partnerships
Recycling • Co-promote recycling program message with other programs
• Offer online appointments scheduling, or alternative day pick-ups
• Active involvement and communication
• Customer surveys to ensure units are being picked up
Audit and Direct • Well documented program theory and design
Installation • Beneficial cost to implement program
• Ability to deliver immediate and long-term energy savings
• High quality of services
Education and • Positive, fact based, audience specific communication
Behavior • Consumer surveys to identify attitudes, barriers, and preferences
• Encourage customers to pledge to act, recognize contribution
New • Predetermined incentives for prequalified equipment
Construction • Financial support to offset higher initial capital costs
• Performance-based incentives
Innovative • Low interest rates
Financing • Long loan terms
• Broad eligibility
• Off-balance-sheet financing
• CDFIs
Demand • Detailed program materials to new participants
Response • Multiple message that appeal to motivators
• Opportunity of choice between programs
• Annual feedback to customers
Source: Nexant. (2011).
27
EPA 2015

Final Report
The list allows comparison between Florida policy and the best practices employed in other states to
address these same issues. While many of the best practices are in place, The State of Florida currently
does not have specific targets or standards for ensuring adequate investment in EE programs for low-
income customers. An appropriate policy initiative for Florida would be adoption of goals to ensure
sufficient investment.
Local Partnerships
Communities and local partnerships play a critical role in implementing best practices. For example,
the City of Orlando has launched engagement sessions to understand how to better target LMI
households with energy efficiency programs and building performance standards 28. Partners
committed $335 million to help 155,000 low-income households access energy efficiency and
renewable energy benefits, collecting resources and lessons learned into the Clean Energy for Low-
Income Communities Accelerator (CELICA) Toolkit. Interested parties noted that there is an opportunity
for organizations/institutions who are social service anchors to be providers of education on accessing
these programs.
Energy Benchmarking for LMI Multifamily Units

The practice of benchmarking buildings is widely utilized across the U.S., especially among state and
local government property owners and facility operators and managers. Benchmarking serves to
measure energy performance for building energy usage at the building level over time and relative to
buildings with similar characteristics including age and construction, providing resource managers with
the ability to target for efficiency improvements.
Benchmarking tools already exist for property managers to utilize but vary on capabilities and costs
with the selected tool driven by goals of benchmarking programs. The U.S. DOE provides several
resources for benchmarking including the performance database and the Energy Asset Score. In
addition, U.S. DOE’s resources, the ENERGYSTAR portfolio manager is considered the industry standard
for benchmarking commercial buildings, however these resources are limited in the data availability of
residential applications.
A statewide metric of benchmarking for multi-family low- and moderate-income communities was
prepared and is a measure of energy use intensity (EUI). EUI is an indicator of the energy efficiency of
a building's design and/or operations. The calculation for estimating EUI is the ratio between the total
energy use for a building and the building area in terms of square feet. A lower EUI signifies a better
energy performance than a similar building.
At zip code level scale for Florida, the LEAD Tool data on Average Annual Energy Expenditure for
multifamily buildings was used to estimate the average usage in kilowatt hours. Data from the Florida
Department of Revenue provided estimates for average multifamily building area for units. Figure 27
shows the calculation.
28 Better Buildings, (2021)

Final Report
Figure 27. Calculations to Estimate the Average Energy Usage
Energy Total
Area of
Usage Energy
Unit
Intensity Use
Figure 28 shows the benchmarking for multifamily LMI residents across the state at the zip code scale.
Feedback provided for additional displays of the benchmarking metric by building characteristics. EUI
is measured by kilowatts per square foot. Counties colored in green have the lowest EUI with 6
kilowatts per square foot being used. Due to limitations in the reporting of unit sizes in terms of area,
the building characteristics highlighted based on stakeholder feedback are displayed as building age
groupings in Figures 32 – 43.
Figure 28. EUI-Multifamily Buildings
Sources: DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): US Building Typology Segmentation (County),
EnergyStar Portfolio Manager

Final Report
Figure 29 uses the LEAD tool to show the average energy cost of multifamily homes throughout the state of Florida. When looking at Figure 30 many panhandle
communities would have lower energy expenditures with lower cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) prices. However, many communities across the rest of the state still
have high energy costs, despite 29most of the state having rates that are comparable to national averages (as of February 2022, average charge per kwh is
14.92¢/kwh).
Figure 29. Average Energy Cost of Multifamily Homes Throughout Florida Figure 30. Average Cost Cents/kwh
Data Source: EIA, Annual Electric Utility Data (EIA-861 data file); 2020 Average Price/kWh
29
EIA, Table 5.6.A. Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector
Final Report
EUI as measured in kilowatt hour per square foot is mapped in Figure 31 for multifamily LMI.
Figure 31. Energy Usage Intensity
Data: Florida Department of Revenue, EIA Utilities, LEAD Tool

Final Report
Figure 32 and Figure 33 tracks Energy Usage Intensity for owners and renters in buildings built before 1940, respectively. Energy Usage Intensity being
measured in kilowatts per hour per square foot (kwh/sqft). Areas in gray are under 4.4 kwh/sqft. Dark blue areas are over 19 kwh/sqft.
Figure 32. EUI Owners in Buildings Built Before 1940 Figure 33. EUI Renters in Buildings Built Before 1940
Sources: LEAD Tool. EIA, FDOR

Final Report
Figure 34 and Figure 35 tracks Energy Usage Intensity for owners and renters in buildings built from 1940-1959, respectively. Areas in gray are 4.4
kwh/sqft and under.
Figure 34. EUI for Owners in Buildings Built 1940-1959 Figure 35. EUI for Renters in Buildings Built 1940-1959
Source: LEAD Tool, EIA, FDOR

Final Report
Figure 36 and Figure 37 tracks Energy Usage Intensity for owners and renters in buildings built from 1960-1979, respectively. Areas in gray are under
4.4 kwh/sqft. Dark blue areas are over 19 kwh/sqft

Final Report
4.4 kwh/sqft. Dark blue areas are over 19 kwh/sqft.

Final Report
4.4 kwh/sqft. Dark blue areas are over 19 kwh/sqft.

Final Report
Figure 42 and Figure 43 tracks Energy Usage Intensity for owners and renters in buildings built after 2010, respectively. Areas in gray are under 4.4
kwh/sqft. Dark blue areas are over 19 kwh/sqft.
Figure 42. EUI for Owners in Buildings Built After 2010 Figure 43. EUI for Renters in Buildings Built After 2010

Final Report
Figure 44 shows a comparison of the state-wide average energy usage intensities across the age of
multifamily buildings by occupancy type.
Figure 44. Energy Usage Intensity by Building Age

18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
-
Pre-1940 1940 - 1959 1960 - 1979 1980 - 1999 2000 - 2009 After 2010
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Comparatively, Figure 45 shows the comparison of occupancy types and share of housing by building
age. The number of renter-occupied units is 4.5 times larger than owner-occupied. It should be noted
that the building age groups with the largest shares of renter-occupied housing, 1960 – 1979 and 1980
– 1999 respectively, also have energy usage intensities that are on average higher than their owner-
occupied counterparts.
Figure 45. Housing Counts by Building Age

300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
Pre-1940 1940 - 1959 1960 - 1979 1980 - 1999 2000 - 2009 After 2010
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Source: LEAD Tool

Final Report
Solar Energy
Solar energy is growing rapidly in Florida, but is still primarily rooftop-based. This translates to an
expensive investment that is largely available to owners of single-family homes, rather than renters or
residents of multifamily units. Community Solar, or shared solar, is a path to renewable energy that
requires a smaller up-front investment, and is more likely to be accessible to LMI or minority
households due to the reduced costs. Notably, projects provide alternatives to rooftop systems for
customers who have insufficient solar resources, do not own their buildings, or have other limiting
factors such as financial reasons. Community Solar is defined by the U.S. DOE as “any solar project or
purchasing program, within a geographic area, in which the benefits of a solar project flow to multiple
customers such as individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and other groups. In most cases, customers are
benefitting from energy generated by solar panels at an off-site array”.
DOE efforts to promote Figure 46. Solar in Your Community

Community Solar include the
Solar in Your Community (SIYC)
program, described in Figure 46.
Data provided by Solar United
Neighbors, a 501© 3 that is
focused on Community Solar Solar in Your Community
shows that a typical small Florida The U.S. DOE launched the Solar in Your Community Prize
co-op may cost a net of about Challenge (SYIC) in 2016 to identify innovative approaches to
$67 monthly in loan costs, while support solar deployment among underserved markets, including
electricity reduction can be $56 low- and moderate-income (LMI) populations, nonprofit
monthly, for a net cost of about organizations, and other community-serving entities, such as
$11 monthly over ten years. Net municipal governments. Ten teams were selected to address the
annual energy cost savings are unique barriers of these sectors relating to financing, ownership
about $675, which is most of the structure, and upfront costs.
electricity cost for a typical LMI
Creative financing was a key element of each of the programs,
household based on statewide
including using federal tax incentives, third-party tax equity
data 30.
investors for up to 30% of project costs, securing anchor tenants,
Currently 22 states have policy
crowdsourced philanthropy, compensation from virtual or net
supporting community solar, and
metering, and compensation for other grid services (e.g., demand
while Florida has the greatest
response and load reduction). Working with local policy
solar output, Florida does not
constraints and enabling features was a critical part of the project,
have statutory requirements for
including state law supporting crowdsourced investment, for
community solar. Utilities
example. Net metering is an important component of the cost-
voluntarily choose to offer access
effectiveness of solar in Florida.
to community solar, and since
residents do not choose their
utility, this is largely beyond their control. From an intergenerational perspective, the availability of
Community Solar is likely to have one of the greatest impacts on household-level energy equity.
30 https://coops.solarunitedneighbors.org/coops/orange-county-2022-solar-co-op/

Final Report
Statewide Analysis of Performance of The Energy Code for Multifamily

Buildings
The State of Florida Building Commission (FBC) does not provide data on the performance of the
Florida Energy Conservation Code. The FBC requires each jurisdiction to provide quarterly reports on
Energy Code compliance. As of February 2022, the FBC has this information posted:
“As per Section R103.1.1.2.1, Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation, 7th Edition (2020),
the University of Florida is the entity representing the Florida Building Commission….please
ensure that the reporting portion of the proper forms are submitted on a quarterly basis to
the University of Florida.”
The information is collected by the University of Florida, M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Construction
Management. The quarterly data collected by the University of Florida is used for academic research
purposes and is provided to building material manufacturers and material providers. As such, it is not
currently made available publicly to allow analysis of the performance of the energy code. However,
many elements of the energy code have become mainstream elements of local building codes.
Additionally, the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), run by the University of Central Florida, researches
and develops improvement strategies that can lead to more energy efficient solar-based building
equipment and systems. Their research mainly focuses on the installation and performance of new
equipment and evaluating potential Code updates, but no research was found that specifically focused
on the Florida Energy Code Performance for Multi-family buildings. Their research is more specific to
single-family homes and setting higher standards for new solar-based technologies.
The best indicator available for energy codes is the projections that Florida could see with complete
adherence to code standards. In a publication from the U.S. DOE, the “Incremental First Costs,” of
energy efficient construction is compared to the long-term savings realized by adherence to the codes.
Multi-family buildings are not specifically documented, but for a Commercial building (multifamily is
commercial for purposes of building code), the annual reduction in energy bills is $0.06 per sq. ft.,
while the added construction cost is $0.90 per sq. ft. Savings are seen in the long-term. As multifamily
buildings are not owned by the tenants, builders are not likely to eat these up-front energy-efficiency
costs, as the return will not be seen by them, but rather by the renters much later. Therefore, higher
energy-efficient codes are less likely to be utilized unless mandatory - which is supported by the 5%
compliance rate currently 31.
Development Codes and Tree Canopy

Heat islands are urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas. Florida’s
tree canopy is directly related to Urban Heat Island effects. The development codes for each jurisdiction
contain landscaping and sometimes tree preservation requirements, dependent on local legislation.
Cities with strong Tree Preservation policies to preserve protected species and maintain the ambiance
of shady streets lined with mature trees were hindered in 2019 with HB 1159, which pre-empted local
31 EPA, Energy Star.

Final Report
governments from regulating the removal of trees on personal property, if a licensed Arborist signs
off on the removal. In many jurisdictions, landscape codes allow for land to be stripped of most
vegetation during development or redevelopment, with 85% impervious coverage and varying tree
standards that are based on lot size calculations or linear lot dimensions, which result in planting of a
mixture of ground cover (often turf) and new trees. The standard size for new tree requirements is a
2-3” caliper tree, spaced a certain distance apart on street frontages and in parking lot islands.
Depending on the depth of code requirements, only certain cities dictate the type (canopy, understory,
etc.) or species of trees to be planted, which leads to many new developments using palm trees (often
not native to the area) to replace traditional canopy trees. At full maturity, Palm tree species that
provide the most canopy width range from 15’ to 25’, whereas a mature Live Oak has a 60’-100’ canopy
width, not to mention a substantially longer life span.
A number of web-based tools such as i-tree™ have been developed to assess tree canopy and canopy
loss in an area, with the ability to track changes over time using aerials. Even more germane to Energy
Equity is an online resource called Tree Equity Score, which notes that “a map of tree cover in any city
in the United States is too often a map of race and income”. And that “Trees are critical infrastructure.”
The spatial tool uses a number of criteria in developing a Tree Equity Score and has found that “the
inequitable distribution of trees exacerbates social inequities,” and that “On average, trees in the US
reduce energy demand for heating and cooling by 7.2%.” Best practice in managing extreme heat in
urban environments includes new designs for heat-resistant bus shelters, tree-planting programs,
aerial heat mapping and creating additional open space in an attempt to design communities that are
more heat resilient 32.
Feasibility of Revenue Sharing Models

Renters are less likely than homeowners to have energy-efficient appliances and this is only more
prevalent in areas that have higher energy prices 33. The main deterrent to energy efficient appliances
is a higher up-front cost. An energy-efficient fridge that earns the EPA's Energy Star certification will
be “about 9 percent more energy-efficient than models that meet the federal minimum standard for
energy efficiency. 34” Energy Star also states “An energy-efficient dryer with the Energy Star certification
will use about 20% less energy than comparable dryers.” Appliances account for approximately 30%
of total energy bills each month. The decision on the purchase of the more energy-efficient appliances
is not made by the residents/renters, but by the owner of the building. Building owners will not see a
return on investment unless higher rents are charged to offset the cost of supplying energy efficient
appliances, which would increase the financial burden on LMI individuals and households.
Residential examples of successful revenue sharing models are sparse, based on fears relating to costs
for repairs, maintenance, insurance and other factors. The only examples that could be found for
successful revenue sharing models were between commercial business tenants and building owners.
32 https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/strategies-action-plans/adapting-for-climate-change
33 M.N.M. Souza (2018)
34 EnergyStar.gov

