ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Bridging the rural efficiency gap: expanding accessto energy efficiency upgrades in remote and high energycost communities

Suzanne MacDonald & Brooks Winner & Lisa Smith &

Juliette Juillerat & Sam Belknap

Received: 20 December 2018 /Accepted: 18 April 2019 /Published online: 14 June 2019

Abstract Islands and remote rural communitiesthroughout the USA pay some of the highest costsfor electricity and heating fuel in the nation. Forareas with such high energy costs, the benefits ofenergy efficiency can be significant but rural resi-dents face several geographic, financial, and aware-ness barriers that make it difficult to invest in homeenergy upgrades. These barriers combine to create amarket failure that we call the Brural energy effi-ciency gap.^ The existence of the rural efficiencygap is supported by data collected from Alaska,Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont which indi-cate that the Benergy burden,^ or percentage ofhousehold income spent on energy bills, is 33%higher in rural areas and that participation in resi-dential energy efficiency financing and rebate

programs can be significantly lower. The combina-tion of higher energy burdens and greater barriersto participation can lead to inequitable distributionof available resources for energy efficiency, mean-ing that those who could benefit most from effi-ciency upgrades are often least able to access them.This work is designed to be a resource for energyefficiency program administrators but may also beof interest to energy efficiency program implemen-ters, policymakers, and regulators. It provides dataabout the rural energy efficiency gap and identifiesbarriers to energy efficiency in rural communities.It also highlights strategies that are helping tobridge the gap by making it easier for residents incold climate, petroleum-dependent states—thosewith high thermal energy burdens—to increasecomfort and safety in their homes while also reduc-ing energy bills. The barriers to rural energy effi-ciency identified in this paper have been groupedinto three categories: geographic barriers, financialbarriers, and awareness and access barriers. Thereare many differences between rural areas across thecountry, e.g., demographics, utility model and ratestructures, energy sources, and consumption pat-terns. This paper is not intended to suggest thatthe strategies documented here will necessarily beapplicable to all rural areas in the USA

Keywords Energy efficiency. Rural efficiency gap .

Energy burden . Program design .Weatherization . Ruralcommunities

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-019-09798-8

Suzanne MacDonald and Brooks Winner contributed equally tothis work.

S. MacDonald : S. Belknap (*)Island Institute, 386 Main Street, Rockland, ME 04841, USAe-mail: sbelknap@islandinstitute.org

B. WinnerMetropolitan Area Planning Council, 60 Temple Pl, Boston, MA02111, USA

L. SmithMaine Governor’s Energy Office, 62 State House Station,Augusta, ME 04333, USA

J. JuilleratVermont Energy Investment Corporation, 128 Lakeside Avenue,Suite 401, Burlington, VT 05401, USA

# The Author(s) 2019

Introduction

The Bridging the Rural Efficiency Gap Project was atwo-year project initiated by the Maine Governor’s En-ergy Office1 in which our sub-awarded team researchedthe barriers to residential energy efficiency in four par-ticipating rural states—Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire,and Vermont—and identified approaches to increaseparticipation in energy efficiency programs that we referto as Bbridging strategies.^ Even thoughMaine’s energyburden (the percentage of annual household income thatgoes toward energy bills) is one of the highest in thecountry, we observed a host of factors that were limitinginvestment in efficiency upgrades in rural areas of thestate. These included limited access to energy efficiencycontractors, a general lack of awareness of availableresources, and the increased cost of transporting goodsand services. Our goals for the project were to furtheranalyze these issues in Maine, to share elements ofprogram design and implementation that we had seenas successful in our state, and to identify additionalstrategies and resources that could be applied to over-come barriers to energy efficiency program participationin Maine and in other heating-dominated regions of theUSA. Some of these strategies may also be applicable tocooling-dominated regions as well.

This paper was designed to be a resource for thosebest positioned to increase access to energy efficiency inrural areas, stakeholders we refer to as Bprogramadministrators^ and Bprogram implementers.^ Programadministrators respond to policy mandates (most com-monly from the state level) with the design and coordi-nation of energy efficiency programs and are most oftenhoused within a state agency, utility, or statewide effi-ciency trust. For simplicity, we will refer to these asBadministrators^ in this paper. Program implementersoperate at the intersection between program administra-tors and residential customers and can include contrac-tors, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations. Forsimplicity, we will refer to these as Bimplementers^ inthis paper.

This paper was created to enhance the regional andnational understanding of the factors at play in ruralenergy efficiency projects through data analysis and

case studies offered from the perspectives of both ad-ministrators and implementers. For those interested infurther exploring this issue and the tools that are helpingto close the gap, we compiled a host of supportingmaterials, including an extended version of this paper.2

Defining the rural energy efficiency gap

The Benergy efficiency gap,^ or Benergy efficiencyparadox,^ describes the slow rate of uptake of energyefficiency products and services even when they areeconomically beneficial (Jaffe and Stavins 1994). Re-searchers have debated the existence and size of the gap(Gerarden et al. 2015), whether addressing the gaprepresents a Bwin-win^ for both energy efficiency andcarbon reductions (Fowlie et al. 2018), and extensiveresearch has been conducted to explain the reasons forthe gap and solutions to bridge it (Gillingham andPalmer 2014). Energy efficiency financial assistanceprograms (including rebates, grants, or loans) offeredby electric and natural gas utilities, statewide energyefficiency entities, and state and federal agencies aredesigned to close this gap by providing incentives foradoption of energy efficiencymeasures and reducing thebarriers that impede deployment of these measures.

However, to date, little research has been done onwhether and how this proposed gap manifests itself inrural and remote communities in the USA.

Rural residents face a distinct set of energy efficiencyadoption barriers that create a market failure we call theBrural efficiency gap.^ This term describes the seeming-ly slower uptake of energy efficiency upgrades in small,isolated communities even when higher energy costsand energy burdens (defined as the percentage of annualhousehold income spent on heat and electricity) oftenmake these home improvements even more cost-effective than in areas with lower energy prices. Therural efficiency gap exists in many rural places, becausethe barriers to accessing energy efficiency, includingaccess to experienced contractors, geographic isolation,appropriate financing mechanisms, and general aware-ness of energy efficiency programs, often vary fromthose experienced in more populated areas.

The theory that this gap exists was initially based onobservations by members of our research team who1 The Maine Governor’s Energy Office is the designated State Energy

Office (SEO), is responsible for planning and coordinating state energypolicy, and serves as the primary energy policy advisor to the Governorin Maine.

2 Available at http://www.islandinstitute.org/bridging-rural-efficiency-gap

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521504

observed the Island Institute3 and their workimplementing energy efficiency programs with Maineisland residents. Maine island households pay as muchas a dollar more per gallon for fuel oil than their neigh-bors on the mainland. Yet, prior to the first local weath-erization initiative organized by the Island Institute andits community partners in July 2012, only 13 islandhomes (less than 1% of the homes in Maine’s 15 year-round island communities) had participated in Efficien-cy Maine’s rebate program for residential thermal effi-ciency upgrades. Since 2012, the Island Institute hassupported more than 400 island homes (approximately20%) in accessing Efficiency Maine’s programs andcomplete weatherization and heating system upgrades.

Through this work, and the reactions it received fromstakeholders in Maine, the Institute identified severalgeographic, financial, and awareness barriers facingrural households. In an effort to better understand strat-egies for dealing with these barriers, we sought to in-vestigate if comparable challenges were present in othersimilarly situated, rural, heating-dominated areas of thecountry. We expected that the existence of this gapwould be particularly relevant to states similar to Mainewith cold climates, high dependence on heating oil, andat least one-third of residents living in rural areas likeAlaska, New Hampshire, and Vermont. We partneredwith energy efficiency administrators and implementersfrom those states to determine whether the gap existed inthose places as well.

