Three-part blog series by Spring 2025 Energy & Climate Intern Ava Ambroggio
A key factor contributing to the disparity in success between Illinois’ Home Energy Savings (HES) program and Duke Energy’s Neighborhood Energy Saver (NES) and Dominion Energy’s Neighborhood Energy Efficiency Program (NEEP) appears to be significant differences in program funding.
In 2023, HES operated with a yearly budget of $32 million. In contrast, Dominion and Duke Energy allocated approximately $2 million across all of their energy efficiency programs, resulting in considerably less funding available specifically for initiatives targeting income-eligible households. This budgetary limitation changes the scale and depth of what NEEP and NES can achieve, restricting the number of projects completed and consequently limiting potential energy savings. While HES benefits from diverse funding streams—including state programs, federal grants, and private donations—Duke and Dominion’s programs are primarily reliant on utility ratepayers. By expanding their budgets—particularly dedicated to income-eligible programs—South Carolina’s utilities could serve a significantly greater number of households and deliver more substantial energy savings, especially in underserved and rural areas where energy burdens are often most acute.
Program accessibility and eligibility are another crucial area for improvement.
Both NEEP and NES use outreach strategies that can be limiting and complex, potentially deterring eligible participants. For example, Dominion’s multi-step enrollment process may prove confusing or inconvenient, particularly for working families, families with children, or those facing transportation challenges. Streamlining these procedures, perhaps by incorporating virtual information sessions and providing easily accessible recorded presentations, could significantly boost participation rates. Additionally, tailoring outreach materials in multiple languages and forging partnerships with community-based organizations that have established trust within low-income communities could enable the programs to reach a broader and more diverse demographic.
Perhaps the most critical improvement lies in expanding the scope to energy-efficient measures offered.
Currently, their home energy assessments are “walk-through” evaluations, which tend to identify only readily apparent energy inefficiencies, such as drafts around doors and windows or uninsulated pipes. In contrast, more comprehensive energy audits incorporate advanced diagnostic techniques like blower door testing to precisely measure airflow and pinpoint air leaks, duct leakage testing to quantify air loss from HVAC systems, and infrared scans to detect temperature variations indicative of insulation deficiencies or air infiltration.
NEEP and NES largely focus on basic, low-cost interventions like LED light bulbs and weatherstripping, which offer some energy cost reduction. However, many homes require more substantial upgrades—improved insulation, energy-efficient appliances, and modern HVAC systems—to realize significant and sustained energy savings. Utilities should consider combining funding for essential home repairs (such as roof work and mold remediation necessary before efficiency efforts) with a suite of energy efficiency offerings to create a seamless “one-stop shop” for income-qualified customers. Although these deeper retrofits involve higher upfront costs, an augmented program budget would enable utilities to provide these more impactful improvements. This investment would not only lead to greater reductions in energy bills and alleviate energy burdens for participants but also address critical health and safety concerns within the home and enhance the overall quality of life for residents.
To reduce severe energy burden plaguing low-income communities and promote energy equality, South Carolina’s utilities need to expand their commitments to income-eligible efficiency programs. This would include increasing program funding, simplifying access and their marketing approaches, and offering more impactful energy-saving measures for extremely inefficient households. By adopting these improvements, NES and NEEP can evolve into powerful programs for energy justice that are comparable to the current leaders in energy efficiency, assisting households not only in lowering their energy costs but also in living in healthier, safer, and more resilient homes.
Energy burden pt. 1: What is it?
Energy burden pt. 2: How are utilities involved?
Sources:
- Leaders of the Pack 2024 – Low-Income. (n.d.). ACEEE. https://www.aceee.org/leaders-pack-2024-low-income
- Scheier, E., & Kittner, N. (2022). A measurement strategy to address disparities across household energy burdens. Nature Communications, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27673-y