Final Report
However, the Better Buildings Program, under Figure 48. List of Green Lease Clauses for Shared Owner-Tenant
Language
US DOE, introduces the idea of “green leases,”
which is being spearheaded by the Federal
• Pass-through Clauses: Operating Expenses vs. Capital
Government. “Depending on building type, the
Expenses
building’s occupants can control up to 80% of
• HVAC
energy use in a building. Engaging tenants in • Temperature Setting
energy efficiency initiatives is crucial to • Rooftop Unit Installation
unlocking the full energy savings potential of a • Submetering
building. The toolkit outlines successful • Water Fixtures and Plumbing
strategies and resources for bridging the • LEED and Green Globe-Specific Clauses
tenant-landlord divide through green leasing • Outdoor Premises
• Energy
guidance, tenant improvement and build out
• Monitoring Energy Use
best practices, and examples of successful
• Air Quality
communication with tenants regarding energy • Energy Consumption
efficiency opportunities 35.” • Water Consumption
The toolkit provided includes examples of • ENERGY STAR Integration
successful programs and templates for green

leases that can be utilized by landlords Figure 47. Performance-Based Leasing Guidelines
and tenants. Successful implementation

of these programs has shown to reduce
PERFORMANCE-BASED LEASING OUTLINES THE FOLLOWING:
utility costs for building owners, which are
1. Prioritization of carbon reduction goals by defining building
then shared by tenants. The program
performance standards;
includes multifamily buildings, and could 2. Landlord and tenant accountability by tracking energy use and
have a direct positive impact on LMI implementing building performance goals;
individuals and households. Specific 3. Equitable distribution of responsibilities by defining the roles a
language for landlord-tenant energy landlord and tenant must comply with to benchmark and meet
clauses is provided through the Green building performance goals;
Lease Language Examples 36. Figure 47 4. Regular monitoring via performing periodic recommissioning
provides a condensed list of the available studies and, where necessary, establishing a mitigation plan; and
clauses, which provide template language 5. Failure to comply language should either party fail to meet
for landlord, tenant, and joint building performance goals.
responsibilities across the topic at hand, including room to fill in the percentage of potential savings
for each party that is shared with them, and the data sharing responsibilities to maintain accountability.
Landlords benefit through lower utility bills, as do tenants.
Figure 48 lists features of a Performance-based leasing approach. This approach conceptually benefits
multifamily buildings, but is geared more toward commercial building arrangements. In either case,
the potential role for state and local government is in raising awareness through outreach.
35 Better Buildings, U.S. Department of Energy Toolkit

36 https://www.greenleaseleaders.com/how-do-i-green-a-lease/

Final Report
Policy Considerations
Policy considerations relevant to housing and energy efficiency matters include several aspects.
Structural Equity
Increased accountability for energy efficiency programs will require better tracking of programmatic
progress versus the households they are intended to reach.
• Data is widely available for investor-owned utilities, but outreach effectiveness is low – with
large utilities reporting target effectiveness as low as 0.06% in 2021.
o Scale for investor-owned utilities can also be an issue; a large utility can meet goals in one
area of the state but have no results in another area.
o Program and outreach effectiveness data is sparse for municipal utilities and coops.
• Multifamily benchmarking data is readily available and replicable, for monitoring progress.
Procedural Equity
• Create inclusive and accessible processes for program development.
• Community members’ involvement in the processes for defining, driving, and accountability of
program outcomes. Demand for greener lease provisions is unlikely to occur without
awareness of the available options.
Distributional Equity
• Programmatic design needs to consider income limitations. Rebate-driven programs may be
inadequate if income is insufficient to overcome capital outlays required to participate.
• Ongoing research through the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance has found that one of the
single most effective energy bill reduction measures in Florida is swapping out air conditioners.
Since many households have incorrectly sized and malfunctioning window units and room air
conditioners, offering the opportunity to trade up to a more efficient unit can have significant
effects on monthly energy bills.
Transgenerational equity – considerations for future generations

• Florida currently does not have a state policy that aggressively supports community solar
unlike some other states where supportive legislation is enacted. While perception is that it is
not permitted, state policies allow investments in community solar. As a generational
consideration, community solar has the potential to have significant effects on future
generational costs. Income limitations pose insurmountable burdens for individual household
solar at the LMI level.

Final Report
IV. Transportation Equity

The transportation system is dominated by private vehicles, and is the second-largest component of
household expenditures, after housing costs; the fixed costs associated with private vehicles makes
vehicle ownership especially burdensome for low-income households. While the majority of U.S.
households own at least two vehicles, millions of households do not have access to a car, with
researchers estimating more than half of households in poverty do not, which limits access to a range
of essential services.
While LMI and minority communities are Figure 49. Transportation Energy Equity Factors
typically the most impacted by pollution
and poor air quality, access to alternatives
E-bus
such as electric vehicles are not always
public
readily accessible to these communities. transit
Analysis of transportation-related energy
equity requires consideration of several
aspects of transportation. Figure 49
captures the key factors relative to Transport
transportation equity, which include electric
E-vehicle E-micro-
ownership
Energy mobility
vehicle ownership, e-mobility options, e- Equity
bus access, and transportation-related
workforce opportunities. EV ownership and
EV use for public transit is increasing rapidly
across Florida (and the US). Increased
ownership is occurring mainly among EV jobs
affluent households. Over time, this is
expected to increase, and tracking access to
EVs will allow monitoring of equity.
Key Findings
• EV access for LMI youth is highly important for interested parties, with access to e-scooters
and job training in relevant electronics certification among the highest priorities.
• Rapid uptake of e-buses for public transit and school buses will benefit LMI communities.
Increased e-bus service is a reality with current Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Investments (BIL)
funding, and should be prioritized to LMI communities who rely more heavily on buses for
basic transportation needs. Similarly, local circulators that connect to buses and other modes
of transport are critical to LMI households.
• Increased awareness of EVs, and access to convenient charging stations in areas frequented by
underserved communities, such as libraries, community centers, plazas and well-used parks is
needed to support use of EVs in LMI communities.

Final Report
Equality in Access to EV Infrastructure

Given many low-income households lack access to a car all together, affordability is considered a key
barrier to electric accessibility. While EV ownership rates in Florida are drastically increasing over time,
the distribution of ownership rates shows rates are skewed towards the highest incomes well over the
median household income. This is consistent with findings of other studies of EV ownership rates where
EVs are mostly owned by high income earners. Nationwide, vehicle registration data shows that the
rate of adoption of EVs as a proportion of all household vehicles is 15 times higher in the top 20% of
zip codes by income than it is in the lowest 20% (Atlas EV Hub, 2020). It is important to assess the
ownership rates in the context of income disparities as higher income groups may benefit more
frequently from available incentives than lower income groups. For example, one study showed that
$6 of every $10 of electric vehicle, subsidies went to households in the top income quintile (top 20%),
while only 10% of electric vehicles subsidies went to households earning less than $75,000 per year.
The Gini coefficient was calculated for electric vehicle ownership by income between zip codes within
each county. Four counties have only data for one zip code within that county, and three counties did
not have data; all are shown as n/a shown in Figure 50.
Figure 50. EV Ownership by Income
Source: FDOT, AFDC, TBG Work Product

Final Report
Access to EV Infrastructure
The Gini coefficient describes the distribution of electric vehicle charging ports by income within a
county. An alternative fuel station can contain multiple charging ports; therefore, the number of
charging ports was the variable analyzed for this calculation.
Counties not shown in Figure 51 did not have any alternative fuel stations. The low Gini coefficients
in these counties are likely due to their lack of variation in income level within the county. There are
only 3-4 different census tracts within each county and each tract is generally similar in median income.
The U.S. DOE maintains a database of Alternative Fuel Stations that is continuously updated. The total
number of ports available for the charging locations across the state are displayed in Figure 52.
At the County level, EV charging Figure 51. Charging Ports by Income

appears relatively well-dispersed
in current conditions. However,
zooming in to local data, there are
clear patterns with EV charging
assets generally following more
affluent communities, while this
makes sense from an investment
perspective as most current EVs
have affluent owners, future
investment will need to recognize
requirements in areas frequented
less affluent communities to
support EV use. Without access to
fuel, LMI residents will have
further barriers to EV use. Access
to charging stations is relatively
straightforward to locate –
chargepoint.com, everglo.com
and electrifyamerica.com, are just
a few of the private sector
providers in addition to the
substantial investment Florida
Department of Transportation
(FDOT) is making in charging
stations. Young adults using e-
Source: USDOE AFDC, TBG Work Product
scooters can benefit from
supportive efforts by schools and workplaces providing charging. Already, some fast food restaurants
encourage workers to commute by e-bike and e-scooter by accommodating storage and charging
during their shift.

Final Report
Figure 52. Ports Available for The Charging Locations Across The State
Source: USDOE AFDC, TBG Work Product
EV Ownership Incentives
As EV technology improves, it reduces the cost of vehicle ownership; changes in the cost of EVs including purchase
price, charging, and associated maintenance, could significantly reduce the burden of transportation costs relative
to household income. This is notable for low-income households given savings from efficiencies including fuel
mileage can have positive distributional impacts, whereas EVs offer significant fuel-cost reductions compared to
conventional gasoline vehicles. Some financial incentives and services exist that encourage people to buy electric
vehicles and increase their access to electric vehicle service infrastructure. Some financial incentives and services
exist that encourage people to buy electric vehicles and increase their access to electric vehicle service
infrastructure. A map of known incentives alongside EV ownership is shown in Figure 53. High EV ownership is
clustered in metro areas, and in areas with incentives.

Final Report
Figure 53. Known Incentives Alongside Electronic Vehicle Ownership
Source: FDOT, AFDC, TBG Work Product
FDACS Electric Vehicle Roadmap

The FDACS Florida Electric Vehicle Roadmap (“EV Roadmap”) study, completed in 2021, provided extensive
guidance and public input on the future of electric vehicles in Florida. It included forecasts of electric vehicle
adoption, analysis of charging infrastructure and future sites and impacts, as well as barriers to expansion and
issues specific to Florida to be considered as electric vehicles grow in the state. It also provided considerations for
equity in many recommendations and analysis.
Historically, low-income and other disadvantaged communities have and continue to experience the negative
effects of pollution, climate change and other health and energy related burdens. These communities are often
located on land that is cheaper, and therefore frequently disrupted by transportation projects. According to the EV
Roadmap, “low-income communities and communities of people of color bear disproportionate climate change
and pollution burdens, and therefore, these communities must be among the first to receive investment related to
new technologies and infrastructure that address the climate crises and mitigate localized environmental pollution.
Electric transportation’s significantly lower total cost of ownership presents a real opportunity to improve
disadvantaged communities’ transportation access, allowing them to commute to better jobs, health care and other
services that cannot be accessed through public transportation; all while enjoying a quieter and cleaner

Final Report
community.” Additionally, as electric vehicles increase, the impacts of transportation pollution, that primarily affect
underserved communities, will decrease.
Rural communities also have a lot to gain financially from the use of electric vehicles. Electric vehicles could result
in lower vehicle repair costs, lower carbon emissions and lower gasoline costs. However, low vehicle range, limited
vehicle choices and lack of charging infrastructure remain barriers to access electric vehicles for rural populations.
Technology is being developed that is expected to increase the range electric vehicles can travel and vehicle options
continue to grow, but access to charging stations remains an issue. If these areas were more adequately equipped
with charging infrastructure, this could also help make evacuation routes more equipped as well.
FDOT EV Infrastructure Master Plan

FDOT prepared an EV Infrastructure Master Plan in 2020-2021. The Plan 37 sets out specific initiatives to encourage
expanded EV use statewide. Equity considerations were integrated into each initiative by “prioritizing fair and equal
access, and incorporating criteria for mitigating potential social or economic status barriers to electric vehicles and
charging stations”. Equity-related recommendations are noted in Table 7.
Table 7. FDACS and FDOT EV Recommendations
Initiative Objective Strategy
Investment Ensure equitable Prioritize underserved communities to receive investment related to new
investment technologies and infrastructure that address the climate crises and mitigate
localized environmental pollution
Facilitate Promote Installation of Develop an innovative and ongoing funding program: work with partners to
Community Charging develop a grant and/or loan program to expand access to Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Supply Equipment (EVSE) in low-income and historically disadvantaged
communities
Develop model building and zoning codes: draft language that local and
regional governments can adopt or modify for use in establishing
requirements and guiding the implementation of EVSE.
Multi-family EVSE: Expand restricting condominium associations from banning
EVSE to include multi-family rental developments
Educate Support EVSE-Focused Develop and launch a consumer-oriented education and outreach program: A
Education and program to educate the general public on the basics of EV ownership, such as
Outreach how the charging works, the potential benefits and downfalls, the cost, the
incentives available, and information relevant to purchasing or owning an EV.
This program could inform the public on available EV infrastructure. This
should be coordinated to provide education and outreach to the broader
community with active engagement efforts in low-income and historically
disadvantaged communities
Workforce development with active engagement efforts in disadvantaged
communities: coordinate with education providers around the state to
develop the knowledge and curriculum needed to train Florida’s workforce to
service EV vehicles and to install, service and maintain EVSE infrastructure.
Support Local Develop Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) guidance: develop potential
Jurisdictions and guidance for the MPOs on how to best consider EVSE and equity into the
Agencies development of the LRTP
37
https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/planning/fto/fdotevmp.pdf
Final Report
Initiative Objective Strategy
Coordinate Continuously Florida EVSE stakeholder group: Leverage existing inter-agency work groups
Coordinate that include federal, state, local, private and research organizations. These
Stakeholders to groups should include diverse representation from low-income and
Support EVSE Planning historically disadvantaged communities throughout the state of Florida
and Implementation
Efforts
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program (NEVI) is currently estimated to provide FDOT with $198 million
over five years to address EV charging. The state may use the funds for EV charging infrastructure, operating
expenses, traffic control devices and signage, as well as development, mapping and analysis. FDOT developed its
Electric Vehicle Charging Investment Plan as required by the NEVI program; it is in public comment at the time of
this report. The plan considers equity in the development of clean transportation deployment and access to
corridors. FDOT highlights that the plan integrated EV deployment that achieves a minimum 40% distribution of
benefits to disadvantaged communities as outlined by the Justice40 Initiative. Currently, 48% of Florida’s EV
alternative fuel corridors lie within disadvantaged communities. FDOT’s plan considers EV charging locations that
will address energy cost burdens, lessen environmental exposures to emissions, increase access for capital to
address gaps in EV sites where growth is expected, access to electric grid with charging stations to all users, and
increase clean energy jobs with incentives 38.
38
FDOT, 2022. Florida's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan.
(https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/planning/policy/electric-vehicle/florida's-evidp_2022-07-
29_final_v2.pdf?sfvrsn=21099b3e_2)
Final Report
Similarly to the EV ownership and income relationships, minority population distribution relative to ownership rates was assessed. 57% of EV ownership is
in areas with less than 25% minority populations. Figure 54 tracks minority populations in relation to EV ownership. The points in the maps show
concentrations of charging ports in relation to minority populations and transportation routes. The zoom in shows a detailed view of minority population
shares in relation to number of charging ports near transportation routes.
Figure 54. Minority Populations in Relation to Electric Vehicle Ownership
Source: USDOE AFDC, US Census, TBG Work Product

Final Report
Micro-mobility and e-bikes
While many low incomes households lack Figure 55. Examples of Micro-Mobility
access to private vehicles, these
communities are often higher users of
• The City of Tampa has implemented their own
transit systems. However, adequate
micro-mobility program by engaging with four of
accessibility has been hindered by land-use
the United States’ micro-mobility companies
patterns on public transit developments
which increases the rate of car utilization. As (HOPR, BIRD, LIME, and SPIN).
many urban areas combat the externalities • The City of Pensacola has enacted a shared micro-
of vehicles, there has been recent adoptions mobility program in partnership with e-scooter
towards sustainable transportation systems companies, BIRD and VEO. They are allowed to
which has increased the usage of personal operate within the franchise area (map in link) for
transit modes such as e-scooters and e- one year during a pilot program.
bikes. These modes of transportation offer • The City of St. Petersburg Beach is in the process
users enhanced accessibility to other public of installing a micro-mobility program (as of early
transit systems. House Bill 453, signed into 2022).
law in 2019, provides each Florida City with
• The City of Orlando has implemented a pilot
the authority to regulate the usage of
program for bike and scooter sharing.
electric scooters. Several major Florida cities
have enacted micro-mobility programs to
provide bicycles and e-scooters to residents
(See Figure 55 for examples). The implementation of micro-mobility access to residents reduces the reliance and
usage of car trips to make short trips in cities. Bicycles and e-scooters will reduce traffic levels and reliance on gas
vehicles in bustling cities. According to The National Association of Field Training Officers (NAFTO), the availability
of micro-mobility options provides residents with the ability to commute short trips in an easy manner. Docked
stations are part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) Intermodal
Passenger Connectivity Database (IPCD). The IPCD is a nationwide database of passenger transportation facilities
and docked stations, with data on the availability of connections to: intercity, commuter, and transit rail; scheduled
air service; intercity and transit bus; intercity and transit ferry services; and bikeshare.
Figure 56 presents electric micromobility device sharing locations across the state of Florida. The locations of e-
mobility access are shown in relation to the Intermodal Passenger Connections in BTS’ data. The IPCD dataset
shows passenger transportation terminals and connection availability among various scheduled public
transportation modes at each facility. The database is part of BTS’ National Transportation Atlas Database. In
addition to the public transportation systems, the database incorporates micromobility stations including e-bikes
and e-scooters as they relate to the public transportation systems. Micromobility devices as an additional mode of
transportation provide opportunities for local governments to increase access to essential services including jobs
for low- and moderate- income and racial- and ethnic- minority populations 39. Local governments are actively
partnering with e-mobility companies and companies have programs available to assist low-income and varying
ability populations access devices 40.
39Deloitte 2019
40Companies provide programs for users without access to a credit card or mobile device. Programs are expanding to include
devices for users with varying abilities such as Lime Able. See Figure 62.
Final Report
Figure 56. Areas of Micro Mobility
Source: U.S. DOT BTS Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database