Why rural matters

One in every five Americans lives in a rural area(Census Bureau 2016). Rural communities have histor-ically fed and powered our nation. They make importantcontributions to our economy, our culture, and our his-tory. While rural areas produce much of the energyconsumed in the USA (e.g., oil, gas, wood, wind, etc.),they often pay higher energy prices than more populatedareas (ACEEE 2018) and the median energy burden is33% higher for rural households than the national me-dian (Ross et al. 2018). Compounded by challengessuch as declining population growth, decreasing

educational attainment, and unemployment, this dispro-portionately high energy burden underscores how ruralplaces are often being left behind in the U.S. economy.

While this paper has a clear focus on rural commu-nities, we acknowledge that the terms Brural^ andBremote^ have different meanings in different regions(Yuan 2015). In small states such as Vermont and NewHampshire, services are, at worst, a few hours away byroad. Maine has 15 year-round, unbridged island com-munities accessible only by boat or plane. Many ruralvillages in Alaska are entirely off the road system, so allvendors and supplies must be brought in by plane orboat at great expense. Unless otherwise noted, we usethe Census Bureau’s definition of rural as any placeoutside of an Burbanized area^ (population of 50,000ormore) or an Burbanized cluster^ (population of at least2500 and less than 50,000). When referring to Bremote^communities, we mean those that are either only acces-sible by plane or boat at least some of the year or thosethat are otherwise geographically isolated from popula-tion centers (e.g., communities in northern New Hamp-shire separated from the rest of the state by the WhiteMountains).

Despite these differing definitions of rural and re-mote, we found that Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire,and Vermont share similar barriers to participation inenergy efficiency and there is much that each state canlearn from the others. Some of these similarities, includ-ing the high percentage of rural population, high depen-dence on petroleum fuels for heating, and high percapita energy expenditures, are highlighted in Table 1.Notably, these four states are all in the top 15 for ruralpopulation, top six for percent of homes heated with fueloil, and top 25 for energy expenditures per capita.

Rural households face unique challenges when itcomes to making investments in energy efficiency. Themedian household income for rural households is about4% lower than the median for urban households (CensusBureau 2016), but rural residents pay more for electric-ity and heating oil than their urban counterparts (BLS2013). This means that rural residents often have higherenergy burdens than non-rural households (e.g., Sears2018), spending a higher percentage of their income onenergy than their urban counterparts. The median ener-gy burden among rural households in the USA is 4.4%,compared with the national median burden of 3.3%(Ross et al. 2018). In many rural households, the energyburden exceeds 6%, the threshold considered unafford-able by some researchers (Fisher et al. 2017). Low-

3 The Island Institute is a nonprofit community development organi-zation that works to sustain Maine’s island and coastal communities,and shares ideas and experiences that further the sustainability ofcommunities in Maine and elsewhere. www.islandinstitute.or

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 505

income households in rural areas are disproportionatelyimpacted by high energy expenditures (Gilleo 2018).Figure 1 shows that energy burdens are often muchhigher in rural areas isolated from population centers.

One reason for the higher energy burden is that manyrural communities are more dependent on petroleumfuels for heating (heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas,kerosene, and diesel) due to the limited reach of naturalgas infrastructure. For example, Maine leads the nationin dependency on home heating oil with more than 60%of households using petroleum fuels for space heating;nearly half of all homes in New Hampshire do the same(EIA 2016). A large portion of those households heatingwith petroleum are located in rural areas where naturalgas service is not and likely will never be economicallyviable, and other alternatives such as bulk delivery ofwood pellets may not be available. Petroleum fuel pricesare more volatile and are often purchased with a largeupfront payment upon delivery rather than with costsspread out more evenly over the heating season as withnatural gas or electricity. This can make heating withpetroleum fuel costly and challenging, particularly forlow-income residents. In many remote Alaska villages,for example, fuel oil is the only option for space heatingand can be as much as $10 per gallon due to the addedcost of transporting petroleum fuels and the absence of acompetitive marketplace (i.e., many rural communitieshave only one fuel distributor) (Mooney 2015).

The absence of a centralized heating fuel utility canalso limit funding for thermal energy efficiency pro-grams as many states fund them with surcharges col-lected from electricity and natural gas utilities. The lack

of a centralized heating utility also means that alterna-tive financing options such as on-bill financing arelimited in many rural places. Figure 2 shows that Alas-ka, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are some ofthe only states in the nation where petroleum fuelsremain a major source for space heating.

The age and condition of the housing stock canalso be a cause of high energy burden in rural areas.Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have some ofthe oldest housing stock in the nation (see Table 1),with rural areas of those states tending to have olderhousing stock and a percentage of mobile homesthat increases as the percentage of rural populationincreases (Island Institute 2018). Older homes andmobile homes are often less energy efficient thannewer homes. For example, in Maine, older homeshave been found to be less efficient than newerhomes (NMR Group, Inc. 2015) and across theUSA, residents of mobile homes spend 70% moreper square foot on energy than those living in site-built homes (Ross et al. 2018). These conditions canbe exacerbated in homes owned or occupied byfamilies with low incomes. In a 2018 study, theMaine Office of the Public Advocate found thatmore than 50% of low-income homes had insuffi-cient wall insulation and only 9% of low-incomehomes had an attic insulation rate to the standardsset by Efficiency Maine (R-49) (GDS Associates2018). The existence of the rural efficiency gap isfurther supported by data collected from each stateindicating that participation rates in energy efficien-cy financing and rebate programs can be lower.

Table 1 Summary of key demographic indicators

Alaska Maine New Hampshire Vermont

Percent population in rural areas (rank)A 33.9% (14th) 61.3% (1st) 39.7% (11th) 61.1% (2nd)

Percent of homes heated with fuel oil (rank)B 29.8% (6th) 61.3% (1st) 43.1% (2nd) 41.8% (3rd)

Percent of homes built before 1940 (rank)C 1% (51st) 23%(8th) 21% (12th) 24% (7th)

Energy expenditures per capita (rank)D $6241(2nd) $3968 (9th) $3515 (21st) $3830 (13th)

Average energy burdenE 5% 6% 5% 5%

ACensus Bureau: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.htmlBU.S. Energy Information Agency: https://www.eia.gov/state/compare/C Census Bureau: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_1YR_B25034&prodType=table (2016 data)D EIA: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_pr.html&sid=US. Personal transportation fuel use isincluded in these figuresEDOE: Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool: https://openei.org/doe-opendata/dataset/celica-data

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521506

Methodology

Our research focused primarily on programs supportingresidential weatherization measures, such as air sealingand insulation in single-family homes and one-to-four-unit buildings in heating-dominated regions. We beganour inquiry by reviewing the financial assistance pro-grams offered in each state for residential energy effi-ciency.We then conducted interviewswithmore than 50energy efficiency administrators and implementers oflocal energy efficiency initiatives in Alaska, Maine,New Hampshire, and Vermont.

After our interviews, we analyzed program data pro-vided to us by administrators to determine where ruraland remote residents might have lower participationrates in energy efficiency programs. To provide

additional context on the rural efficiency gap and tosupplement existing literature on rural energy issues,we compiled case studies to highlight how bridgingmodels are being used in each state to address thebarriers to rural energy efficiency. The case studies weredeveloped using data and materials collected from theimplementers and administrators we interviewed.

Our work was guided by an advisory group ofexperts from the four participating states that metfour times during the project and represented thefollowing organizations: Alaska Energy Authority,Efficiency Maine, Efficiency Vermont, the MaineOffice of the Public Advocate, Mitsubishi Electric,the New Hampshire Office of Strategic Initiatives,Renewable Energy Alaska Project, and VitalCommunities.

