It looks like utilities can apply.  This concerns me since at least in Norfolk their record on effective weatherization for low-income homes is not good.  In addition, utilities have the inherent conflict of interest that they want to sell more of their product (electricity or gas).  We need to have organizations apply that have a proven record of being able to reach into, communicate and build trust with the marginalized neighborhoods — same as they are requiring applicants for the multi-family and shared solar programs to do — i.e., tell us how you are actually going to reach out to low-income folks and what proves you have the experience in doing that.  If your organization does not have that experience, you should be partnering with an organization that does.  This should be in the evaluation criteria specifically.

Certifying baseline energy usage, and measuring effects after, is very important, I am glad to see that in there.

It seems counter-productive that solar is not eligible.  GiveSolar is a great program to put solar on Habitat for Humanity houses — why couldn’t we install solar in concert with energy retrofit?  Solar is just another low-cost simple way to reduce a resident’s utility bill.  It should not be done alone, but in concert with an energy retrofit, it is an effective tool to reduce energy burden for those homes.

Eligible costs should say specifically that none of the funds can be used to advertise the program, other than to the intended applicants — that means no full-page ads in the Pilot saying what a great job they’re doing.

It seems to me that the criteria “Innovation" should not be 40% of the scoring.  This is not rocket science.  You don’t have to be innovative to get this done.  There are many simple and non-innovative ways that we could be doing this.  There are dozens of programs like this around the country – we can learn from those.  More important than innovation is that you know how to win the trust of marginalized communities who need this, so you can get it done.

I think the “Need” criteria should be higher than 30% - this is the main thrust and purpose of the program.

There needs to be a specific criteria for the organization’s ability that includes the experience and plan in terms of ability to get this done in their outreach plan.  That could be added to the current Feasibility criteria.  But to me the feasibility criteria should just include things like whether you have a good plan and have picked good buildings.  I would have a criteria specifically for Qualifications which shows that they have the knowledge and experience to get this done, including both the actual building modifications actions and also the outreach — what shows they have a plan for, and demonstrated ability in, communication and trust-building with low-wealth neighborhoods and homes and residents?

My suggestion would be Innovation 20%, Need 40%, Feasibility 20%, Qualifications 20%.

In the Occupant Satisfaction section, there should be something about Occupant utility bill decrease (if they are paying their own utility bills).  You have that listed under energy use, but none of this helps the resident if the landlord doesn’t pass on those savings.

Under Outreach, you should ask them to show an effective way they are getting the news on this out to other marginalized neighborhoods, not just presenting at conferences!  There needs to be effective communication so that this can spread.  An outcome listed is applying at scale in other projects, but there needs to be something showing how you get there in terms of gaining trust of other communities, and having the word spread in the affected communities themselves.