Final Report
Alternative Fuel Transit Fleets

In addition to the increase in micro-mobility access, there are increased opportunities for efficiencies
and health-related benefits relating to improvements in alternative fuel transit vehicles including
buses.
Transportation authorities and local governments often utilize federal funding to offset costs in the
investments for bus fleets, which are
Figure 57. Electric or Hybrid Vehicle Fleets by Transit Authority
generally predictable given the turnover on
average is 12 years. Research from the Scott
Institute for Energy Innovation finds that
among the choices available to agencies,
battery electric buses offer the lowest life
cycle costs and environmental impacts 41.
A number of transportation authorities

across Florida have actively incorporated
fully electric or hybrid transit vehicles into
their systems. The American Public
Transportation Association (APTA)
maintains an annual database of transit
agencies’ fleet equipment. Figure 57
displays the current distribution of hybrid
or electric transportation vehicles across
the state of Florida. North America is
expected to be the fastest growing electric
bus market based on increasing emissions
regulations. Notably, according to the
CALSTART December 2021 report 42, the
southeastern region saw increases of 60%
in recent years for the number of electric
buses & Florida leads the way in the Source: APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database
southeastern region with tax credits and
other incentives encouraging the move to electric buses. Transportation authorities that have started
to adopt electric buses have been primarily urban, however, smaller authorities are starting to make
the switch as well as more money becomes available to upgrade public transportation infrastructure.
For Florida, as of December 2021, there were 187 electric full-size buses either funded, ordered,
delivered or deployed in Florida (Figure 58).
Some of the authorities in Florida that have adopted or are adopting electric buses in their transit
systems include, but are not limited to: Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (60 buses over next 5 years,
with 24 ordered in the first year), Miami-Dade County (an additional 42 buses were announced in June
41
Traffic21 Institute, Policymaker Guide, https://www.cmu.edu/traffic21/pdfs/alternative-fuels-policy-brief-
buses_web.pdf
42 CALSTART, 2021

Final Report
of 2021 for a total of 75 electric buses), the City of Gainesville (3 new battery electric buses), and the
Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, among others. As more agencies across Florida
move to adopt electric buses, NFI Group Inc (NFI) has been named a preapproved State supplier to
help streamline purchases of electric buses.
Figure 58. Zero-Emission Buses Transit Buses across U.S.
Source: CALSTART Zeroing In on ZEBs December 2021 report
The FDACS Office of Energy advocates for policies to encourage investments in clean transportation
including Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs). AFVs are defined by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 as
dedicated, flexible-fuel or duel-fuel vehicles designed to operate on at least one alternative fuel
including compressed natural gas, biodiesel and electricity. FDACS Office of Energy oversaw the
Natural Gas Fuel Fleet Vehicle Rebate program which provided rebates to government and commercial
fleets. The program served participants that include local governments and school districts between
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2014 through (FY) 2016-2017. The program awarded $20.9 million in rebates for
1,948 (990 public and 958 private) fleet vehicles.
Florida has been committed to transitioning reliance on diesel- and gasoline-fueled transit as
demonstrated by the example of FDACS Office of Energy rebate program 43. Additionally, FDOT's
43
FDACS, Office of Energy (https://www.fdacs.gov/Energy/Energy-Programs/Completed-Energy-Programs)

Final Report
Electric Vehicle Charging Investment Plan required by the NEVI program outlines additional equity
considerations for the development of clean transportation deployment and access to EV corridors.
The recommendations from the plan support charging depots and networks for fleets 44. Figure 59
shows the current total number of fleet vehicles by fuel types from the APTA database.
Figure 59. Florida Bus Fleet by Fuel Type
Source: APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database
Electric School Buses

Over the past year the number of “committed” electric school buses across the United States has
increased significantly. In the second half of 2021, 1800 electric school buses were committed by school
districts in 36 states – an increase of 50%. While that is a large increase, there are over 500,000 school
buses in America that largely run on diesel. Diesel buses tend to pollute the air within their vehicles
and since 60% of low-income children take a bus to school compared to 45% of higher-income
students, this could contribute to inequitable exposure to air pollution. The World Resources Institute
produces the Dataset of Electric School Bus Adoption in the United States, which tracks where electric
school buses are being adopted across the country as well as school district level socio-economic
characteristics and details like the bus manufacturer and funding sources.
To date, seven school districts in Florida have committed to adopting electric school buses as reported
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). As more federal funding is made
44
FDOT, 2022. Florida's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan.
(https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/planning/policy/electric-vehicle/florida's-
evidp_2022-07-29_final_v2.pdf?sfvrsn=21099b3e_2)

Final Report
available, more districts are expected to increase the size of their electric fleets 45. Figure 60 and Table
8 show these locations in Florida.
Figure 60. Electric School Buses in Florida
Source: Lazer and Freehafer (2022). World Resources Institute.
Table 8. Number of Electric School Buses by School District, Florida

School District Number of Committed Electric School Buses
Broward County Public Schools 60
Miami-Dade County Public Schools 50
Palm Beach County Public Schools 50
Manatee County Public Schools 20
Pinellas County Public Schools 20
Sarasota County School District 12
Orange County Public Schools 6
Total 218
Source: World Resources Institute, FDEP
45
U.S. EPA, 2022.

Final Report
Comparatively, Florida is among the top few states in number of committed electric school buses at
218 buses. (Figure 61)
Figure 61. Electric School Buses by State
Policy Considerations
Policy considerations relevant to transportation and access to renewable energy sources include
several aspects.
Structural Equity
Structurally, incentive programs potentially have the greatest impact on equity.
• At the individual household level, incentive programs for electric vehicles are currently geared
to new vehicles, which are prohibitively expensive for LMI households. Utilities and local
governments throughout Florida offer incentives geared toward used vehicles, and the FDOT
EV Roadmap prioritized incentives for used vehicles. These programs can be expanded to
target LMI households as alternative fuel vehicles become more mainstream.
• At the community level, federal incentives for electric school buses offer an opportunity to
ramp up the share of e-buses used in LMI, minority and rural communities. The State of Florida
may wish to offer outreach and technical support to smaller counties for assistance in
accessing the funds, which are available through the BIL.

Final Report
• Federal incentives also exist for electric transit buses. The State of Florida may wish to offer
outreach and technical support to smaller counties for assistance in accessing the BIL funds.
• E-scooter ownership is much more accessible than an automobile. Cooperative employers
offer free charging at workplaces. The State may wish to consider incentives for purchase by
LMI and minority households.
•
Figure 62. Current income-based discounts for e-bikes/e-scooters
*Also partner with Communities for access
Procedural Equity
• A key element of many of the EV/E-mobility initiatives is simple lack of awareness of availability
by LMI and minority households. One example is the e-scooters and e-bikes rental company
programs, which offer a number of options to increase access, but many residents are simply
unaware these options exist. Figure 62 summarizes some of the programs offered by current
Florida companies.
• Efforts to raise awareness of EV and E-mobility options should be a priority for the State,
including investments in community awareness, and ensuring that awareness efforts occur in
venues frequented by LMI and minority households – public libraries, community centers,
and parks.
Distributional Equity
• Programmatic design needs to consider income limitations. Rebate-driven programs may be
inadequate if income is insufficient to overcome capital outlays required to participate.
Transgenerational equity – considerations for future generations
• FDACS and FDOT are already evaluating access to charging facilities, and continued monitoring
to ensure equity of distribution for future investment will be important for equity.
• Job training for electric vehicles for current youth was considered a priority by interested
parties. A separate study underway through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI)
Program includes job training and future workforce needs, and location of training facilities in
or near minority and LMI communities should be an important consideration. Miami-Dade

Final Report
College offers Tesla certification, for example, and awareness of similar programs could benefit
from outreach to LMI and minority communities.
Whole of Government Approach

Energy equity is a cross-cutting objective, which Figure 63. State Governments involved in Energy-Related
requires a whole-of-government approach to Initiatives
effect. For example, state government administers
pass-through funds for several energy efficiency State Energy
programs through Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (FDEO), while FDACS
Policy
administers both pass-through and state funds
for energy-related programs throughout the Florida Department of
Agriculture & Consumer
state. Coordination occurs to ensure Services, Office of
compatibility and lack of conflict or redundancy Energy
between programs.
Florida Department of
Environmental
In a similar manner, many of the policy
Protection, Air
recommendations herein require either vertical - Resource Mgmt, Power
between levels of government - or horizontal - Plant Siting
across departments of government at the same

Florida Department of
level. To successfully implement energy equity Transportation,Office of
initiatives, both vertical and horizontal Policy & Planning
coordination will be required. The FDACS Office
of Energy is a logical central coordination point Florida Department of
for tracking and synchronizing activity, and this Economic Opportunity,
Weatherization Programs,
study is potentially a first step in a more robust Green Jobs
coordination role in energy equity initiatives
across the state.
Florida Public Service
A conceptual map of horizontal coordination - Commission
state government departments that in some way
influence programmatic outcomes across energy-
related initiatives - is provided in Figure 63. Each of the listed Departments administers an energy-
related program or policy, or regulates energy-related matters. As Florida transitions to a more
renewable energy state, ensuring an equitable transition and parity of opportunities will warrant careful
consideration of policy and practice across the Departments, toward shared goals and common
objectives. Based on the analysis herein, proposed common objectives may include:
• Increasing participation rates for LMI households in energy efficiency programs.

• Increasing EV adoption rates for LMI households
• Prioritizing investment in underserved communities.

Final Report
• Reducing Gini coefficient scores for environmental justice indicators: air quality, diesel
exposure, cancer risk, asthma, and urban heat islands.
Figure 64. Vertical government coordination in Energy Equity Policy
In addition, The Florida Statues establishes the
Rural Economic Development Imitative (REDI)
to serve Florida’s economically distressed rural
communities. Florida REDI Agencies by Statute State
are far-reaching, ranging from Agency for government
Health Care Administration to Department of
Corrections and VISIT Florida 46. Energy policy Local Trusted
affecting rural counties requires horizontal government advisors
coordination across these groups.
Vertically, coordination is needed between local

Energy Equity
Policy
and state governments, and agencies they work
with such as Community Action Agencies, to
Economic
successfully implement energy equity Regional
Development
Councils Agencies
improvements. Figure 64 offers a conceptual
map of some of the vertical coordination
School
required to improve energy equity. Based on its Boards and
charge, FDACS Office of Energy is a logical Colleges
central coordination point for tracking and
synchronizing activity within this nexus of
activity as well. Initial points of consensus based on feedback suggest several potential first steps to
improve energy equity, including:
• Increased outreach and awareness-raising activity, particularly due to upcoming federal
funding availability in relevant programs; this may be directed toward household-level
incentives and programs, or technical assistance to rural counties and smaller local
governments to ensure maximum use of available federal funds.
• Coordinated effort to increase maximum exposure of youth to EV access and job opportunities,
with a goal of increased minority and LMI youth in EV adoption and job training.
• Increased e-bus adoption across transit, fleets and school buses, with a goal to increase air
quality and toxin exposure among LMI and minority communities.
46 Florida REDI Agencies include Agency for Health Care Administration, CareerSource Florida, Departments of:
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Children and Family Services, Environmental Protection, Health, Juvenile Justice,
State, Transportation, Corrections, Education, Enterprise Florida, Inc., Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, Regional Planning Council, VISIT FLORIDA, Inc., Water Management
Districts, Sustainability Groups, and Partners include Department of Elder Affairs, Florida Association of Counties,
Florida League of Cities and United States Department of Agriculture - Rural Development – Florida

Final Report
Community Consultation
Importantly, increased outreach must be Figure 65. Important Note on Community Consultation
based on genuine rapport and trusted advisors
within the LMI and minority community. It is
common for representatives within the LMI
Trusted advisors liaising with impacted
and minority communities to be continually communities are key to effective communication.
tapped for input, and perceive they are It is common for LMI community representatives
“checking a box” for a government or large to perceive token status during feedback or
firm to report stakeholder feedback (Figure listening sessions to “check a box” for
65). As a result, there is a level of distrust that government, resulting in distrust.
will serve as a barrier to productive
communication, and working with trusted advisors within the community to broaden engagement is
critical.
Examples of whole-of-government coordination across policy recommendations within this study are
provided in Table 9. Data sharing is a first step; much of the data from this study is being made
available to the public, and may serve as baseline for future efforts to monitor improved energy equity.
Table 9. Whole of government coordination examples, energy equity policy

Policy recommendation Likely government & external coordination
Horizontal Vertical
Increased accountability for energy efficiency FDACS, FPSC, Local government,
programs will require better tracking of utilities
programmatic progress versus the households
they are intended to reach.
Consider income limitations and FDACS, FDEO, FPSC Local government,
awareness/outreach requirements in energy utilities, community
efficiency program design action agencies
Increase EV awareness and incentives through FDOT, FDACS, FPSC Local government,
visibility in LMI-frequented locations, and utilities, school boards
program design appropriate for incomes
Increase EV employment opportunities and FDACS, FDEO, FDOT Local government,
access to youth school boards
Interactive Dashboard of Data

Many of the baseline metrics described throughout this report were provided in an interactive data
dashboard at https://datavisual.balmoralgroup.us/FL-Energy-Equity. The dashboard allows
selection of specific locations, metrics or populations to view relevant data.
Figure 66 shows the landing page of the Dashboard. The Landing Page describes the purpose of the
dashboard along with content navigation information. Users can click on the section to jump forward
to the desired section, or they can tab through the dashboard’s pages using the arrows at the bottom
of the page. Throughout the dashboard, users can quickly navigate to the pages they wish to see
without tabbing through each page individually by selecting the middle “X of 8” at the bottom of their

Final Report
screen to see the content and select which section they wish to view. An example is shown in Figure
67.
Figure 66. Dashboard Landing Page
Source: TBG Work Product, Microsoft BI Dashboard
Figure 67. Dashboard Navigation Example
Figure 68 shows Page 2 of the Dashboard which describes Energy Burden in the State of Florida.
Users can filter the dataset to display information including:
• LMI Energy burdened households for minority communities
• LMI Energy burden by housing type

Final Report
• Energy cost at census tract level 47
Figure 68. Dashboard Page 2: LMI Energy Burden
Figure 69 shows Page 3 of the dashboard which displays the Gini Coefficients for the Environmental
Justice Metrics.
Figure 69. Dashboard Page 3: Environmental Justice Metrics, Gini Coefficients
47
Energy cost data is available from the US DOE at the Census Tract Level. Costs were adjusted to 2021 values and
applied to zip codes using the HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research’s USPS ZIP Code Crosswalk data and
methodology.