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 507

3% 9%

PORTLAND

ROCKLAND

MACHIAS

BANGOR

PORTSMOUTH

BURLINGTON

Energy Burden

BANGORANCHORAGE

JUNEAU

FAIRBANKS

ALASKA

MAINE

VERMONT

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

Fig. 1 Energy burden by county or borough in the four states. Source: DOE Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool (2015)

% Households that rely

0% 50%+

g

MAINEVERMONT

NEW HAMPSHIRE

ALASKA

Fig. 2 Percent of households (by county) heating with oil and kerosene in the USA. Source: Census Bureau, American Community Survey(2016)

Some important parts of the energy efficiency land-scape in rural communities could not be included in ourresearch. Our research focused primarily on programssupporting home weatherization measures, such as airsealing and insulation, although some states like Maineand Vermont also offer incentives for other thermalefficiency measures, including heating systems and do-mestic hot water heaters. While there are many othereffective approaches in increasing the adoption of ener-gy efficiency measures and products (e.g., lighting) inrural homes, this paper is focused solely on weatheriza-tionmeasures. Due to our focus on single-family homes,we acknowledge that our findings may have limitedapplicability to multifamily housing in rural areas. Wealso acknowledge that our work has a strong focus onthe role of mission-driven nonprofit organizations asimplementers, as opposed to contractors andmunicipalities.

There are many differences between rural areasacross the country, e.g., demographics, utility modeland rate structures, energy sources, and consumptionpatterns. This paper is not intended to suggest that thestrategies documented here will necessarily be applica-ble to all rural areas in the USA.

Further research is needed to develop a more com-plete picture of the rural efficiency gap and solutions tobridge the gap in these four states and in other parts ofthe country.

Summary of residential weatherization programsoffered in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,and Alaska

Many state and federal agencies offer financial assis-tance programs (i.e., rebates, grants, and loans) to en-courage investments in residential energy efficiencyupgrades. At the federal level, the U.S. Department ofEnergy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Single-Family Housing Repair Loan and Grant Program havebeen established to assist underserved populations, in-cluding low-income and elderly residents, in makinghome energy efficiency upgrades. Funding for theseprograms often falls short of the demand, and anecdot-ally, waiting periods for WAP can be as long as 10–15 years.

At the state level, financial assistance programs areoften driven by statewide goals or legislative mandates

to increase energy efficiency. For example, Maine has astatutory goal of weatherizing 100% of homes (whoseowners are willing to participate) by 2030, and Alaskahas a statewide goal of improving energy efficiency15% between 2010 and 2020 (AEA 2017). To reachthese goals, states will need to address the rural efficien-cy gap in order to deploy energy efficiency at scale.

Each of the four states has considered weatheri-zation programs aimed at helping residents seal andinsulate their homes. These federal programs arecomplemented in some states by incentive programswith no income requirements administered by utili-ties or third-party administrators. Maine, NewHampshire, and Vermont currently also offer aweatherization incentive program without incomeeligibility requirements. Alaska offered a rebate pro-gram without income requirements which wassuspended in 2016 due to budget shortfalls. Thatprogram is included for comparison purposes.

Table 2 summarizes the incentive programs of-fered in each state in addition to WAP. The weath-erization incentive programs summarized are avail-able to single-family residences and rentals of oneto four units. In Alaska and Maine, the programsare available only to primary residences of year-round residents. In New Hampshire, the program istargeted at homes with high energy usage, asassessed through a Home Heating Index. The in-centive structure and contractor eligibility require-ments vary by state.

In all four states, the programs are fuel neutral,4

but in Maine and Vermont, additional incentives areavailable for natural gas customers through theirutility for heating system upgrades or for insulation.However, rural residents do not typically have ac-cess to natural gas, and therefore to these additionalincentives. In addition to an incentive program, thefour states offer financing programs that are open toall program participants. Vermont’s Heat Saver Loanoffers a lower interest rate for lower-income appli-cants, but loan programs targeted specifically atlower-income residents are not common in the statesconsidered.

4 Fuel-neutral programs are open to any household regardless ofwhether they heat with natural gas, heating oil, propane, electricity,or another fuel type.

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521508

Tab

le2

Com

parisonof

residentialw

eatherizationincentiveprogramsin

thefour

states

A

Alaska

Maine

New

Ham

pshire

Vermont

Stateweatherization/energy

efficiency

goal

Improveenergy

efficiency

by15%

between2010

and2020

Weatherize100%

ofachievable

homes

by2030;electric

savingsof

20%

by2020,w

ithincrem

entalsavings

targetsof

~1.6%

peryear

for

2014–2016and~2.4%

peryear

for2017–2019

0.8%

increm

entalenergysavings

in2018,ram

ping

upto

1.0%

in2019

and1.3%

in2020

Average

increm

entalelectricity

savingsof

about2

.1%

peryear

from

2015

to2017

Statewideweatherization

program

name

Hom

eEnergyRebate(H

ome

Performance

with

ENERGYSTA

R)

Hom

eEnergySavingsProgram,

AffordableHeatInitiativ

eHom

ePerformance

with

ENERGYSTA

R(H

PwES)

Hom

ePerformance

with

ENERGYSTA

R(H

PwES)

Program

administrator

AlaskaHousing

Finance

Corporatio

nEfficiencyMaine

EachNHutility,under

the

NHSavesbrand

EfficiencyVermont

Incentivestructure

Perform

ance

basedandcostbased

Based

onmeasuresinstalled

Based

onmeasuresinstalled

Perform

ance

basedandcost

based

Maxim

umincentivefor

weatherizationwork

$10,000for(plus$500

for

pre-

andpostaudit)

$5000

$4000

$2500

Low

-incom

eweatherization

assistance

available?

Yes—WeatherizationAssistance

Program

(WAP)

Yes—WAP,plus

AffordableHeat

Initiative

(EfficiencyMaine)

Yes—WAP

Yes—WAP

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 509

Program participation in rural states

To determine whether there were differences in partici-pation between rural and non-rural areas, we analyzeddata about program participation provided by adminis-trators from Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and Ver-mont. Figure 3 shows that participation in EfficiencyMaine’s Home Energy Savings Program (EMHESP)has been concentrated in counties with major populationcenters. Rural counties in the remote eastern and west-ern parts of the state have seen the lowest participationrates. These low rates of participation, however, are notconsistent across all rural areas, which may suggest thatthe rural efficiency gap can be bridged. EfficiencyMaine has made efforts to build a statewide networkof contractors serving rural and urban communities alikeand has designed its rebate and loan programs to beaccessible to residents across a wide range of incomes.

A similar analysis for New Hampshire did not reveala significant difference in participation in rural areas, yetchallenges of a different sort were identified. WhileFig. 4 does not indicate any clear pattern of participationin the low-income program or the Home Performancewith ENERGY STAR (HPES) in rural areas of the state,

stakeholders from New Hampshire shared that thermalefficiency programs have traditionally been funded atlevels well below the existing demand, meaning thatweatherization programs are consistently over-sub-scribed. This may be because the HPES program isfunded exclusively with electric ratepayer funds and thatthe cost-effectiveness of the program is measuredthrough electricity and natural gas savings. Unlike itsneighbors Maine and Vermont, New Hampshire doesnot use revenues from the Regional Greenhouse GasInitiative (RGGI) to fund its energy efficiency programs(RGGI 2019). RGGI funds have been a crucial source ofstable funding for the weatherization incentive programsadministered by Efficiency Maine and Efficiency Ver-mont. New Hampshire stakeholders also noted thatexisting programs may not be serving the moderate-income customer segment whose incomes are too highto qualify for income-eligible programs and for whomthe cost of a HPES project (average cost of $6000) maybe unaffordable.

In Vermont, program participation data did not showa strong correlation between the percentage of ruralpopulation and participation in Efficiency Vermont’sHPES program but there does appear to be a slight

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521510

Participating Households

per Housing UnitPORTLAND

ROCKLAND

MACHIAS

0.9 4.0%

Source: Efficiency Maine

BANGOR

PORTLAND

ROCKLAND

MACHIAS

21% 100%

Source: US Census

% Rural

BANGORBANGOR

Fig. 3 Percent rural population (left) vs. Efficiency Maine partic-ipating households per housing unit by county (right). Sources:Efficiency Maine Home Energy Savings Program and Affordable

Heat Initiative Participating Households for Fiscal Years 2016 and2017; Census Bureau (2010).

decrease in program participation as the percentage ofrural population increases (Efficiency Vermont 2017).Like New Hampshire, the average cost of a HPESproject ($7800) may be unaffordable for manymoderate-income residents who do not qualify forincome-eligible programs. However, through a perfor-mance measure that is used to evaluate program effica-cy, Efficiency Vermont is seeking to ensure that effi-ciency funds are equitably distributed by county. Effi-ciency Vermont is also designing programs that may bemore effective in rural places such as its Do-It-Yourselfrebate program.

In Alaska, program participation data show that thestate’s approach to designing programs with rural com-munities in mind can make a difference. Alaska’sWeatherization Program was designed to be accessibleto income-eligible households in both urban and ruralareas, offering up to $30,000 per home for weatheriza-tion upgrades. This level of funding was key to address-ing the high upfront cost of this work, particularly fortransportation costs related to serving the state’s mostremote, difficult-to-reach communities located off theroad system. This program is supported by community-

based organizations and initiatives such as the RurALCAPEnergyWise program highlighted in the case studybelow. As a result, residents throughout the state havebeen able to use the program. In contrast, the AlaskaHousing Finance Corporation’s Home Energy Rebateprogramwas, by design, not targeted specifically at ruralcommunities and therefore, participation was limitedprimarily to the BRailbelt,^ the region defined by theelectric grid serving the more populated Anchorage-Fairbanks areas. The maps in Fig. 5 show the differentspatial reach of the two programs. The difference in thephysical locations of participation between these twoprograms demonstrates that energy efficiency projectsare possible in all parts of the state if they are designed toaddress the barriers to serving rural communities.

Barriers to rural energy efficiency

Through interviews conducted with administrators andimplementers from the four participating states, andanalysis of available program participation data, weidentified the barriers listed below. While some of these

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 511

Participation in Low-IncomeProgram Per Housing Unit

0.03% 0.28% 0.05% 0.13% 21% 100%

Home Performancewith ENERGY STAR ProgramParticipation Per Housing Unit % Rural

Source: NHSaves (2018) and Census Bureau (2010)Fig. 4 New Hampshire’s participation in Low-Income Program per housing unit, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR programparticipation per housing unit, and percent rural population. Sources: NHSaves (2018); Census Bureau (2010).

barriers may not be unique, we found that they are oftenexacerbated in rural communities. These barriers fallinto three categories: geographic barriers, awarenessand access barriers, and financial barriers.

Geographic barriers

Geographic isolation

Rural communities can be challenging places to live.Physical distance from resources (e.g., human, finan-cial) is often further exacerbated by lack of economiesof scale in small communities, making it harder for ruralresidents to access financing, incentives, and profession-al services to implement energy efficiency projects. Forexample, Maine island residents interested in signing upfor federally funded weatherization assistance throughthe Community Action Program low-income programmust qualify for the federal Low-Income Home EnergyAssistance Program (LIHEAP) (MSHA 2019). To signup for LIHEAP, they must travel by ferry to an office onthe mainland, adding time and expense. As outlinedbelow, the geographic challenges of small, sparselypopulated towns can be a significant barrier to energyefficiency.

Workforce availability

Inmany instances, there is a lack of qualified contractorswilling to serve rural areas and/or unavailability of a

local, skilled workforce to complete energy efficiencyupgrades. For example, in rural Northern Vermont, thereare very few contractors participating in EfficiencyVermont’s HPES program (Juillerat, VEIC, PersonalCommunication, September 2018). Similarly, as of Oc-tober 2018, there are no energy auditors based on any ofthe Maine islands that are registered to work underEMHESP (Efficiency Maine 2018). Figure 6 showsthe distribution of contractors participating in residentialweatherization programs in Maine, New Hampshire,and Vermont. These maps illustrate how efficiency ser-vices are often more difficult to obtain in rural areas.

Financial barriers

Upfront cost

The high upfront cost of energy upgrades is a barrier toenergy efficiency, particularly for low-income house-holds (e.g., EDF 2018). This barrier can create anBenergy efficiency gap^ in which homeowners do notinvest in efficiency upgrades even if they know that theywill save money in the long run because the out-of-pocket cost is too high. In some cases, this gap can beexacerbated in rural areas due to additional costs asso-ciated with travel to remote areas. Anecdotally, theseadditional expenses can increase the overall cost of anenergy upgrade by more than 50% in isolated commu-nities (MacDonald, Island Institute, Personal Commu-nication, August 2018). For example, the cost of barging

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521512

ANCHORAGE

JUNEAU

FAIRBANKS

ANCHORAGE

FAIRBANKS

fewer participants

moreparticipants

Program participation in the Home Energy Rebate Program

Program participation in theWeatherization Program

Source: Alaska EnergyAuthority program data

JUNEAU

Fig. 5 Program participation in the Home Energy Rebate Program and the Weatherization Program. Source: Alaska Energy AuthorityProgram Data (2008–2015)

an insulation truck to Monhegan Island, Maine, can bearound $2000, a cost that is passed on entirely to onecustomer unless the work is arranged in a way that linesup multiple customers to share the cost (Ibid).

Lower incomes and higher energy burden

Median income is lower in rural parts of Alaska, Maine,New Hampshire, and Vermont (Census Bureau 2016),and energy burden increases along with the percentageof rural population in all four participating states(Juillerat VEIC, Personal Communication, September2018), meaning that rural residents often pay a greaterproportion of their incomes toward their utility bills(e.g., Sears 2018). Therefore, rural residents often can-not afford the necessary efficiency upgrades and aremore susceptible to the Benergy efficiency gap^ thantheir more urban counterparts.

Credit access and debt aversion

While financing tools like loans and even on-bill financ-ing with traditional credit requirements offer access tocapital for home energy upgrades, these tools may notbe accessible to rural communities. For example,Vermont’s 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan identifiedfinancing aversion as a key barrier to increased invest-ment in energy efficiency (Vermont Department ofPublic Service 2011) and a 2015 survey of moderate-income Vermont residents found that more than three-quarters of respondents were unwilling to take on debtto finance efficiency upgrades (EFG 2018). Similarly,analysis of a pilot program conducted in Maine to

promote the use of air-source heat pumps showed thatonly 13% of program participants took advantage of on-bill financing when it was offered (EMI Consulting2014). Most rural customers in Alaska and Maine arenot served by a heating fuel utility and therefore do nothave access to on-bill financing for thermal efficiencymeasures.

Awareness and access barriers

Lack of access to traditional marketing channels

Success of traditional marketing strategies may be lim-ited in rural areas. For example, programs that relyheavily on online marketing may not effectively reachrural communities where access to reliable broadbandinternet is often limited (NAS 2016). In states with olderpopulations like Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont,many residents may not have any access to internetwhatsoever.Weatherization contractors tend to advertisein their own service territories, but for those remotecommunities not served by a local contractor (e.g., ruralAlaska villages and Maine islands), there may be verylow awareness of available programs.