Final Report
Figure 70 shows page 4 of the dashboard which displays the dataset for urban heat islands in Florida.
The urban heat islands are the temperature differences between urban and nearby rural areas. Users
can filter the data by minority shares and income.
Figure 70. Dashboard Page 4: Environmental Justice Metrics, Urban Heat Islands
Page 5 of the dashboard displays the Multi-family Benchmarking across the state as a measure of EUI
and shown in Figure 71. The dataset can be filtered for County, Median Income, and Minority Shares.
Additional filters include housing type and building age.
Figure 71. Dashboard Page 5: Multifamily Benchmarking (EUI)

Final Report
Figure 72 shows the Energy Efficiency Program Summaries section of the dashboard. Data can be
filtered by administrative type including Federal, State, Utility, and Local Government as well as a
filtered for applicable sectors.
Figure 72. Dashboard Page 6: Energy Efficiency Program Summaries
The Energy Equity Rating System is displayed on Page 7 of the dashboard as shown in Figure 73. The
Rating System is in Percent Reductions as a measure of avoided energy burden for LMI Households.
The datasets can be filtered for minority population shares and median incomes. Additionally,
dashboard users can select the county or counties of interest by selecting the county map in the top
right corner. Holding the CTRL key and selecting multiple counties will yield the multi-county
selections. The zip code level map will automatically zoom to the selected areas. To further understand
the rating system, the “i” icon on the page will direct users to the information page pertaining to
methodology of the rating system as displayed in Figure 74. Users can navigate back to the Percent
Reduction Ratings page by selecting the icon “Back to Ratings System Page”.

Final Report
Figure 73. Dashboard Page 7: Energy Equity Rating System, Percent Reductions
Figure 74. Rating System Reductions Explainer Page

Final Report
The final page of the dashboard displays Transportation Equity Indicators as shown in Figure 75.
Figure 75. Dashboard Page 8: Transportation Metrics

Final Report
Areas for Further Research

The Energy Equity Study encompassed a broad range of topics and sets a baseline for monitoring
energy equity moving forward in Florida. Several areas may benefit from additional research or effort:
• The FDACS Office of Energy serves an important role as a fulcrum of information for energy
equity issues. Numerous agencies, institutions, and private entities are deeply involved in
various aspects of energy equity research, funding, and programs, but often without
knowledge of each other. Information-sharing networks, together with policy signals and
funding allocation, help drive progress, and a key task that may warranting FDACS Office of
Energy time and resource attention is serving as a repository for this information through its
website and other public forums.
• The current energy equity rating system accounts for a variety of funding streams that may be
used for bill reductions or weatherization. While these aid in the reduction of energy burdens
for households, weatherization improvements have long-term improvements in energy
efficiencies and realized reductions may be conservative in the current rating system. As such,
it is recognized that the metric as proposed herein represents a lower bound – the benefits of
a one-time utility bill payment are not equivalent to a permanent upgrade, but both will be
reflected as equivalent. A future consideration of the refinement of the energy equity rating
system includes accounting for the long-term value of weatherization investments for energy
burden reductions that result from these improvements. Additionally, the energy efficiency
interventions that result from weatherization improvements and other similar long-term
interventions and benefits have impacts that help reduce inequities relating to health and
resilience.
• For relevance, the metrics will require updating over time. Readily available public datasets
were used throughout to support annual updates of data, and it is recommended that the
Office of Energy budget time and resources to do so.
• Many of the baseline metrics described throughout this report were provided in an interactive
data dashboard at https://datavisual.balmoralgroup.us/FL-Energy-Equity. The dashboard
allows selection of specific locations, metrics or populations to view relevant data. Workshop
participants and interviewees expressed interest in the ability to “zoom in” to specific locations
to view data at a more granular level also. A GIS mapping interface would accommodate more
capability for data that is at a sub-county scale. FDACS may wish to host an online interface
that the public and policymakers can interact with at various scales to investigate specific
geographies more closely.
• This report has focused on the existing energy mix in Florida. Emerging technologies in the
commercial warehouse sector, such as hydrogen powered fuel cell technology to replace
propane and battery electric drive systems in lift trucks and fork lifts as well as in the aircraft
industry developments in advanced biofuels are being used to replace petroleum-based
aviation & ship fuels. These advanced biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen fuels and fuel cell
electric drive technologies are currently primarily targeted at industrial, aviation, maritime and
commercial transportation applications, however future research and reports should consider
these alternatives to promote more sustainable renewable energy sources and enabling
technologies as the energy mix in Florida will continue to evolve with advancements in

Final Report
alternative technologies and fuels. An example of this is through FPL’s partnership with
Cummins Inc. to locally produce green hydrogen to extend their high efficiency natural gas
combustion turbines 48.
• Participants expressed interest in better understanding the relationship of transportation
corridors, both existing and planned, on air quality and quality of life measures. Local
expressway authorities such as the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority (THEA), the
Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDXWAY), and the Central Florida Expressway Authority
(CFX) each have their own forward-looking plans that adapt to local growth patterns, and FDOT
regularly updates its Florida Transportation Plan. Published data exists on the relationship
between traffic congestion, health impacts and equity issues 49, and more in-depth, whole-of-
government effort may be warranted to consider potential policy addressing this issue.
Specifically, interested parties suggest considering specifically how and where EV adoption
pathways might effectively and efficiently reduce PM2.5 and diesel particulate matter
concentrations.
• Engaging youth in the transition to renewables is a high priority for Floridians. Currently,
energy burden data is not available to a scale that can extract reliable data about energy-
burdened youth. Additional research to identify youth in energy-burdened households may
be worthwhile, to support youth-oriented education, training and awareness campaigns most
effectively.
• The relationship between coal ash ponds and LMI communities could be better understood.
Participants expressed deep concern over exposure to coal ash ponds. Remediation of coal ash
ponds is currently considered a highly risky endeavor, requiring expensive, multi-decadal
geologic, engineering and regulatory plan approvals; geologists in Florida expect that
remediation will require federal funding support to achieve significant progress at more than
700 sites across the nation. In the interim, a better understanding of the exposure rates of LMI
communities specifically to coal ash sites may warrant further review.
48
Cummins, Inc. Newsroom: https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2022/02/28/fpl-announces-cummins-supply-
electrolyzer-floridas-first-green-hydrogen
49 Cancer Risks from Exposure to Vehicular Air Pollution: A Household Level Analysis of Intra-Ethnic Heterogeneity in
Miami, Florida; Chakraborty and Green (2014)

Final Report
Study Methods
Data Collection
The Balmoral Group and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Energy
project team conducted an extensive Data Collection and Literature Review, which was delivered in a
Technical Memorandum.
Workshops
The Balmoral Group and FDACS OOE project team conducted five workshops for pre-draft stakeholder
engagement. Four of the workshops were in-person and varied geographically to allow for in-depth
engagement in those regions. The four regions covered included Central Florida on June 3rd, North
Florida (Tallahassee) on June 7th, West Florida (Tampa) on June 9th, and South Florida (Doral) on June
17th. A virtual workshop was offered on June 15th. Table 10 describes the workshops and the respective
topics covered.
Workshops were announced in the Florida Administrative Weekly, as well as through email
announcements, and social media platform announcements, which included registration links for the
project teams’ records of attendance and additional workshop information. Detailed agendas were
provided at each workshop.
At each workshop, FDACS’ team provided project background, introductions, and adjournment which
included a review of the upcoming workshops and remaining project schedule. The Balmoral Group
team supported the presentation of topics and workshop feedback activities. Workshop feedback was
gathered via group discussion, engagement activity or both.
A summary of the topics covered and their objectives is in Table 10.
Table 10. Summary or Workshop Topics

Topic Description
Housing & LMI: Review of the landscape of what low- and moderate-income (LMI) populations
LMI Households currently face, existing energy equity approaches, and the methods and data to
& an Energy develop access to an energy equity rating system that assesses the ability to provide
Equity Rating access to reliable, affordable, and abundant energy in the context of LMI and
System Approach racial/ethnic minority populations
Housing & LMI: Review of benchmarking approach for improving the potential effectiveness and
Multifamily equity of energy efficiency incentives for multi-family occupants. Includes a review of
Benchmarking existing examples of benchmarking, industry best-practices and the data the used for
the state-wide calculation of energy usage intensities for multifamily LMI buildings
Environmental Review of the environmental justice metrics and the objective to evaluate the share
Justice of environmental disamenities borne by LMI and racial/ethnic populations. This is
achieved by identifying the environmental hazards & demographics of populations
exposed.
Transportation Review of alternative fuels & vehicle access for LMI communities, mobility access
including current transit system accessibility as well as linkages with e-bikes, e-
scooters, e-buses over time, and the health impacts that geographically correlate
with current transportation.

Final Report
Works Cited
(2022, June 29). Type: Research & reports. Better Bike Share. Retrieved from
https://betterbikeshare.org/ resources/research/
(n.d.). Grants and grantees. Better Bike Share. Retrieved from https://betterbikeshare.org/grants-and-
grantees/
(n.d.). Shared micromobility in the U.S.: 2019. National Association of City Transportation Officials.
Retrieved from https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2019/
ACEEE. (2019). 2019 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard - Florida.
https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdf/state-sheet/2019/florida.pdf
ACEEE. (2020). 2020 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard - Florida.
https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACEEE_ScrSht20_Florida.pdf
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2020. Mayors' Toolkit for Energy Efficiency. July,
2020. https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mayors_toolkit_2020.pdf
American Lung Association. (2022). Zeroing in on Healthy Air. A National Assessment of Health and
Climate Benefits of Zero-Emission Transportation and Electricity.
https://www.lung.org/getmedia/13248145-06f0-4e35-b79b-6dfacfd29a71/zeroing-in-on-
healthy-air-report-2022.pdf
APPRISE (Applied Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation). 2005. LIHEAP Energy
Burden Evaluation Study. Washington, DC: HHS (Department of Health and Human Services).
www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/comm_liheap_energyburdenstudy_apprise.pdf.
Arbor Day Foundation. n.d. Arbor Day Tree Guide.
https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/index.cfm.
Bauer, G., Hsu, C.-W., & Lutsey, N. (2021, February). When might lower-income drivers benefit from
electric vehicles? Quantifying the economic equity implications of electric vehicle adoption.
Retrieved from https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-equity-
feb2021.pdf#:~:text=The%20current%20transportation%20system%20dominated%20by%20
private%20vehicles,Over%20half%20of%20families%20living%20in%20poverty%20do
Berg, Cooper, and DiMascio. (2022). State Energy Efficiency Scorecard: 2021 Progress Report.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/u2201.pdf
Better Buildings. (2022). Clean Energy for Low Income Communities – Completed. U.S. Department of
Energy. https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/accelerators/clean-energy-low-
income-communities
Bike Share / Scooter Share Pilot Program. City of Orlando. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.orlando.gov/Initiatives /Bike-Share-Scooter-Share-Pilot-Program
Bikeshare and e-scooters in the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Bikeshare-and-e-scooters-in-the-U-S-/fwcs-jprj/

Final Report
Blumenberg, E., & Pierce, G. (2017). Car access and long-term poverty exposure: Evidence from the
Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 92–100.
Retrieved from https://isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/153953.pdf
Bullard, R. D., Johnson, G. S., & Torres, A. O. (2004). Highway robbery: Transportation racism & new
routes to equity. South End Press.
Bullard, R., et al. (2008) Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: Why Race Still Matters After All of These
Years. Environmental Law (38)2: 371-411.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2022, March 12). Summary of docked bikeshare trips by system
and other attributes. Summary of Docked Bikeshare Trips by System and Other Attributes -
CKAN. Retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/summary-of-docked-bikeshare-trips-
by-system-and-other-attributes
Calstart (2022) Biden Administration Takes Lead on Zero-Emission School Bus Deployment.
https://calstart.org/biden-administration-takes-lead-on-zero-emission-school-bus-
deployment/
Chakraborty J., Collins T.W., & Grineski S. E. (2017) Cancer Risks from Exposure to Vehicular Air
Pollution: A Household Level Analysis of Intra-Ethnic Heterogeneity in Miami, Florida. 38(1):
112-136.
City of Sydney. (2017). Adapting for Climate Change, A Long Term Strategy for the City of Sydney.
https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/strategies-action-plans/adapting-for-climate-change
City of Tallahassee Electric System Integrated Planning. (April 2022). City of Tallahassee Utilities Ten
Year Site Plan.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/City%20of%2
0Tallahassee.pdf
Cross, S. (2020, November 2). Transportation electrification in Florida: State policies will drive growth
(part 3) - SACE: Southern alliance for clean energy. SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
Retrieved from https://cleanenergy.org/blog/transportation-electrification-in-florida-state-
policies-will-drive-growth/?msclkid=decdd49ed05f11ecab61bca0f53fdb74
data.world. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://data.world/datasets/scooter
Dawkins, C., Jeon, J. S., & Pendall, R. (2015). Vehicle Access and Exposure to Neighborhood Poverty:
Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Program. Journal of Regional Science, 55(5), 687–
707. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12198
Drehobl, A., Ross, L., & Ayala, R. (2020). How High Are Household Energy Burdens. An Assessment of
National and Metropolitan Energy Burdens across the US.
https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/u2006.pdf
Effects of covid-19 on Bikeshare (docked and Dockless) and e-scooter operations. Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Effects-of-
COVID-19-on-Bikeshare-Docked-and-Dockle/kar5-6dpn
Electric school bus initiative. World Resources Institute. (2022, February 14). Retrieved from
https://www.wri.org/initiatives/electric-school-bus-initiative

Final Report
Energy Star. (n.d.). Best Practices for Program Design and Implementation.
https://www.energystar.gov/partner_resources/residential_new/working/utilities_other/best_p
ractices
EPA (2015). Chapter 6: Energy Efficiency Program Best Practices. National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/napee_chap6.pdf
EPA (2018). The Links Between Air Pollution and Childhood Asthma. October 22, 2018.
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/links-between-air-pollution-and-childhood-asthma
EPA. (2021). Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards:
Regulatory Impact Analysis. Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and
Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf
Florida Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc., 2022. Members - Webpage.
https://feca.com/members/
Florida Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc., 2022. Our History - Webpage.
Florida Municipal Electric Association, Inc., 2022. FMEA Fact Sheet - About Us. July 2022.
https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-
uploads/fmea/pdf/General_Docs/FactSheet_July2022.pdf
Florida Power & Light Company. “Join Motion To Approve Settlement”. (October 9, 2019). Florida
Power & Light Company and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and Walmart, Inc. and Vote
Solar. Retrieved from http://www.floridapsc.com/library/filings/2019/09305-2019/09305-
2019.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 1, 2022). Florida Municipal Power Agency Ten-Year Site
Plan.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Florida%20M
unicipal%20Power%20Agency.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 1, 2022). Gainesville Regional Utilities 2022 Ten Year Site
Plan.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Gainesville%2
0Regional%20Utilities.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 1, 2022). Jacksonville Electric Authority Ten-Year Site Plan.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/JEA%20-
%20Revised.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 1, 2022). Orlando Utilities Commission 2022 Ten-Year Site
Plan Prepared by: nFront Consulting LLC.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Orlando%20
Utilities%20Commission.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 1, 2022). Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. Ten-Year Site
Plan.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Seminole%20
Electric%20Cooperative.pdf

Final Report
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 1, 2022). Tampa Electric Company Ten- Year Site Plan for
Electrical Generating Facilities and Associated Transmission Lines January 2022 to December
2031.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Tampa%20Ele
ctric%20Company.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 2022). Duke Energy Florida, LLC Ten-Year Site Plan.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Duke%20Ener
gy%20Florida.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 2022). Florida Power and Light Company Ten Year Power
Plant Site Plan.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Florida%20Po
wer%20and%20Light%20Company.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 2022). Lakeland Electric Ten-Year Site Plan 2022-2031.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/TenYearSitePlans/2022/Lakeland%20
Electric.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (April 29, 2022). Florida Power and Light Company and Gulf
Power Company 2021 Demand Side Management Annual Report.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/ARDemandSide/2021/Florida%20Pow
er%20and%20Light%20Company%20and%20Gulf%20Power%20Company.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (February 14, 2022). Tampa Electric Company – Summary of 2021
Demand Side Management Program Accomplishments.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/ARDemandSide/2021/Tampa%20Elec
tric%20Company.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (February 2021). FEECA Annual Report on Activities Pursuant to
the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act. Florida Statutes.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Publications/Reports/Electricgas/AnnualReport/2020.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (February 24, 2022). Duke Energy Florida, LLC Summary of 2021
Demand Side Management Achievements.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/ARDemandSide/2021/Duke%20Energ
y%20Florida.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (March 1, 2022). Florida Public Utilities Company 2021 Annual
Conservation Report Revised.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/ARDemandSide/2021/Florida%20Pub
lic%20Utilities%20Company.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (March 1, 2022). JEA 2022 Demand Side Management (DSM)
FEECA Annual Report.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/ARDemandSide/2021/JEA.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (March 1, 2022). Orlando Utilities Commission; 2022 Annual
Conservation Report; Demand-Side Management and Conservation Programs Offered in
Calendar Year 2021; Prepared by: nFront Consulting LLC March 2022.