Lack of awareness or skepticism of existing resources

Residents of small towns and rural communities oftenrely on word-of-mouth recommendations from neigh-bors and Btrusted messengers^ (third parties with novested interest in selling products or services), whendeciding to make home improvements. If no one in theircommunity has weatherized their home, residents may

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 513

- Vermont Home Performance

with ENERGY STAR Program

qualified contractors

% Rural

21% 100%

% Rural

21% 100%

% Rural

21% 100%

in the NHSaves program

Contractors providing

energy assessment and air

sealing services in Maine

- One Contractor

Vermont’s Home Performance

with ENERGY STAR program

MAINE

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

Fig. 6 Contractors and businesses participating in Weatherization Incentive Programs in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Sources:Efficiency Vermont website (April 2018); NHSaves (2018); and Efficiency Maine website (March 2018).

not be aware of existing financial assistance programs.A cultural or financial preference to Bdo it themselves^and/or skepticism of assistance programs that requirethe use of contractors to complete the work may furtherlimit participation in programs (MacDonald, IslandInstitute, Personal Communication, August 2018).

Addressing the barriers

To respond to these barriers, administrators and imple-menters in the four participating states have developed anumber of Bbridging models.^ These include new pro-gram designs and strategies that prioritize equitableaccess to financial assistance, innovative models thatlower barriers to participation, and creative partnershipsthat increase the accessibility and effectiveness of effi-ciency programs. Many of these strategies align with therecommendations highlighted in ACEEE’s reportReaching Rural Communities with Energy EfficiencyPrograms (Shoemaker et al. 2018).

The following case studies provide examples ofbridging models in practice and demonstrate how theyare connecting rural communities across Alaska, Maine,New Hampshire, and Vermont with financial assistancefor energy efficiency, therefore removing the barriersfacing rural communities. These models often combinemultiple strategies to help bridge the Brural efficiencygap,^ and we believe they have relevance in other ruralregions beyond the four participating states. Thesebridging models and case studies are also featured inthe Bridging the Rural Efficiency Gap Toolkit, whichincludes templates and information for those interestedin replicating the models featured on the websites of theIsland Institute and the Governor’s Energy Office(Island Institute 2018).

Case studies

To provide additional context on the rural efficiency gapand to supplement existing literature on rural energyissues, we compiled case studies to highlight how bridg-ing models are being used in each state to address thebarriers to rural energy efficiency. The case studies weredeveloped using data and materials collected from theimplementers and administrators we interviewed.

Addressing geographic barriers

Geographically equitable program design

Some states have designed policy and programs thatresult in an equitable implementation of efficiency pro-grams for rural communities. For example, one of thecriteria that the Vermont Public Utility Commission usesto evaluate Efficiency Vermont’s energy efficiency pro-grams is a Bgeographic equity indicator,^ which stipu-lates that funds should be distributed equitably acrossthe state (Vermont Public Utility Commission 2017). InAlaska, low-income households in communities locatedoff the road system (i.e., rural villages) qualify forenhanced financial assistance through the Weatheriza-tion Program that is designed to work in rural areas andthat provides funds to cover the added cost to serve them(DOE 2016). As demonstrated in Fig. 5, this programhas supported weatherization upgrades in homes in ruralareas throughout the state.

Aggregated demand and collective purchasing

Aggregated demand is a programmatic approach thatleverages the power of collective purchasing to in-crease consumer interest in energy efficiency andachieve economies of scale in small, rural commu-nities. This reduces upfront costs, logistical barriers,and awareness barriers. In rural places where suffi-cient demand and economies of scale are lacking,aggregated demand and collective purchasing canprovide an extra incentive for contractors to provideservices in underserved markets. The WeatherizationWeeks organized by the Island Institute and its com-munity partners deploy aggregated demand and col-lective purchasing to bring weatherization servicesto remote island communities in Maine (see theWeatherization Week case study below).

Community partnerships

Creative partnerships between community organiza-tions, energy efficiency contractors, and administratorslike those seen in Vermont and New Hampshire throughVital Communities’ Weatherize Upper Valley programcan significantly increase participation in rural towns(see the Weatherize case study).

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521514

Hire and train local labor

Hiring local residents to complete energy efficiencyupgrades in their own communities can be an effectiveway to address workforce shortages and benefit localeconomies. For example, the Rural Alaska CommunityAction Program’s Energy Wise program hires localresidents to conduct energy assessments and install en-ergy efficiency measures, using a neighbor-to-neighborapproach and creating local employment opportunities(see the Energy Wise case study).

Travel and lodging support for workforce

One way to remediate the lack of a qualified work-force in rural areas is to reimburse travel and lodg-ing costs for auditors, vendors, and contractors. Forexample, in Alaska, the efficiency program providedtravel expense reimbursement for auditors whenthree or more home ratings were needed in a ruralcommunity (AEA 2018). In Maine, the Island Insti-tute has used grant funding to provide ferry ticketsand lodging to contractors, reducing the barriers toserving remote island communities by simplifyingthe complex logistics and eliminating the additionalcosts of serving these places (Macdonald, IslandInstitute, Personal Communication, August 2018).

Combining forces and resources

Many rural towns are governed by a volunteer board,with little or no paid staff to manage town business,limiting the capacity to take on larger projects or coor-dinate volunteers. For example, many rural Alaska com-munities do not have a tax base and are therefore unableto dedicate municipal resources to energy efficiencyinitiatives. Potential solutions to this problem includesharing an energy coordinator position across severaltowns, as in the Bcircuit rider^ program run by theAdirondack North Country Association (ANCA 2019)and combining municipal building and residential build-ing upgrades to engage an entire community, as inAlaska’s Whole Village Retrofit initiatives (see theBCross-sector collaboration^ section for more details).

Case study 1: BWeatherize^ campaigns take energyefficiency to the community scale Weatherize UpperValley is an initiative addressing geographic and work-force availability barriers in Vermont and New

Hampshire. Coordinated by the nonprofit organiza-tion Vital Communities, Weatherize Upper Valleyenlisted community volunteers to create their ownlocal outreach teams responsible for increasing par-ticipation. Vital Communities invited contractors tooffer free or discounted home energy consultationsthrough a regional Request for Proposal (RFP) pro-cess and coordinated outreach with the local volun-teer teams (Vital Communities 2019). This approachcreated economies of scale in small communities andmade the vendor selection process easier for partici-pants, allowing them to access the HPES rebatesoffered by Efficiency Vermont and the NHSaves pro-gram. The partnership between contractors and thevolunteer teams generated leads for the contractors,helping justify the discounted services, and ensuredthat contractors were accountable to their customers.Pilot Weatherize campaigns in 14 Vermont townsresulted in 100 weatherization projects in just6 months, an increase of 40% above their typicalannual average. During the program’s second round,six New Hampshire towns with virtually no historyof weatherization projects helped weatherize over 90homes with help from seven New Hampshire con-tractors. A similar Weatherize initiative in Rockland,Maine, increased participation in Efficiency Maine’srebate programs from 35 rebates awarded in 2016 to85 rebates awarded in 2017, an increase of more than140%. The campaign also successfully reached 20low- and moderate-income households (versus nonein 2016). This model has since been replicated andadapted elsewhere in Maine, including Ellsworth andMount Desert Island. These types of community-based initiatives are now supported by administratorssuch as Efficiency Maine, which produced a Collec-tive Purchase Toolkit (Efficiency Maine 2019a), andEfficiency Vermont, which is scaling Weatherizecampaigns across the entire state. These efforts arealso supported by technical resources, such as theBrighter Vermont Community Energy Dashboard(BVCED 2019) and the Alaska Energy Data Gate-way (AEG 2019).

Addressing financial barriers

Flexible program design

Flexible program design allows for greater participationamong rural and low-income residents. For example,

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 515

EMHESP and Affordable Heat Initiative rebates allowparticipants to obtain an energy assessment and basicweatherization for as little as $50 (Efficiency Maine2019b). This program also permits staged upgrades,allowing homeowners to make home efficiency im-provements as their budgets allow, rather than requiringthat all measures be completed at once. The programalso allows customer co-pays to be paid by a third party,such as a local charity or fuel assistance fund, furtherlowering financial barriers. Efficiency Vermont ispiloting a do-it-yourself weatherization program thatprovides rebates to cover the cost of air sealing andinsulation materials (Efficiency Vermont 2019a). Theprogram does not require homeowners to use a certifiedcontractor but provides guidance to help homeownersperform the work correctly.

Innovative repayment options

On-bill repayment programs, flexible enough forcustomers with creditworthiness issues, can be aneffective tool by allowing consumers to pay forhome energy improvements or efficient heating/cooling system upgrades over time. Green Moun-tain Power, the largest utility in Vermont, ispiloting a partnership with NeighborWorks of West-ern Vermont’s Heat Squad program to integratefinancing of thermal efficiency measures, such asweatherization, into its customers’ electricity bills.Administrators are also developing loan products toincrease participation in hard-to-serve populations.Efficiency Vermont’s Heat Saver Loan and Effi-ciency Maine’s Home Energy Loan are designedspecifically for low- and moderate-income resi-dents. For example, Efficiency Maine offers loanswith no fees and fixed interest rates to homeownerswith credit scores as low as 580 and terms as longas 10 years. Efficiency Vermont offers interest ratesas low as 0.99% for income-eligible homeowners(Efficiency Vermont 2019b; Efficiency Maine2019c).

Case study 2: BWeatherization Weeks^ connectingisland residents to air sealing and insulationservices The Island Institute’s award-winning5

Weatherization Week model eliminates barriers to par-ticipation in energy efficiency financial assistance pro-grams for island communities by aggregating the de-mand for energy assessments and air sealing anddeploying these services in bulk over the course of asingle week (Island Institute 2019). Unlike Weatherizeinitiatives, a Weatherization Week focuses on complet-ing as many energy efficiency upgrades as possible overthe course of 1 week, making it well suited to remotecommunities that are difficult for contractors to access.Energy assessments and basic air sealing for 8–10homes are scheduled over a week’s time, using rebatesavailable through Efficiency Maine to keep the cost ofparticipation as low as $50 out of pocket. The Weather-izationWeek approach reduces the logistical challenges,lowers the cost of participation, builds local awarenessof available financial assistance (e.g., rebates, loans),and increases uptake of additional efficiency measuresin the future (e.g., heating system upgrades, lightingretrofits). Efficiency Maine’s flexible program design,which allows customers to install weatherization mea-sures in stages, according to their budgets, enabledislanders of all income levels to participate in the pro-gram (Efficiency Maine 2019b).

Using the Weatherization Week model, Monhe-gan Island, a small island 12 miles offshore (with ayear-round population of approximately 70 and amedian household income of $26,250), successfullyweatherized more than 85% of its year-round homes.The impacts of Weatherization Weeks in island com-munities throughout the state have been significant.Between 2010 and 2011, only 13 island homes par-ticipated in a previous iteration of HESP. Since2012, when a redesigned, more flexible HESP waslaunched and the Island Institute began partneringwith communities and contractors, the Weatheriza-tion Week model has helped more than 400 islandhomeowners (comprising approximately 20% of thetotal year-round island housing stock) access energyefficiency services and clean-energy finance pro-grams. These islanders have invested more than$275,000 in energy upgrades to date, with cumula-tive savings of $2.5 million (MacDonald, IslandInstitute, Personal Communication, August 2018).This model has been replicated in other areas ofthe state such, as the City of Eastport—the eastern-most city in the USA—and has informed the devel-opment of other initiatives, such as the WeatherizeRockland program.

5 The Island Institute received Efficiency Maine’s Customer of theYear award in 2013 for its work connecting island residents to Effi-ciency Maine programs through Weatherization Weeks.

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521516

Addressing awareness and access barriers

Educating and leveraging community-basedorganizations

Community-based organizations are using social net-works and volunteers to increase awareness and accel-erate uptake of energy efficiency. Volunteers may beinterested in starting a weatherization campaign, butthey may not know where to start. Some organizationshave established very detailed templates and protocolsthat can be replicated in rural communities (see theWeatherize case study and the Energy Wise case studyfor details).

Convening stakeholders to share informationand resources

Bringing stakeholders together to share informationabout program models and available resources can helpaddress awareness and access barriers. For example, theAlaska Energy Efficiency Partnership (AEEP), coordi-nated by the Alaska Energy Authority since 2010, isimproving the coordination of efforts to increase uptakeof energy efficiency across the state (AEEP 2019).AEEP brings stakeholders together for quarterly meet-ings, so they can share information and resources. Sim-ilarly, the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation con-vened a series of stakeholder meetings and a BNorthCountry Energy Efficiency Value Chain Workshop^ in2018 focused on identifying ways to address barriers toenergy efficiency in Coös County, New Hampshire, thenorthernmost part of the state (VEIC 2019). In Maine,the United Way of Midcoast Maine hosts BHeatingMeetings^ each fall in which resource agencies andother partners from around the Midcoast region shareinformation about resources available for low-incomehouseholds, including weatherization programs and fuelassistance (MacDonald, Island Institute, PersonalCommunication, August 2018).

Cross-sector collaboration

Partnerships that are designed to address multiplelocal priorities are also showing promise in engaginghard-to-serve populations. Working across sectorscan be particularly impactful in rural communitieswhere, for example, small business owners,homeowners, and community volunteers are often

o n e a n d t h e s am e . T h e Ma i n e C l im a t eTable (MCT), a statewide partnership of individualsand organizations from the business, nonprofit, phil-anthropic, and government sectors working to in-crease civic engagement on climate action, activelysupports cross-sector outreach to increase participa-tion in energy efficiency programs by ensuring thatthere is Bno wrong door to warmth^ (MCT 2019). Asa result, the Island Institute, a MCT member,partnered with Mano en Mano, a nonprofit that workswith agricultural workers and immigrants in ruralparts of the state, to host a Weatherization Weektargeting Spanish-speaking households (Mano enMano 2019). This partnership allowed a populationthat, due to geographic isolation and language bar-riers, had not been able to access financial assistanceprograms to make much-needed energy efficiencyupgrades in their homes. In Alaska, the Alaska Na-tive Tribal Health Consortium has begun integratingenergy efficiency into its existing outreach efforts tohelp Alaskan villages develop crucial water and san-itation infrastructure (ANTHC 2019). Similarly, theAlaska Energy Authority’s Whole Village Retrofitproject in the remote village of Nightmute includedcommunity-owned residential buildings, such asteacher housing, in addition to municipal and com-mercial buildings (AEA 2009). This cross-sector ap-proach helps leverage limited resources and takesadvantage of the knowledge that individuals workingin rural, publicly owned facilities can also be effec-tive champions for residential energy efficiency.

Case study 3: Energy Wise outreach program lays thefoundation for energy efficiency action A 2011 reportcommissioned by the Alaska Energy Authority(AEA) highlights the importance of combining ef-fective education and behavior change with a clearpath for consumers to follow to improve energyefficiency in their homes (Lister and Ives 2011).After conducting the needs assessment, AEA testeda suite of outreach and engagement strategies. Itidentified the Rural Alaska Community Action Pro-gram (RurAL CAP)’s Energy Wise program, and itscommunity energy efficiency education BBooth in aBucket^ kit, as the most effective and replicablemodels for overcoming the barriers to adoption ofenergy efficiency (AEA 2013). Energy Wise wasimplemented alongside community-wide weatheri-zation initiatives supported by the Weatherization

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 517

Program, which provided $30,000 per home forenergy efficiency upgrades and enhanced the effica-cy of these weatherization projects by engaginghomeowners through neighbor-to-neighbor outreachand energy education. RurAL CAP hired local crewsand trained them in building science and weatheri-zation. These local crews conducted basic homeenergy assessments and talked with homeownersabout the best options for reducing their energyuse. The crews then installed $300 worth of energyefficiency supplies and demonstrated to participantshow they could save more energy in their homesthrough energy conservation and behavior-changetechniques (John 2016).