Final Report
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/ARDemandSide/2021/Orlando%20Uti
lities%20Commission.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (March 1, 2022). TECO Peoples Gas an Emera Company; Demand
Side Management Program Accomplishments.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Utilities/Electricgas/ARDemandSide/2021/People's%20Ga
s.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (November 2021). FEECA Annual Report on Activities Pursuant to
the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act. Florida Statutes.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/Files/PDF/Publications/Reports/Electricgas/AnnualReport/2021.pdf
Florida Public Service Commission. (September 30, 2021). Annual Report – Reedy Creek Improvement
District Utilities System as of September 30, 2021 by: Leidos Engineering, LLC.
https://www.rcid.org/document/2021-annual-report-of-utilities-system/
Freehafer, L., & Lazer, L. (2021, August 5). The state of Electric School Bus Adoption in the US. World
Resources Institute. Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/insights/where-electric-school-
buses-us
Green Lease Lenders. (2022) Creating Sustainable Landlord-Tenant Relationships.
https://www.greenleaseleaders.com/how-do-i-green-a-lease/
Hamilton, H., Chard, R., Lee, B., Silver, F., & Slosky, J. (2021, December). Zeroing in on Zebs; The
Advanced Technology Transit Bus Index: A North American ZEB Inventory Report.
Calstart.org. Retrieved from https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021-ZIO-ZEB-
Final-Report_1.3.21.pdf
Hawaii Government. (2022). Performance Based Regulation. State of Hawaii Public Utilities
Commission. https://puc.hawaii.gov/energy/pbr/
Helling, B., Gt, Michie, T., Primeau, R., & Braithwaite, J. (2022, June 12). Bird scooter locations [Find
out where bird scooters are available]. Ridester.com. Retrieved from
https://www.ridester.com/bird-scooter-locations/
Holden, J. (2021). Communities Living Near Polluted Superfund Sites Have Lower Life Expectancy.
Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences.
https://news.utexas.edu/2021/04/16/communities-living-near-polluted-superfund-sites-
have-lower-life-expectancy/i-Tree. n.d. i-Tree Canopy. https://canopy.itreetools.org/.
https://feca.com/our-history/
HUD. (n.d.). Proximity to Superfund Sites. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes.
https://archives.huduser.gov/healthycommunities/indicator/18047.html#:~:text=Superfund%
20sites%20contain%20toxic%20pollutants,%2Dborne%20illness%2C%20and%20cancer.
Jones, D. (2021, June 22). Dade County moves forward in acquiring more electric buses. Miami-Dade
County News Release. Retrieved from https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2021-06-22-
dtpw-proterra-electric-
buses.asp#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWith%20these%20new%20electric%20buses%2C %20Miami-

Final Report
Dade%20will%20lead,buses%20and%20installation%20of%20depot%20chargers%20from
%20Proterra.?msclkid=07d21224d13111ec8766a6206fca3d03
Justin. (2021, June 17). Where are electric scooters legal? electric scooter laws by State. Electric
Scooter Guide. Retrieved from https://electric-scooter.guide/blog/electric-scooter-laws-by-
state-quick-reference/
Klein, N. J., & Smart, M. J. (2017). Car today, gone tomorrow: The ephemeral car in low-income,
immigrant and minority families. Transportation, 44(3), 495–510. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9664-4
Lazer, L., & Freehafer, L. (2023, August 5). Technical note for a dataset of electric school bus adoption
in the United States. World Resources Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.wri.org/research/technical-note-dataset-electric-school-bus-adoption-united-
states
LDA Consulting. (n.d.). 2016 Capital Bikeshare Member Survey Report. Commuter Connections.
Retrieved from https://d21xlh2maitm24.cloudfront.net/wdc/Capital-
Bikeshare_2016MemberSurvey_Final-Report.pdf?mtime=20170303165531
LIHEAP, EHEAP and WAP are administered by FDEO with pass-through federal funds, through
Community Action Agencies and/or County administration. Groups with pass-through
federal funds administered
Lynx and regional partners to test Orlando International Airport to downtown. LYNX and Regional
Partners to Test Orlando International Airport to Downtown. Retrieved from
https://www.golynx.com/news-events/lynx-and-regional-partners-to-test-orlando-
international-airport-to-downtown-orlando-zero-emission-trip.stml
May, T. (2022, February 8). NFI named state supplier for electric buses in Florida. Bus-News. Retrieved
from https://bus-news.com/nfi-named-state-supplier-for-electric-buses-in-
florida/?msclkid=9cd86be7d09b11ec9dd4a854c4a1de4f
Mendelsohn, M., Kreycik, C., Bird, L., Schwabe, P. and Cory,K. “The Impact of Financial Structure on
the Cost of Solar Energy”. (March 2012). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved
from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53086.pdf
Micromobility. Micromobility | St. Pete Beach, FL. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.stpetebeach.org/652/ Micromobility
NASEO, (2021). Energy & Employment by Stat – 2020.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a98cf80ec4eb7c5cd928c61/t/5e78198f28dc473dd322
5f04/1584929183186/USEER-Energy-Employment-by-State-2020.pdf
NASEO, EFI (2020). 2019 Florida Energy & Employment Report.
https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/93387/file/Florida-FLEER-2019.pdf
NASEO, EFI (2021). 2020 U.S. Energy and Employment Report.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a98cf80ec4eb7c5cd928c61/t/5ee78423c6fcc20e01b8
3896/1592230956175/USEER+2020+0615.pdf
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 2022. Air Pollution and Your Health.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/air-pollution/index.cfm

Final Report
NC Clean Energy Technology Center (2022). Summary Tables. Policy & Incentives by Type. DSIRE –
NC State University. https://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/tables
Nexant. (2011). Saving Energy and Money: HOW TO START, EXPAND, OR REFINE MOU PROGRAMS,
A Guide to Best Practices for Energy Efficiency in Locally Governed Electric Service Areas in
the State. Submitted to Texas State Energy Conservation Office. Houston, TX. October 31,
2011.
Public Transportation Vehicle Database. American Public Transportation Association. (2020, July 31).
Retrieved from https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/vehicle-
database/
Rura.N (2022). Racial, ethnic minorities and low-income groups in U.S. exposed to higher levels of air
pollution. January 12, 2022. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/racial-ethnic-
minorities-low-income-groups-u-s-air-
pollution/#:~:text=Previous%20research%20has%20shown%20that,air%20pollution%20amon
g%20these%20groups.
Sachs, S. (2022, March 21). 'clean' school buses: Biden pledges $5.5B for Electric Fleet. WFLA.
Retrieved from https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/clean-school-buses-biden-pledges-5-5b-
for-electric-
fleet/#:~:text=The%20state%20of%20Florida%20did%20not%20have%20any,the%202019-
2020%20fiscal%20year%2C%20transporting%202.84%20million%20students.?msclkid=b1b06
495d09411ecbe3895d1d7787752
Shahan, B. Z. (2022, January 3). Florida Transit Agency buys 60 electric buses. CleanTechnica.
Retrieved from https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/03/florida-transit-agency-buys-60-
electric-buses/?msclkid=9cd8834fd09b11eca16886c4da5d1226
Shared micromobility program. City of Tampa. (2022, May 27). Retrieved from
https://www.tampa.gov/tss-transportation/programs/shared-micromobility-program
Shared micromobility. Shared Micromobility | City of Pensacola, Florida Official Website. (n.d.).
Retrieved from https://www.cityofpensacola.com/3279/Shared-Micromobility
Smith, C., & Latham, K. (2020, October). Transportation Electrification in Florida: A Deep Dive into
Travel Patters & Statistics Across the EV Sector. Atlas Public Policy. Retrieved from
https://cleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/Transportation-Electrification-in-Florida.pdf
Solar United Neighbors (2022) Orange County Co-ops.
https://coops.solarunitedneighbors.org/coops/orange-county-2022-solar-co-op/
Souza, M. N. M. (2018). Why are rented dwellings less energy-efficient? Evidence from a
representative sample of the US housing stock. Energy Policy, 118, 149-159.
Spoer, B.R.; Feldman, J.M.; Gofine, M.L.; Levine, S.E.; Wilson, A.R.; Breslin, S.B.; Thorpe, L.E.; Gourevitch,
M.N. Peer Reviewed: Health and Health Determinant Metrics for Cities: A Comparison of
County and City-Level Data. Prev. Chronic. Dis. 2020, 17, E137. Browne, G.R.; Gunn, L.D.;
Davern, M. A Framework for Developing Environmental Justice Indicators. Standards 2022, 2,
90–105.https://doi.org/10.3390/standards2010008
Statistics, B. of T. (2022, February 15). Locations of Docked Bikeshare stations by system and year:
Tyler Data & Insights. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved from

Final Report
https://data.bts.gov/Bicycles-and-Pedestrians/Locations-of-Docked-Bikeshare-Stations-by-
System-a/7m5x-ubud
The Electric Scooter Laws by State. Parker Waichman LLP. (2022, January 21). Retrieved from
https://www.yourlawyer.com/library/electric-scooter-state-laws/
The Florida Senate. House Bill 453 (2019) - The Florida Senate. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/ Bill/2019/453/ByVersion
Transportation Economic Trends: Transportation spending - average household. Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Transportation-
Economic-Trends-Transportation-Spen/ida7-k95k/
Tree Equity Score. n.d. Tree Equity Score. https://treeequityscore.org/.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Introduction to CE data products. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cex
U.S. EPA, 2005. Introduction to Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Parts 264/265,
Subpart A-E). September 2005. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-
07/documents/tsdf05.pdf
United States Department of Energy, 2022.United States Energy & Employment Report 2022, Energy
Employment by State. June 2022. Energy.gov/USEER
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Clean Energy Finance: Green Banking
Strategies for Local Governments. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
10/documents/usepa_greenbankingstrategies_october_2018.pdf
Weires, S. G. (2022, January 25). Electric buses slated for Manatee County School Board. Tribune.
Retrieved from https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2022/01/25/florida-department-
environmental-protection-awarded-funds-
buses/6637214001/?msclkid=382ac0e8d13711ec8c196838df9c7e8e
Worford, D. (2021, November 28). Electric bus market boom driven by low priced batteries.
Environment + Energy Leader. Retrieved from
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2021/11/cost-of-batteries-increased-incentives-drive-
electric-bus-market/?msclkid=88215e02d13811ec9b66545052bdf9ad
World Resource Institute. (2022, May 20). Dataset of Electric School Bus Adoption in the United
States - Data: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from
https://datasets.wri.org/dataset/electric_school_ bus_adoption
Zeroing in on Zebs, December 2021. CALSTART. (2022, March 2). Retrieved from
https://calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-zebs/

Final Report
Appendix
1. Utilities in Florida
2. Community Development Financial Institutions in Florida
3. Energy Efficiency Program Matrix
4. EIA Energy Efficiency Program Reporting 2021 – Form 816
5. Used EV Prices
6. Workshop Breakout session themes
7. Best Practice for Program Design Elements

Final Report
Appendix 1. Utilities in Florida

Table A- 1. Investor Owned, Rural Electric Cooperatives, and Municipal Utilities in Florida
Type Company
Investor Owned Florida Power and Light Company
Duke Energy
Tampa Electric Company
Gulf Power Company
Florida Public Utilities Corporation
Rural Electric Central Florida Electric Cooperative*
Cooperative Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative
Clay Electric Cooperative *
Escambia River Electric Cooperative
Florida Keys Electric Cooperative
Glades Electric Cooperative *
Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative
Lee County Electric Cooperative
Okefenoke Rural Electric Membership
Peace River Electric Cooperative *
PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Seminole Electric Cooperative *
Sumter Electric Cooperative *
Suwannee Valley Electric Cooperative *
Talquin Electric Cooperative *
Tri-County Electric Cooperative *
West Florida Electric Cooperative
Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative *
Municipal-Owned City of Alachua
City of Bartow
City of Blountstown
City of Bushnell
City of Chattahoochee
City of Clewiston
City of Fort Meade
Fort Pierce Utilities Authority
Gainesville Regional Utilities/City of Gainesville
City of Green Cove Springs Electric Utility
Town of Havana
Homestead Energy Services
Jacksonville Electric Authority**
Beaches Energy Services
Keys Energy Services
Kissimmee Utility Authority

Final Report
City of Lakeland
City of Lake Worth Utilities
City of Leesburg
Moore Haven Municipal Light Department
City of Mount Dora
City of Newberry Utility Department
City of New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission
City of Ocala
Orlando Utilities Commission
City of Quincy
Reedy Creek Improvement District**
City of St. Cloud
City of Starke
City of Tallahassee
City of Vero Beach**
City of Wauchula
City of Williston
City of Winter Park Electric Utility
* Seminole Electric Cooperative
** Not a member of FMPA
Note: FMPA members may purchase all or partial power through FMPA or the Power Pool; 12 are members of the All-Requirements Project.