The Booth in a Bucket kits provide a simple, cul-turally relevant, and transportable system to engagecommunities in the fundamentals of energy efficiencyand conservation. Designed for use in remote Alaskanvillages, the kits contain interactive activities thatdemonstrate home energy concepts, as well as a listof materials and step-by-step instructions about howto organize an energy fair in a community. The activ-ities demonstrate how insulation works, how heat istransferred, and how air flows in a house. The kits canbe assembled for approximately $100 each and easilyfit into a standard five-gallon bucket, making themaccessible to communities reachable only by smallplane. Between 2009 and 2012, the Energy Wise pro-gram was implemented in 18 communities and 1530

households, helping save an average of $700 perhousehold per year (AEA 2013).

Conclusion

Our research demonstrates that the barriers to adoptionof energy efficiency can be significant in rural andremote heating-dominated areas and can differ fromthose seen in more densely populated areas. These bar-riers fall into three distinct categories: geographic bar-riers, financial barriers, and awareness and access bar-riers. As demonstrated in our three case studies, there arenumerous methods that have proven successful in bridg-ing these gaps in rural and remote areas (Table 3).

To address geographic barriers, communities andorganizations can (1) create geographically equitableprogram designs, (2) utilize aggregated demand andcollective purchasing, (3) leverage community partner-ships, (4) hire and train local labor, (5) provide traveland lodging support for contractors and others, and (6)combine forces and resources across communities.

To address the financial barriers, communities andorganizations can (1) utilize flexible program designrather than a one-size-fits-all approach and (2) utilizeinnovative financing options that are accessible andattractive to rural residents.

To address awareness and access barriers, communi-ties and organizations can (1) educate and leverage

Table 3 Barriers and bridging models expressed in 3 case studies

Case study Barriers addressed Bridging strategies used

Vermont and New Hampshire: WeatherizeUpper Valley

• Workforce availability• Upfront cost• Lack of access to traditional marketing

channels• Lack of awareness or skepticism of

existing resources

• Aggregated demand and collectivepurchasing

• Community partnerships• Educating and leveraging community-based

organizations• Cross-sector collaboration

Maine: Weatherization Weeks • Geographic Isolation• Workforce availability• Upfront cost• Lack of access to traditional marketing

channels• Lack of awareness or skepticism of

existing resources

• Aggregated demand and collectivepurchasing

• Community partnerships• Travel and lodging support for workforce• Flexible program design• Educating and leveraging community-based

organizations• Cross-sector collaboration

Alaska: Energy Wise • Geographic Isolation• Lack of awareness of existing resources

• Hire and train local labor• Educating and leveraging community-based

organizations

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521518

community-based organizations, (2) convene stake-holders to share information and resources, and (3)encourage and utilize cross-sector collaborations.

While none of these approaches represents a panaceafor dealing with the rural energy efficiency gap inheating-dominated regions, each represents a provenmethod for dealing with the barriers identified in thisresearch. The challenges to rural communities vary, andeach will require their own approach to expanding ac-cess to and uptake of energy efficiency projects. How-ever, this research provides clear examples of how res-idents of four rural states can move projects forwardgiven their own unique barriers and opportunities.

Recommendations

There are many differences between rural areasacross the country, e.g., demographics, utility modeland rate structures, energy sources, and consumptionpatterns. This paper is not intended to suggest thatthe strategies documented here will necessarily beapplicable to all rural areas in the USA. However,acknowledging that there are additional barriers toenergy efficiency in rural areas is an important firststep. Policymakers, administrators, and implemen-ters can and should work together to design anddeploy bridging models like the ones outlined inthis paper that lower barriers to accessing financialassistance for energy upgrades. Bridging models andprograms that reduce geographic, financial, aware-ness, and access barriers can accelerate uptake ofenergy-saving measures in rural areas and have thepotential to reduce the degree to which the energyburden is impacting rural households and localeconomies. Partnering across sectors and leveragingthe resources of federal agencies such as USDARural Development, Community Action Agencies,and community-based organizations can amplifythe impact of these efforts. The approaches thatAlaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont aredeveloping serve as examples of the bridges that canconnect rural America to a more efficient and pros-perous future.

More research is necessary to determine whetherand to what extent the rural efficiency gap exists inother regions, as well as in housing sectors notcovered by this paper, such as multifamily and/orrental homes and homes in cooling-dominated

regions as well as regions with both significantheating and cooling. Additional research should alsoexamine the potential for residents to leverage theresources of multiple energy efficiency programs.The increasing focus on these issues from effortssuch as the ACEEE rural research initiative(ACEEE 2018) and the National Association ofState Energy Officials (NASEO 2019) allows re-searchers to address these research gaps and contin-ue to support dialog and the exchange of informa-tion on these topics among key stakeholders.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the advisorsof the Bridging the Rural Efficiency Gap project for theirvaluable feedback and contributions to this paper. Theseadvisors include Sarah Brock, Vital Communities; Katie Con-way, Alaska Energy Authority; Joe Doiron, New HampshireOffice of Strategic Initiatives; Bridget Doxsee, EfficiencyMaine; Dana Fischer, Mitsubishi Electric; Agnes Gormley,Maine Office of the Public Advocate; Shaina Kilcoyne, Re-newable Energy Alaska Project; Paul Markowitz, EfficiencyVermont; and Brandi Martin, U.S. Department of Energy.Special thanks also go to the Island Institute staff involvedin the research and development of this paper: MarydaleAbernathy, Nick Battista, Harry Podolsky, and Jack Sullivan.This paper was created with the support of the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy’s State Energy Program and philanthropicdonors of the Island Institute including the Elmina B. SewallFoundation, the Horizon Foundation, and Jane’s TrustFoundation.

Funding This material is based on work supported by the U.S.Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renew-able Energy (EERE), under Award Number DE-EE0007780.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no con-flicts of interest.

Disclaimer This paper was prepared as an account of worksponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither theU.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of theiremployees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or as-sumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use wouldnot infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to anyspecific commercial product, process, or service by tradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not neces-sarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government orany agency thereof.

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 519

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestrict-ed use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, providedyou give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate ifchanges were made.

References

Adirondack North Country Association (2019). Circuit Rider’sProgram. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.adirondack.org/energy-circuit-riders.

Alaska Energy Authority (2009). Village Energy EfficiencyProgram. Accessed July 24, 2018. http: / /www.akenergyauthority.org/Efficiency/veep.

Alaska Energy Authority (2013). Community energy efficiencyeducation BBooth in a Bucket^ kits – implementation model.Implementation Model, Alaska Energy Authority.http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programs/AEE/EEC.Accessed 24 July 2018.

Alaska Energy Authority (2017). Energy efficiency & conserva-tion. Accessed April 19, 2018. http:/www.akenergyauthority.org/Efficiency.

Alaska Energy Authority (2018). Weatherization and HomeEnergy Rebate Program Units by AEA Energy Region2008–2015.

Alaska Energy Data Gateway (2019). Accessed February 1, 2019.https://akenergygateway.alaska.edu/.

Alaska Energy Efficiency Partnership (2019). Accessed February1, 2019. http://www.akenergyefficiency.org/about-us/.

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (2019). AccessedFebruary 1, 2019. https://anthc.org/.

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (2018). Ruraland small-town communities. Accessed June 22, 2018. http:/aceee.org/topics/rural-and-small-town-communities.

Brighter Vermont Community Energy Dashboard (2019)A c c e s s e d F e b r u a r y 1 , 2 0 1 9 . h t t p s : / / www.vtenergydashboard.org/.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Expenditures of urban and ruralhouseholds in 2011. February. Accessed July 25, 2018.https:/www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/expenditures-of-urban-and-rural-households-in-2011.htm#_edn1.

Census Bureau (2016). American community survey 5-year esti-mates, Housing units, median year structures built..https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

Department of Energy (2016). Energy efficiency efforts in Alaska |Department of Energy. June 27. Accessed March 20, 2018.https:/www.energy.gov/eere/ampedup/articles/energy-efficiency-efforts-alaska.

Department of Energy (2015). Low-Income Energy AffordabilityData (LEAD) Tool. Accessed June 6, 2018. https:/openei.org/doe-opendata/dataset/celica-data.

Efficiency Maine (2018). Contractors providing air sealing andassessment. Accessed March 27, 2018. https:/www.efficiencymaine.com/at-home/vendor-locator/.

Efficiency Maine (2019a). Collective Purchase toolkit. AccessedFebruary 1, 2019. https://www.efficiencymaine.com/at-home/collective-purchase/.

Efficiency Maine (2019b). Home Energy Savings Program.Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.efficiencymaine.com/at-home/home-energy-savings-program/.

Efficiency Maine (2019c). Home Energy Loan. AccessedFebruary 1, 2019. https://www.efficiencymaine.com/at-home/energy-loans.

Efficiency Vermont (2018). Home performance contractors.Accessed March 27, 2018. https:/ www.efficiencyvermont.com/find-contractor-retailer.

Efficiency Vermont (2019a). DIY Weatherization program.Accessed February 1, 2019. https:/www.efficiencyvermont.com/rebates/list/diy-weatherization.

Efficiency Vermont (2019b). Heat Saver loan program. AccessedFebruary 1, 2019. https:/www.efficiencyvermont.com/rebates/list/diy-weatherization.

EMI Consulting (2014). Emera Maine Heat Pump Pilot Program.Final Report, Seattle, WA: EMI Consulting. Accessed 2018.

Energy Information Agency (2016). Maine - compare - U.S.Energy Information Agency (EIA). Accessed March 20,2018 . h t tp : / /www.e ia .gov / s t a t e / compare /?s id=ME#?selected=ME-NH.

Energy Futures Group (2018). Vermont Clean Energy FinanceReport. Accessed December 20, 2018. https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Renewable_Energy/CEDF/Reports/Vt._Clean_Energy_Finance_Rpt_2018.pdf

Environmental Defense Fund (2018). Low-income energy effi-ciency, a pathway to clean, affordable energy for all.Accessed June 28, 2018. https:/www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/liee_national_summary.pdf.

Fisher Sheehan and Colton (2017). Home energy affordabilityg a p . Ac c e s s e d J u n e 29 , 2 0 18 . h t t p : / www.homeenergyaffordabilitygap.com/index.html.

Fowlie, M., Greenstone, M., & Wolfram, C. (2018). Do energyefficiency investments deliver? Evidence from theWeatherization Assistance Program. The Quarterly Journalof Economics., 33(3), 1597–1644.

GDS Associates, Inc. (2018). Maine low-income household ener-gy efficiency baseline study. Final Report, Augusta, Maine:The Maine Office of the Public Advocate.

Gerarden, T., Newall, R., Stavins, R. (2015) Deconstructing theEnergy-Efficiency Gap: Conceptual Frameworks andEvidence. American Economic Review 105(5)183–86

Gilleo, A (2018). Rural energy burdens and energy efficiencyopportunities. NASEO 2018 Energy Policy OutlookConference. February 8. energyoutlook. naseo.org/data/energymeetings/presentations/Gilleo%2D%2DRural-Energy-Burden.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

Gillingham, K., & Palmer, K. (2014). Bridging the energy effi-ciency gap: policy insights from economic theory and em-pirical evidence. Review of Environmental Economics andPolicy. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ret021.

Island Institute (2018). Bridging the Rural Efficiency Gap toolkit.http:/www.islandinstitute.org/bridging-rural-efficiency-gap.Accessed 15 Dec 2018.

Island Institute (2019).WeatherizationWeekmodel. Ahttp://www.islandinstitute.org/what-works/high-cost-energy.

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521520

Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1994). The energy-efficiency gapwhat does it mean? Energy Policy, 22(10), 804–810.

John, J. (2016). Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc.’sEnergy Wise Program. Accessed July 1, 2018. https:/www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f30/14_jolene _ john_tues0429.pdf.

Juillerat, J. (2018). Vermont energy investment corporation per-sonal communication. Communications between authors andstaff members involved in energy programs related to weath-erization and energy efficiency.

Lister, C., & Ives, D. (2011). Recommendations for Alaska EnergyEfficiency and Conservation Public Education andOutreach. Anchorage: Alaska Energy Authority.

MacDonald, S. (2018). Island Institute personal communication.Communications between authors and staff members in-volved in energy programs related to weatherization andenergy efficiency.

Maine Climate Table (2019). Accessed February 1, 2019.https://www.maineclimatetable.org/.

Maine State Housing Authority (2019). Home ImprovementProgram details. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.ma inehous i ng .o rg / p rog rams - s e rv i ce s /HomeImprovement/homeimprovementdetail/weatherization.

Mano en Mano (2019). Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.manomaine.org/.

Mooney, C. (2015). Alaska’s quest to power remote villages —and how it could spread clean energyworldwide.WashingtonPost. August 14. Accessed March 20, 2018. https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/14/how-alaskas-quest-to-power-remote-villages-could-help-the-rest-of-the-planet/?utm_term=.02f4afba9615.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.(2016). Electricity use in rural and islanded communities:summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: The NationalAcademies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23539.

National Association of State Energy Offices (2019). Statewidecomprehensive energy plans. Accessed March 25, 2019.https://naseo.org/stateenergyplans.

NMRGroup, Inc. (2015).Maine single-family residential baselinestudy. Reports, Efficiency. Maine. September 14. AccessedOctober 15, 2018. https: /www.effic iencymaine.com/docs/2015-Maine-Residential-Baseline-Study-Report-NMR.pdf.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (2019). Accessed February 1,2019. https://www.rggi.org/.

Ross, L., Drehobl, A., and Stickles, B. (2018). The high cost ofenergy in rural America: Household Energy Burdens andOpportunities for Energy Efficiency. July. Accessed August6, 2018. http:/aceee.org/research-report/u1806.

Sears, J. (2018). Characterizing residential energy burden in CoösCounty, New Hampshire. White Paper: Vermont EnergyInvestment Corporation.

Shoemaker, M., Gilleo, A., and Ferguson, J. (2018). Reachingrural communities with energy. Efficiency Programs.September 19. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://aceee.org/research-report/u1807.

Vermont Department of Public Service (2011) 2011Comprehensive Plan. https://publicservice.vermont.gov/publications-resources/publications/energy_plan/2011_plan.

Efficiency Vermont (2017) Efficiency Vermont HPwES participa-tion data. Accessed December 19, 2018. https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/Media/Default/docs/plans-reports-highlights/2017/efficiency-vermont-annual-report-2017.pdf

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (2019). Building wealthand reducing energy burden in the North Country. AccessedFebruary 1, 2019. ht tps: / /www.veic .org/media-room/insights/insights/2019/01/30/building-wealth-and-reducing-energy-burden-in-the-north-country.

Vermont Public Utility Commission (2017) Triennial Plan 2018–2020, Prepared for the Vermont Public Utility Commission.https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/about/annual-plans-reports. Accessed 15 Nov 2018

Vital Communities (2019) Weatherize Upper Valley. AccessedFeb r u a r y 1 , 2019 . h t t p s : / / v i t a l c ommun i t i e s .org/energy/weatherize/.

Yuan, G. (2015). Rural electrification goes local: recent innova-tions in renewable generation, energy efficiency, and gridmodernization. IEEE Electrification Magazine., 3(1), 16–24.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard tojurisdictional claims in published maps and institutionalaffiliations.

Energy Efficiency (2020) 13:503–521 521