Final Report
Appendix 2. Community Development Financial Institutions in Florida

Organization Name Financial Native City State Zipcode Address1 Organization Website
Institution CDFI
Type (Y/N)
121 Financial Credit Credit N Jacksonville FL 32204-- 701 Riverside Park Pl http://www.121fcu.org
Union Union 335
Bay Credit Union Credit N Panama City FL 32405-- 601 N Highway 231 http://baycu.com
Union 470
Brightstar Credit Credit N Sunrise FL 33313-- 5901 Del Lago Cir http://www.bscu.org
Union Union 634
Buckeye Community Credit N Perry FL 32348 1825 S. Jefferson Street www.bcfcu.coop
Federal Credit Union Union
Calhoun Liberty Credit N Blountstown FL 32424 17394 NW Charlie Johns www.clecu.org
Employees Credit Union St
Unon
Community Credit Credit N Rockledge FL 32955-- 1030 S US Highway 1 https://www.ccuflorida.org
Union of Florida Union 271
Community South Credit N Chipley FL 32428-- 1044 Highway 90 http://communitysouth.net
Credit Union Union 216
Connect Credit Union Credit N Fort FL 33309 3400 W Commercial Blvd http://www.connectcu.org/
Union Lauderdale
Dade County Federal Credit N Miami FL 33172 1500 NW 107th Avenue www.dcfcu.org
Credit Union Union
Envision Credit Union Credit N Tallahassee FL 32317-- 1585 Summit Lake Dr Ste http://www.envisioncu.com
Union 794 200
Fairwinds Credit Credit N Orlando FL 32801 135 W Central Blvd, Suite https://www.fairwinds.org
Union Union 1220
Financial Access Credit N Bradenton FL 34208-- 604 13th Ave. East http://www.manateecfcu.org
Federal Credit Union Union 260
First Commerce Credit Credit N Tallahassee FL 32317 2073 Summit Lake Dr Ste http://www.firstcommercecu.org
Union Union 100
Flag Credit Union Credit N Tallahassee FL 32311-- 3115 Conner Blvd. http://flagcu.com
Union 381
Florida A&M Credit N Tallahassee FL 32301-- 1610 South Monroe http://www.famufcu.com
University Federal Union 552 Street
Credit Union
Florida Credit Union Credit N Gainesville FL 32627-- PO Box 5549 http://www.flcu.org
Union 554

Final Report
Institution CDFI
Type (Y/N)
Florida State Credit N Tallahassee FL 32303-- 2520 N Monroe St http://www.fsucu.org/
University Credit Union 405
Union
Grow Financial Credit N Tampa FL 33619 9927 Delaney Lake Drive www.growfinancial.org
Federal Credit Union Union
GTE Federal Credit Credit N Tampa FL 33602-- 711 East Henderson http://gtefinancial.org
Union Union 250 Avenue
Guardians Credit Credit N West Palm FL 33406-- 3469 Summit Boulevard http://www.pbccu.coop
Union Union Beach 410
Innovations Federal Credit N Panama City FL 32408-- 910 Thomas Drive http://www.innovationsfcu.org
Credit Union Union 744
JetStream Federal Credit N Miami Lakes FL 33016-- 7900 Oak Lane, Suite http://www.jetstreamfcu.org
Credit Union Union 588 300
Miami Postal Service Credit N Miami FL 33122 2190 NW 72nd Ave www.mpscu.org
Credit Union Union
Panhandle Credit Credit N Panama City FL 32405 2718 Martin Luther King http://www.pefcu.org
Union Union Jr Blvd
Priority Credit Union Credit N Orlando FL 32806 301 East Michigan Street www.prioritycu.org
Union
Suncoast Credit Union Credit N Tampa FL 33610-- 6801 E Hillsborough http://www.suncoastcreditunion.com
Union 411 Avenue
Tallahassee Leon Credit N Tallahassee FL 32308-- 1827 Capital Cir NE https://www.tlfcu.org
Federal Credit Union Union 445
Tampa Bay Federal Credit N Tampa FL 33603-- 3815 N. Nebraska http://www.tampabayfederal.com
Credit Union Union 503 Avenue
USF Federal Credit Credit N Tampa FL 33612 13302 USF Palm Drive www.usffcu.org
Union Union
VyStar Credit Union Credit N Jacksonville FL 32202 76 S Laura Street vystarcu.org
Union
We Florida Financial Credit N Margate FL 33063-- 1982 N State Road 7 https://www.wefloridafinancial.com/
Union 571
Source: CDFI Coalition

Final Report
Institution CDFI
Type (Y/N)
BAC Funding Consortium, Loan Fund N Miami FL 33147-- 6600 NW www.bacfunding.com
Inc. 722 27th Avenue
Black Business Loan Fund N Orlando FL 32801-- 301 E. Pine www.bbifflorida.com
Investment Fund, Inc. 273 Street Suite
175
Black Economic Loan Fund N Miami FL 33142-- 5120 NW tfcmiami.org
Development Coalition, 362 24th
Inc AVENUE
Central County Loan Fund N Fort FL 33311 560 NW Non given
Community Development Lauderdale 27th Ave
Corporation
Champions Funding, LLC Loan Fund N Melbourne FL 32940-- 2725 Center www.championsfunding.com
710 Place
Community Fund of North Loan Fund N Opa-locka FL 33054 490 Opa- www.olcdc.org
Miami-Dade Inc. Locka Blvd,
Suite 20
Detroit Rehabilitation Loan Fund N West Palm FL 33401 319 www.drifund.com
Initiatives LLC Beach Clematis St
STE 808
Florida Community Loan Loan Fund N Orlando FL 32803 800 N. www.fclf.org
Fund, Inc. Magnolia
Avenue
Suite 106
Miami Bayside Loan Fund N Miami FL 33131-- 25 SE 2nd http://www.miamibaysidefoundation.org
Foundation Inc. 150 Avenue
Suite 240
Miami-Dade Affordable Loan Fund N Miami FL 33126 7855 NW 12 mdahfi.org
Housing Foundation, Inc. STREET,
SUITE 102
Neighborhood Housing Loan Fund N Miami FL 33128-- 300 NW www.nhssf.org
Services of South Florida, 101 12th Avenue
Inc.
Neighborhood Lending Loan Fund N Tampa FL 33607-- 3615 West www.nlp-inc.com
Partners of Florida, Inc. 250 Spruce
Street

Final Report
Institution CDFI
Type (Y/N)
Our Microlending, Llc Loan Fund N Miami FL 33145 3191 Coral http://www.ourmicrolending.com
Way Suite
109
Palm Beach County Black Loan Fund N Riviera FL 33404 2001 www.pbcbbic.biz
Business Investment Beach Broadway,
Corporation Suite 210
Solar and Energy Loan Loan Fund N Fort Pierce FL 34950-- 2400 Rhode http://solarenergyloanfund.org
Fund of St. Lucie County 485 Island
Inc. Avenue
Solitas House, Inc. Loan Fund N Tampa FL 33605-- 3101 E. 7th www.solitashouse.com
482 Ave.
Source: CDFI Coalition

Final Report
Appendix 3. Energy Efficiency Program Matrix

Implementing Sector Administrator/Utility Category Program Incentive Type Link Technologies Program Name Description/Objective Minimum Amount Amount/Median Amount Maximum Amount Amount Description Unit Requirements/Exclusions Savings
Local City of Lauderhill Residential Financial Loan Program http://ww Solar Water Heat, The City of Lauderhill offers $400.000 $1,200.000 $2,000.000 $2,000 per no more than 2 years; zero
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Loan Program https://la Eligible Lakeland Electric offers a $500.000 $2,750.000 $5,000.000 $5,000 per 0% interest rate
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Loan Program https://cl Solar Water Heat, Clay Electric Cooperative $7,500.000 $7,500 per Interest Rate: 5‐8%
Local Solar and Energy Loan Fund Residential Financial Loan Program http://ww Solar Thermal The non‐profit Solar and $50,000.000 $50,000 per Renewable Energy Projects: 8‐
Federal U.S. Internal Revenue Multifamily Financial Loan Program https://w Solar Photovoltaics Fannie Mae was the first to N/A N/A per
Federal HUD Residential, Financial Loan Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Federal Housing $625,000.000 PowerSaver Energy Total Maximum of 20 years; 4.99%‐
Federal HUD Residential, Financial Loan Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Federal Housing $7,500.000 PowerSaver Home Energy per Maximum of 20 years; 4.99%‐
Federal HUD Residential, Financial Loan Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Federal Housing $25,000.000 PowerSaver Second per Maximum of 20 years; 4.99%‐
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Loan Program http://ww Solar Water Heat, Solar Photovoltaic Use the sun’s free energy to $20,000.000 Solar PV or ENERGY STAR per Repayment: up to 5 years for
Federal U.S. Internal Revenue Residential Financial Loan Program https://w Solar ‐ Passive, Homeowners can take $100.000 up to 100% of energy per Maximum loan limits can be
Federal U.S. Internal Revenue Residential Financial Personal Tax Credit http://ww Solar Water Heat, A taxpayer may claim a credit $26.000 26% per Solar‐electric systems placed in
Federal U.S. Internal Revenue Residential, Financial Personal Tax http://ww Solar Water Heat, According to Section 136 of $1.000 100% of subsidy per
State State: Florida Statutes § Residential Financial Property Tax Solar Water Heat, Florida provides a 100% $1.000 100% of the added value per
Utility Kissimmee Utility Authority Residential Financial Rebate Program https://ku Passenger Electric Electric Vehicle Kissimmee Utility Authority $100.000 100 per Unit
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program https://pr Residential Duct Home Improvement Rebate. $125.000 $125 per up to 20
Utility Florida Power & Light Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Air Air Conditioning Rebate $150.000 $150 per 16 SEER rated and above. Depending
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Passenger Electric Customers of the Orlando $200.000 $200 per
Utility Florida Power & Light Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Ceiling Insulation $220.000 $220 per Participating Independent reduce
Utility JEA (Jacksonville Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat The JEA Solar Incentive $400.000 $400 per
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Solar Water Heat Flat rebates of $450 are now $450.000 $450 per $450 per system; System must
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Solar Water Heat The City of Tallahassee $450.000 $450 per Must be FSEC‐certified and
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Home Improvement Rebate. $2,500.000 $2,500 per
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Residential Ceiling Home Improvement Rebate $0.150 $0.15 per square foot of per Sq pre‐approval attic inspection is
Utility City of Ocala Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat The Solar Water Heater $450.000 $450 per system per One rebate per account.
Utility Gulf Power Company Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Service Home Improvement Program $8.990 8.99 base charge per for all domestic purposes in
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Read all program regulations $90.000 A/C Proper Sizing w/ R‐30 per
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to $300.000 $400.000 $500.000 AC/Heat Pump: $300 ‐ per
Utility Beaches Energy Services Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Water Heaters, Residential Energy New construction does not $100.000 $200.000 $300.000 Air Conditioners: $100 ‐ per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Efficient HVAC Energy‐Efficiency AC $100‐$750 depending on $100.000 $225.000 $350.000 Air Conditioners: $100‐ per
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Air conditioners, Residential Heating Air Conditioning $135.000 Air Conditioning: $135 per 15.0 SEER or greater for Heat
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, $300 Attic Lakeland Electric will be $300.000 Attic Insulation Upgrade: per
Utility Progress Energy Florida Inc Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Heat pumps, Over time, insulation tends to $200.000 Attic insulation upgrade: per
Utility City of Winter Park Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cit Clothes Washers, Residential Attic Over time, attic insulation $200.000 Attic Insulation: 50% of per
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric $1.000 Caulk/Weather‐Stripping: per Caulk/Weather‐stripping: $100
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Orlando Utilities Commission $0.100 Ceiling Insulation per
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $0.110 Ceiling Insulation: $0.11 per Sq To qualify for the insulation
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric $0.300 Central A/C: 30% per Central A/C: $500 MAX
Utility Florida Public Utilities Co Residential, Financial Rebate Program http://ww Heat pumps, Air Central air conditioners and $25.000 $62.500 $100.000 Central AC or Heat Pump: per HVAC Upgrades: system must
Utility JEA Residential, Financial Rebate Program https://w Heat pumps, Air LED rebates are deducted $150.000 Central Air Conditioner per Central Air Conditioner: 16 SEER
Utility JEA Residential, Financial Rebate Program https://w Heat pumps, Air LED rebates are deducted $150.000 Central Heat Pump (SEER per Air‐Source Heat Pump: 16 SEER
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Clothes Clothes dry much faster in $100.000 $150.000 $200.000 Clothes Dryer: $100 ‐ per Unit All other equipment: 1 per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Lakeland Electric will be $150.000 Clothes Dryer: $150 per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Gas Clothes Dryers Clothes dry faster with gas $200.000 Clothes Dryer: Up to per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR $40‐$300* depending on $100.000 Clothes Washer: $100 per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Lakeland Electric will be $150.000 Clothes Washer: $150 per
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to $0.140 Cool Roof: $0.14/sq ft per Sq Cool Roof: $375 MAX;
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric $25.000 Cool/Reflective Roof per 5
Utility Peoples Gas System Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Residential Energy Audit. conservation $10.000 cost per audit is per
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program Neighborhood Weatherization $125.000 COST: 125 per A pre‐approval inspection by a
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Lakeland Electric will be $150.000 Dishwasher: $150 per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR $40‐$300* depending on $40.000 Dishwasher: $40 per
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to $200.000 Duct Leak Repair: 50% of per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Orlando Utilities Commission $100.000 Duct per
Utility City of Winter Park Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cit Clothes Washers, Residential Duct Checking to see if your air $300.000 Duct Repair: 50% of cost, per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Duct Seal Rebate Lakeland Electric offers a $300.000 Duct Seal: $300 per
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric 30% Ductless Mini Split A/C: per Ductless Mini Split A/C: $400
Utility Progress Energy Florida Inc Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Heat pumps, Finding and fixing air leaks in $200.000 Duke Energy offers a per Unit
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to $240.000 Electric Straight Cooling per High Performance Windows:
Utility Gulf Power Co Residential, Financial Rebate Program https://w Air conditioners, Onsite Home Energy Taking a free Home Energy Survey is a great way to find oFREE Energy Audit: Free per
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to 25% Energy Efficiency per Energy Efficiency Traditional or
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Orlando Utilities Commission $500.000 Energy Star Heat Pump per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww ENERGY STAR An ENERGY STAR qualified $1.000 ENERGY STAR New Home per Sq
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Air conditioners, ENERGY STAR for a rebate program that $850.000 ENERGY STAR New per
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Air conditioners, Energy Education, Development Program. a $325.000 ENERGY STAR New per
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Electric Rebates Through a partnership with $50.000 ENERGY STAR per Unit All other equipment: 1 per
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Electric Rebates Through a partnership with $150.000 ENERGY STAR Room Air per Unit All other equipment: 1 per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Orlando Utilities Commission $1.500 Energy Star Windows: per Sq
Utility Progress Energy Florida Inc Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Heat pumps, Reduce the amount of heat $2.000 Energy‐efficient per Sq
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Natural Gas Fire Gas fire logs provide a clean, $50.000 Fire Logs: $50 per
Utility Duke Energy Florida, LLC Residential Financial Rebate Program Home Energy Check Check/ Information about FREE FREE per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Residential Home Energy Audit FREE FREE per
Utility JEA Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Energy Energy Audit. Auditors FREE FREE per
Utility Florida Public Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Energy Energy Audit. The Low FREE FREE per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Lakeland Electric will be $40.000 Freezer: $40 per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR $40‐$300* depending on $40.000 Freezer: $40 per
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Through a partnership with $500.000 $612.500 $725.000 Furnace: $500 ‐ $725 per per Unit All other equipment: 1 per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Natural Gas Furnace Heats rooms quickly and $700.000 Furnace: Up to $700 per
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $175.000 Heat Pump Water per To qualify for the insulation
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Efficient HVAC Energy‐Efficiency AC $100‐$750 depending on $300.000 Heat Pump Water per
Utility Beaches Energy Services Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Water Heaters, Residential Energy New construction does not $500.000 Heat Pump Water per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Rebates are available for $700.000 Heat Pump Water per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, $500 for a new Lakeland Electric will be $500.000 Heat Pump: $500 per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Orlando Utilities Commission $90.000 $860.000 $1,630.000 Heat Pump: $90‐$1,630 per Unit
Utility Beaches Energy Services Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Water Heaters, Residential Energy New construction does not $100.000 $200.000 $300.000 Heat Pumps: $100 ‐ $300 per *Jacksonville service: SEER 14;
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Efficient HVAC Energy‐Efficiency AC $100‐$750 depending on $100.000 $425.000 $750.000 Heat Pumps: $100‐$750 per
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $200.000 Heat Recovery Unit: $200 per To qualify for the insulation
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Electric Rebates Through a partnership with $500.000 High Efficiency Central per High Efficiency Central Air
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to $2.000 High Performance per Sq
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Lakeland Electric will be $50.000 Hot Water Heater Timer: per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, $100 HVAC Rebates are available for $50.000 HVAC Annual per
Utility Gulf Power Co Residential, Financial Rebate Program https://w Air conditioners, FPL A/C Instant Use an FPL Participating $100.000 HVAC Maintenance: $100 per
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Air conditioners, Residential a rebate program that $115.000 HVAC Motor per $115 per
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $250.000 HVAC: $250 per To qualify for the insulation
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Electric Rebates Through a partnership with $0.125 Insulation (Added): per Sq Insulation (Added): $275 MAX
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Electric Rebates Through a partnership with $0.400 Insulation (New): $0.40 per Sq Insulation (New): $300 MAX
Utility Beaches Energy Services Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Water Heaters, Residential Energy New construction does not $0.125 $300.000 Insulation Upgrade: per Sq
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Lighting, Heat hese rebates are available to $0.080 Insulation: $0.08 per sq. per Sq Insulation: $300 MAX;
Utility JEA Residential, Financial Rebate Program https://w Heat pumps, Air LED rebates are deducted $0.200 Insulation: $0.20/square per Sq Insulation: R‐38 minimum; Must
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric 30% Insulation: 30% per Insulation: $300 MAX
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, LED Lighting Lighting accounts for 20% of FREE LEDs: 3 free bulbs, when per
Utility JEA Residential, Financial Rebate Program https://w Heat pumps, Air LED rebates are deducted N/A Lighting: Instant per
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program https://www.tamp Residential Price Load management. By N/A N/A per The rate you pay for electricity
Utility Florida Power & Light Residential Financial Rebate Program file:///C:/ Residential Load Central A/C and heater N/A N/A per An FPL‐approved licensed could save
Utility Gulf Power Company Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Energy Energy Audit. This program is N/A N/A per
Utility Duke Energy Florida, LLC Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Energy Energy Management. N/A N/A per
Utility JEA Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Home Improvement N/A N/A per
Utility JEA Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Energy Efficient Home Improvement N/A N/A per
Utility Gulf Power Company Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Custom Home Improvement N/A N/A per
Utility Gulf Power Company Residential Financial Rebate Program Energy Select Home Improvement N/A N/A per
Utility Gulf Power Company Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Building Home Improvement N/A N/A per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://ou Residential Ceiling Home Improvement Rebate N/A N/A per To qualify, final insulation level ($0.10/sq.ft
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential High Home Improvement Rebate N/A N/A per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://ou Residential Window Home Improvement Rebate N/A N/A per Incentive Requirements: 1. Only ($0.55/sq.
Utility Peoples Gas System Residential Financial Rebate Program Oil Heat Home Improvement Rebate N/A N/A per
Utility Peoples Gas System Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Home Improvement Rebate N/A N/A per
Utility Peoples Gas System Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Home Improvement Rebate N/A N/A per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://ou Residential Duct Home Improvement Rebate. N/A N/A per To qualify, ducts must be sealed (100 percent
Utility Florida Public Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Heating Home Improvement Rebate. N/A N/A N/A $100 rebate
Utility JEA Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Residential Solar Home Improvement Rebate. N/A N/A per $400 rebate
Utility JEA Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Residential Solar Home Improvement Rebate. N/A N/A per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Residential Efficient Home Improvement Rebate. N/A N/A per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Residential New Home Improvement Rebate. N/A N/A per To be eligible for energy
Utility Gulf Power Company Residential Financial Rebate Program HVAC Efficiency HVAC Systems. This program N/A N/A per
Utility JEA Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Neighborhood Low‐Income Program. offers N/A N/A per U.S. Census Bureau identifies
Utility Gulf Power Company Residential Financial Rebate Program Community Energy Low‐Income Program. This N/A N/A per
Utility Florida Power & Light Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential New New Building N/A N/A per Save up to
Utility Peoples Gas System Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential New New Building N/A N/A per
Utility JEA Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential New New Building. promotes the N/A N/A per
Utility Florida Power & Light Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Home Survey N/A N/A per Free Home Energy Survey is a
Utility Duke Energy Florida, LLC Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Low‐Income Weatherization. This N/A N/A per Have an income of less than
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Gas Outdoor Rediscover outdoor cooking $100.000 Outdoor Barbecue Grills: per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Gas Outdoor Lights Along a patio, yard or $450.000 Outdoor Lights: Up to per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Gas Pool and Spa Extend your swimming $450.000 Pool and Spa Heaters: Up per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR $40‐$300* depending on $200.000 Pool Pump: $200 per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Rebates are available for $350.000 Pool Pump: $350 per
Utility Duke Energy Florida, LLC Residential Financial Rebate Program https://de Neighborhood Weatherization. The Duke FREE qualified customers per This service is available to Varies based
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Through a partnership with $100.000 $125.000 $150.000 Range: $100 ‐ $150 per per Unit All other equipment: 1 per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Gas Ranges and Expert chefs prefer gas $200.000 Ranges and Ovens: Up to per
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Rebates are available for $200.000 Refrigerator: $200 per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR $100‐$750 depending on $75.000 Refrigerator: $75 per
Utility City of Winter Park Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cit Clothes Washers, Residential Home Winter Park electric utility FREE Residential Home Energy per
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric 30% Room A/C: 30 % per Room A/C: $100 MAX
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww ENERGY STAR Smart Rebate up to $100 per $100.000 Smart Thermostat: $100 per
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to $300.000 Solar Attic Fan: 25% of per
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Clothes Washers, Electric Rebates Through a partnership with $450.000 Solar Hot Water Heater: per Unit
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Solar PV System Battery: $2,000.000 Solar PV System Battery: per
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $0.440 Solar Shade Screen: per Sq To qualify for the insulation
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Solar Thermal Water Heater: $900.000 Solar Thermal Water per
Utility Beaches Energy Services Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Residential Energy Beaches Energy Services $500.000 Solar Water Heater: $500 per One rebate per customer;
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $0.010 Solar Water Heating: per BTU To qualify for the insulation
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric 30% Solar Water Heating: 30% per Solar Water Heating: $500 MAX
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $0.280 Spray Foam Insulation: per Sq To qualify for the insulation
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Through a partnership with $300.000 $425.000 $550.000 Tank Water Heater: $300 ‐ per Unit All other equipment: 1 per
Utility Fort Pierce Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Through a partnership with $550.000 $612.500 $675.000 Tankless Water Heater: per Unit All other equipment: 1 per
Utility City of Winter Park Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cit Clothes Washers, Toilet Retrofit The intent and purpose of $100.000 Toilets: $100/per toilet per Unit Toilets: 3 per household
Utility Duke Energy Florida, LLC Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential home improvement rebates. N/A Varies ‐ see savings per $2 per square foot of window up to $800
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Air conditioners, Residential Wall Home Improvement Rebate. $0.110 Wall Insulation: per Sq
Utility City of Winter Park Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cit Clothes Washers, water usage by Winter Park $100.000 Washing Machine: $100 per Washing Machine: 1 per
Utility City of Tallahassee Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Natural Gas Tank or Tankless The newer natural gas $675.000 Water Heaters: Up to per
Utility City of Winter Park Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cit Clothes Washers, flow toilets with new High $100.000 Weather Based Smart per Weather Based Smart Irrigation
Utility City of Lakeland; Lakeland Residential Financial Rebate Program https://la Clothes Washers, Appliance Rebate Rebates are available for $100.000 WiFi Programmable per
Utility Orlando Utilities Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Solar Water Heat, Eligible measures include: $0.550 Window Film or Solar per Sq
Utility Florida Keys Electric Residential Financial Rebate Program https://fk Air conditioners, Florida Keys Electric 100% Window Film/Solar per Window Film or Solar Screen:
Utility Beaches Energy Services Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w Water Heaters, Residential Energy New construction does not $100.000 Window Film/Solar per
Utility Clay Electric Cooperative, Residential Financial Rebate Program https://cl Solar Water Heat; https://programs.dsireusa.or $0.440 Window Film: $0.44 per per Sq To qualify for the insulation
Utility Tampa Electric Company Residential Financial Rebate Program http://ww Air conditioners, Residential Window Home Improvement Rebate. $0.760 Window Replacement: per Sq the existing structure must have
Utility New Smyrna Beach City of Residential Financial Rebate Program https://w hese rebates are available to $1.000 Window Solar Screen: $1 per Sq Window Solar Screen: $300
Utility Florida Power & Light Residential Financial Rebate Program Residential Low‐ See PDF
Utility OUC Residential https://w Efficiency Delivered Efficiency Delivered® N/A N/A per
Final Report
Appendix 4. EIA Energy Efficiency Program Reporting 2021

Total
Total Demand Time
Data Utility BA Revenue Total Water Net
Utility Name Ownership State Sales Side Based
Year Number Code (Thousand Customers Heater Metering
(MWh) Management Programs
Dollars)
City of Alachua -
2020 201 Municipal FL FPC 13,698.0 128,041 4,638 . Y N N
(FL)
City of
2020 1876 Municipal FL SOCO 3,872.0 29,793 1,311 . Y N N
Blountstown - (FL)
City of Bushnell -
(FL)
City of
2020 3406 Chattahoochee - Municipal FL FPC 3,606.0 35,851 1,100 . N N N
(FL)
2020 3774 City of Clewiston Municipal FL FPC 11,585.9 99,968 4,181 . Y N N
Escambia River
2020 5964 Cooperative FL AEC 25,214.0 190,448 11,647 . Y Y Y
Elec Coop, Inc
City of Fort
Meade - (FL)
City of Green
2020 7593 Municipal FL FMPP 11,293.0 108,768 4,395 . Y Y N
Cove Springs
Havana Power &
Light Company
City of Moore
2020 12876 Municipal FL FPL 1,682.0 16,791 1,118 . N N N
Haven - (FL)
City of Mount
Dora - (FL)
City of Newberry -
(FL)
City of Quincy -
(FL)
City of Starke -
2020 18004 Municipal FL FPL 7,550.0 64,231 2,848 . Y N N
(FL)
City of Wauchula -
2020 20209 Municipal FL TEC 6,453.6 62,577 2,840 . Y N N
(FL)
City of Williston -
(FL)
City of Alachua -
(FL)
City of
2020 1876 Municipal FL SOCO 3,872.0 29,793 1,311 . Y N N
Blountstown - (FL)
City of Bushnell -
(FL)
City of
2020 3406 Chattahoochee - Municipal FL FPC 3,606.0 35,851 1,100 . N N N
(FL)
2020 3774 City of Clewiston Municipal FL FPC 11,585.9 99,968 4,181 . Y N N
Escambia River
2020 5964 Cooperative FL AEC 25,214.0 190,448 11,647 . Y Y Y
Elec Coop, Inc
City of Fort
Meade - (FL)
City of Green
2020 7593 Municipal FL FMPP 11,293.0 108,768 4,395 . Y Y N
Cove Springs
Havana Power &
Light Company
City of Moore
2020 12876 Municipal FL FPL 1,682.0 16,791 1,118 . N N N
Haven - (FL)
City of Mount
Dora - (FL)
City of Newberry -
(FL)
City of Quincy -
(FL)
City of Starke -
2020 18004 Municipal FL FPL 7,550.0 64,231 2,848 . Y N N
(FL)
City of Wauchula -
2020 20209 Municipal FL TEC 6,453.6 62,577 2,840 . Y N N
(FL)
Total
Total Demand Time
Data Utility BA Revenue Total Water Net
Utility Name Ownership State Sales Side Based
Year Number Code (Thousand Customers Heater Metering
(MWh) Management Programs
Dollars)
City of Williston -
(FL)
Utility Characteristics RESIDENTIAL
Revenues Sales Customers
Data Type
Data Utility Service Thousand
Utility Name Part O = Observed State Ownership BA Code Megawatthours Count
Year Number Type Dollars
I = Imputed
2020 1300 City of Bartow - (FL) A Bundled O FL Municipal FPC 14,649.0 150,108 10,733
2020 3245 Central Florida Elec Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 47,703.5 382,845 30,664
2020 3502 Choctawhatche Elec Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative AEC 80,358.0 707,089 48,666
2020 3757 Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 271,725.2 2,367,495 159,862
2020 6443 Florida Keys El Coop Assn, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative FPL 50,288.0 448,251 27,407
2020 6452 Florida Power & Light Co A Bundled O FL Investor Owned FPL 6,665,244.0 63,817,760 4,548,301
2020 6455 Duke Energy Florida, LLC A Bundled O FL Investor Owned FPC 2,895,724.9 21,458,693 1,655,304
2020 6457 Florida Public Utilities Co A Bundled O FL Investor Owned JEA 46,108.1 303,916 25,038
2020 6616 Fort Pierce Utilities Authority A Bundled O FL Municipal FMPP 29,471.0 257,993 23,622
2020 6909 Gainesville Regional Utilities A Bundled O FL Municipal GVL 110,697.0 850,316 88,391
2020 7264 Glades Electric Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 24,739.0 175,100 13,079
2020 7785 Gulf Coast Electric Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative AEC 35,692.4 274,074 19,382
2020 7801 Gulf Power Co A Bundled O FL Investor Owned SOCO 735,803.3 5,500,768 412,526
2020 8795 City of Homestead - (FL) A Bundled O FL Municipal HST 45,038.6 359,694 25,216
2020 9616 Beaches Energy Services A Bundled O FL Municipal FPL 47,499.7 448,350 30,300
2020 9617 JEA A Bundled O FL Municipal JEA 636,443.0 5,679,034 429,575
2020 10226 Utility Board of the City of Key West, F A Bundled O FL Municipal FMPP 52,287.0 389,295 26,460
2020 10376 Kissimmee Utility Authority A Bundled O FL Municipal FMPP 106,158.0 956,188 69,350
2020 10620 City of Lake Worth - (FL) A Bundled O FL Municipal FMPP 24,692.0 269,963 23,822
2020 10623 City of Lakeland - (FL) A Bundled O FL Municipal FMPP 158,325.3 1,612,266 112,176
2020 10857 Lee County Electric Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative FPL 320,986.8 3,071,749 204,625
2020 10868 City of Leesburg - (FL) A Bundled O FL Municipal FPC 29,849.1 266,606 22,394
2020 13485 New Smyrna Beach City of A Bundled O FL Municipal NSB 29,525.0 305,199 26,002
2020 13955 City of Ocala A Bundled O FL Municipal FMPP 55,939.5 557,510 43,157
2020 14606 Peace River Electric Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 74,891.8 608,779 41,664
2020 14610 Orlando Utilities Comm A Bundled O FL Municipal FMPP 311,682.0 2,755,558 221,756
2020 15776 Reedy Creek Improvement Dist A Bundled O FL Municipal FPC 12.0 111 9
2020 18304 Sumter Electric Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 309,379.0 2,529,176 197,388
2020 18360 Suwannee Valley Elec Coop Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 39,114.0 316,237 24,015
2020 18445 City of Tallahassee - (FL) A Bundled O FL Municipal TAL 127,812.0 1,148,933 105,829
2020 18449 Talquin Electric Coop, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 92,720.7 694,632 51,682
2020 18454 Tampa Electric Co A Bundled O FL Investor Owned TEC 1,020,010.2 10,121,922 698,493
2020 19161 Tri-County Electric Coop, Inc (FL) A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 24,952.8 179,221 17,204
2020 20371 West Florida El Coop Assn, Inc A Bundled O FL Cooperative AEC 43,025.0 317,862 25,040
2020 20885 Withlacoochee River Elec Coop A Bundled O FL Cooperative SEC 346,846.0 3,038,999 204,271
2020 31833 Okefenoke Rural El Member Corp A Bundled O FL Cooperative SOCO 19,613.5 159,051 10,322
2020 57313 SolarCity Corporation A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPL 6.1 78 15
2020 57313 SolarCity Corporation A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPC 295.4 3,599 436
2020 57313 SolarCity Corporation A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FMPP 1.1 18 3
2020 57313 SolarCity Corporation A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter SOCO 0.0 0 0
2020 57313 SolarCity Corporation A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter SEC 52.5 606 225
2020 58124 City of Winter Park - (FL) A Bundled O FL Municipal FPC 20,805.0 193,996 12,206
Utility Characteristics RESIDENTIAL
Revenues Sales Customers
Data Type
Data Utility Service Thousand
Utility Name Part O = Observed State Ownership BA Code Megawatthours Count
Year Number Type Dollars
I = Imputed
2020 59579 Sunnova A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPL 142.1 1,033 198
2020 59579 Sunnova A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPC 1,252.8 8,507 782
2020 59624 Vivint Solar, Inc. A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPL 580.0 4,815 616
2020 59624 Vivint Solar, Inc. A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FMPP 11.8 98 13
2020 59647 Sunrun Inc. A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPL 97.9 593 36
2020 59647 Sunrun Inc. A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPC 3,074.9 17,340 1,623
2020 59647 Sunrun Inc. A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter TEC 173.4 1,108 71
2020 60025 Greenbacker Renewable Energy Corporation A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter GVL . . .
2020 60981 TerraForm US Energy Services, LLC A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter FPC 0.0 0 0
2020 61098 Longroad Energy A Bundled O FL Behind the Meter TEC . . .
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL AEC 20,420.8 153,070 10,542
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL FPL 3,645.0 33,671 2,203
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL FPC 35,960.1 305,907 22,029
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL GVL 0.0 0 0
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL FMPP 5,353.9 53,437 3,598
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL SOCO 1,373.1 10,833 979
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL TEC 3,183.4 29,417 2,162
2020 99999 Adjustment 2020 A Bundled I FL SEC 0.0 0 -225
Final Report
Appendix 5. Used EV Prices

Florida is on the higher end of used electric vehicle prices compared to the rest of the United States. 400 of their
1,472 used electric vehicles are above $60,000.
Table A- 2. Average used EV prices by state.

State Average Used EV Price Used EV Inventory Registered EVs
GA $51,761.00 611 23,530
NJ $50,253.34 425 30,420
VA $49,103.98 432 20,510
NY $49,046.10 762 32,590
PA $47,048.74 401 17,530
IL $46,095.04 831 26,000
FL $45,456.36 1,472 58,160
OR $44,277.07 22,850
OH $42,752.37 606 14,530
NC $42,169.80 515 16,190
WA $41,057.51 616 50,520
TX $40,902.35 3,175 52,190
UT $38,773.81 11,230
AZ $38,717.43 644 28,770
CA $36,566.78 5,034 425,300
IN $34,331.42 6,990
Source: Recurrent, US DOE
Figure A-1 shows much of the country trailing behind California. While Florida has the third most used EV
inventory, this is significantly less than California. As stated before Florida also has higher prices compared to
several other states, and is on the overall higher end.
Figure A- 1. Average used EV prices by state, and used EV Inventory by state

$60,000 6,000
$50,000 5,000
$40,000 4,000
$30,000 3,000
$20,000 2,000
$10,000 1,000
$0 0
CA TX FL IL NY AZ WA GA OH NC VA NJ PA UT IN OR
Average Used EV Price Used EV

Inventory
Figure A-2 shows the share of nation-wide EV ownership in each state. The states in “other” all have less than 3%
ownership of nationwide EVs.

Final Report
Figure A- 2. Share of EV Ownership by State
State % of Registered EVs

California 42%
Texas 5%
Other
Florida 6%
CA Illinois 3%
New York 3%
Arizona 3%
Washington 5%
Other 34%
WA
AZ
NY TX
IL FL
Figure A-3 shows each state’s share of the used EV market. The states in “other” are all below the 4% mark, with
many less than even 1%.
Figure A- 3. Share of Used EV Market
Other
CA
State % Used EV Inventory
California 32%
WA
Texas 20%
AZ Florida 9%
Illinois 5%
NY
New York 5%
IL Arizona 4%
Washington 4%
FL TX Other 19%
Table A-3 shows average price of used electric vehicles by model year. And the inventory of used electric vehicles
in Florida. Florida has a higher number of newer models, and limited models below the $10,000 price tag.

Final Report
Table A- 3. Average Price of Used Electric Vehicles by Model Year in Florida
Model Year Avg Model Price Florida Inventory
2011 $7,271
2012 $12,935 16
2013 $21,800 41
2014 $26,291 52
2015 $27,847 47
2016 $48,585 70
2017 $38,905 82
2018 $42,791 329
2019 $54,383 225
2020 $55,833 235
2021 $67,063 357
2022 $77,323 18
Source: Recurrent
Figure A-4 shows the data from Table A-2 plotted out. Here we can visualize the high amount of newer more
expensive used models in Florida. The limited access to older, cheaper used EVs contributes to Florida’s average
used EV price being higher than other states.
Figure A- 4. Average Price of Used Electric Vehicles by Model Year in Florida
$90,000 400
$80,000 350
$70,000 300
$60,000
250
$50,000
200
$40,000
150
$30,000
$20,000 100
$10,000 50
$0 0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Avg Model Price Florida Inventory
Table A-4 shows sales of new electric vehicles by year by type: Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), and Total. The data indicate the market is growing, which means there may be more used
electric vehicles in coming years.

Final Report
Table A- 4. Florida Light-Duty PEV sales by year
Florida Light-Duty PEV Sales BEV PHEV Total
2013 2,601 3,776 6,377
2014 4,491 5,577 10,068
2015 6,027 6,722 12,749
2016 11,323 8,304 19,627
2017 15,282 9,570 24,852
2018 25,458 12,318 37,776
2019 38,589 18,390 56,979
Table A-5 shows that Tesla models are priced highly and that the small decline in prices has reversed. Rising
prices are here to stay, and this will also affect other more affordable models.
Table A- 5. Used Tesla Prices – Nationwide

Car Model Dec Jan Feb March April
2016 Model X $70,084 $70,615 $69,909 $69,503 $71,555
2020 Model Y $65,800 $65,357 $64,178 $64,170 $65,021
2015 Model S $50,577 $49,609 $48,367 $48,253 $50,022
2018 Model 3 $49,079 $48,395 $46,983 $46,704 $49,155
Source: Recurrent

Final Report
Appendix 6. Workshop Breakout Themes

FDACS Energy Equity Workshop Breakout
Themes
Group 1:
Theme Question
• Logic & data sources acceptable?
• Is the scale acceptable? Scale alternatives?
Environmental • What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
Justice • How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
• Other approaches?
Transportation • What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
Metrics • How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
Multifamily • What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
Benchmarking • How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
Energy Equity Rating • What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
• How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
Group 2:
Attribute Question
Logic & data sources acceptable?
Is the scale acceptable? Scale alternatives?
Environmental What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
Justice How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
Other approaches?
Transportation What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
Metrics How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
Other approaches?
Multifamily What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
Benchmarking How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
Other approaches?
What shortcomings do you see with this approach?
How can this be made more useful for your community or
policymakers?
Other approaches?
Group 3:
Attribute Question
policymakers?
Other approaches?
policymakers?
Other approaches?
policymakers?
Other approaches?
policymakers?
Other approaches?
Group 4:
Attribute Question
policymakers?
Other approaches?
policymakers?
Other approaches?
policymakers?
Other approaches?
policymakers?
Other approaches?
Final Report
Appendix 7. Best Practice for Program Design Elements

Energy Star provides 5 best practices for program design 50.
• Step 1: Conduct Market Research

• Step 2: Assess Local Energy Rating Infrastructure
• Step 3: Assess Credentialed HVAC Contractors in Market
• Step 4: Benchmark Construction Practices
• Step 5: Identify Potential Barriers to Program Participation
EPA presents an overview of energy efficiency programs across the county and summarizes best
practices via four major groups 51
• Making Energy Efficiency a Resource – this includes establishing business cases, educating
key stakeholders, encouraging policy responses and institutionalizing those policies to ensure
targets are met
• Developing an Energy Efficiency Plan – This plan should examine customer needs, cost-
effectiveness, collaboration with programs/policies, and opportunities for new technology
(such as the peak pricing, water heater, roof, and lighting technologies being incentivized in
Florida)
• Designing and Delivering Energy Efficiency Programs – Collaborate with peers, and
program administrators, and utilities locally, regionally, and nationwide to understand what
has worked best.
• Ensuring Energy Efficiency Investments Deliver Results – These include formalizing a
budget and evaluation process, developing trackable metrics and an approach to monitor
these, conduct impact assessments, and communicate these results.
The Texas State Energy Conservation Office report project team developed an energy efficiency
planning guide that leverages best practices gleaned from existing energy efficiency programs from
examination of 400 identified programs across North America. This planning guide provides program
benchmarking and identified cross‐cutting program best practices in four categories:
• Program Design – includes the development of a well-designed plan that considers the
market and customers, as well as barriers, applying program logic, leveraging national
programs to increase availability, involving stakeholders and customers, and examining cost
effectiveness features
• Program Management – clearly defined roles and responsibilities, establishing a clear project
reporting and tracking system to measure goals, customizing a quality assurance and control
approach to maintain program stability and constancy, as well as data accuracy.
• Program Implementation – conducting effective program marketing and outreach, while
ensuring the participation process and installation are an easy process with a range of services,
50ENERGY STAR 2022

51EPA, 2015. National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, Chapter 6: Energy Efficiency Program Best Practices.
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/napee_chap6.pdf)

Final Report
working with contractors and selling customer benefits first, provide ample market materials
and offer financing options to offset costs.
• Evaluation – involves evaluating data annually and determining whether metrics are meeting
goals, incorporating evaluation recommendations into the program, and providing guidelines
for energy impacts
The Texas State Energy Conservation Office surveyed full service electric utilities to rate best practice
as well as customer barriers 52. Best practice is summarized in Table A-6.
Table A- 6. Best Practice Summary
Program Best Practices
Equipment Rebate • Program design flexibility
Programs • Accommodate market trends
• Offer benefits including technical or program training
• Community based and social marketing
• Participation in industry related events
• Provide customers with array of application mechanisms (mail-in
rebates, online rebate applications, instant rebates)
Appliance Recycling • Create retail partnerships
• Co-promote recycling program message with other programs
• Offer online appointments scheduling, or alternative day pick-ups
• Active involvement and communication
• Customer surveys to ensure units are being picked up
Audit and Direct • Well documented program theory and design
Installation • Beneficial cost to implement program
• Ability to deliver immediate and long-term energy savings
• High quality of services
Education and Behavior • Positive, fact based, audience specific communication
• Consumer surveys to identify attitudes, barriers, and preferences
• Encourage customers to pledge to act, recognize contribution
New Construction • Predetermined incentives for prequalified equipment
• Financial support to offset higher initial capital costs
• Performance-based incentives
Innovative Financing • Low interest rates
• Long loan terms
• Broad eligibility
• Off-balance-sheet financing
Demand Response • Detailed program materials to new participants
• Multiple message that appeal to motivators
• Opportunity of choice between programs
• Annual feedback to customers
52
Nexant, 2011

Final Report
Barriers to optimal energy efficiency program performance

The Texas study identified the most common internal/operational constraints, shown in Table A-7.
Table A- 7. Common Operational Constraints to successful energy efficiency programs.
Barrier Source Description
Local government barriers lack of funding and lack of knowledge in how to set up funding
mechanisms for energy efficiency programs
Local government barriers Lack of staff resources as well as skilled contractors
Customer barriers awareness regarding energy efficiency programs
Customer barriers awareness about environmental issues among the community, 3)
high cost for energy efficient equipment
Customer barriers lack of interest due to limited understanding of long-term value
of energy-efficient technologies
Customer barriers split incentives due to large percentage of rental properties
The EPA notes emerging technologies as a barrier in cost, customer acceptance, communication
protocols, and contractor acceptance (EPA, 2015). While programs should provide opportunities to
encapsulate new technologies, they must also develop strategies to increase access and acceptance
for these innovations. Additional barriers include a higher initial cost for these programs, split
incentives between the tenant and landlord for the utility, a general lack of supply for the technology,
and a lack of either knowledge or time to research the best option for the supplier or customer. Using
the best practices listed above, especially beginning with the market in mind by establishing a business
case should provide an understanding of some of these barriers that communities may run into.
Additionally, a number of barriers to participating in programs were identified via interviews and
workshops. Interview participants noted that lower income community members overall bear a bigger
burden. Specifically, the range of LMI was brought up as a barrier to access. Respondents noted the
difference in making, for example $20,000 to $40,000 a year in income. Furthermore, people living in
single family homes may have higher burden than those who are not. Both are considered LMI but
one is expending more on housing. Respondents discussed that households that may receive social
security are under LMI but may not receive housing assistance. Respondents also noted the fixed
customer charge potentially hurting LMI families due to the fact that lower users of energy are still
paying a large chunk of income.
Some respondents postulated that regulatory requirements could improve access to energy efficient
features, in that without these requirements, few jurisdictions and landowners have incentives to
increase access. However, others noted that just as regulation may provide an increase to access,
government intervention itself can be a hurdle. by adding bureaucracy, limiting awareness and making
it too daunting or complicated to enter the programs.
One approach is performance-based regulation (PBR) used by the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission
(PUC). This type of alternative regulatory mechanism is independent to encourage utilities to focus on
desired renewable energy, improved customer service, and lower cost outcomes (Hawaii Gov, 2022).
In addition to the Appendix tables mentioned above, data visuals for utility programs, financial
incentives and the technology impacted, electric coops, and county energy conservation programs is
provided in PowerBI dashboard here: https://datavisual.balmoralgroup.us/FL-Energy-Equity.

FDACS Study of Energy Equity Within Florida - Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FDACS Study of Energy Equity Within Florida - Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Energy Equity Within Florida

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND

The Balmoral Group, LLC

Prepared by Prepared for

The Balmoral Group Florida Department of Agriculture and

Head Office 600 South Calhoun Street Ste B04

The Balmoral Group Page |1

• Advanced Energy Economy • EcoCar Florida LLC

The Balmoral Group Page |2

• City of Lakeland • Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance

The Balmoral Group Page |3

Acronyms and Abbreviations

The Balmoral Group Page | 4

FPL - Florida Power & Light

The Balmoral Group Page | 5

U.S.DOE - U.S. Department of Energy

The Balmoral Group Page | 6

The Balmoral Group Page | 7

The study focused on four primary areas:

1. Demography and Geography of LMI Energy Burdened Households

High priority goals include:

The Balmoral Group Page | 8

• Increased outreach and awareness-raising activity, particularly due to upcoming federal

The Balmoral Group Page | 9

The Balmoral Group Page | 10

Distributional Equity .................................................................................................................................................... 71

The Balmoral Group Page | 11

Figure 23. Asthma Incidents: Black or African American Populations ............................................................... 32

The Balmoral Group Page | 12

Figure 66. Dashboard Landing Page ............................................................................................................................... 75

Figures in the Appendix

Tables in the Appendix

The Balmoral Group Page | 13

I. Demography and Geography of Energy Burdened

• Energy burden is consistently higher for renters than owners.

The Balmoral Group Page | 14

• LMI energy burden for owners vs. renter households

Figure 3. Profile of LMI Energy Burden in Florida

Energy Burdened LMI Households

*Median income is around $42,000 **average annual cost of $2,229

Source: U.S. Census, and U.S. DOE, LEAD Tool Data

The Balmoral Group Page | 15

Sources: LEAD Tool, EIA, Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR)

The Balmoral Group Page |16

Sources: LEAD Tool, EIA, FDOR

Figure 8. Average Energy Burden, All LMI Households

Sources: LEAD Tool, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), FDOR

The Balmoral Group Page | 18

Figure 9. Utility Service Areas

Source: USDHS, HIFLD, TBG Work Product

The Balmoral Group Page | 19

Energy Equity Rating

exacerbates barriers to financial stability

The Balmoral Group Page | 20

Figure 11 provides the result in graphic form.

Figure 11. Proposed Energy Equity Rating System

Dollars Average Energy

Table 1. Data Sources for Energy Equity Rating System

The Balmoral Group Page | 21

Source: TBG Work Product

The Balmoral Group Page | 22

Source: TBG Work Product

The Balmoral Group Page | 23