11 Sep Low income families are better off with Energy Efficient homes than just lower utility bills

If you could teach a family how to fish or give them some fish, which has the longest lasting impact on the dietary needs of this family? We all know the answer. If we could support low income families by lowering their utility bills through either giving them a credit on their statement or by making their homes more energy efficient so they would have lower bills, which solution would you choose?

Here is an example of a five-home neighborhood development in Kentucky.  Each home is extremely air tight and well-insulated, and has solar panels which will generate electricity that supply the local power grid.  Because of this technology, homeowners can expect to receive payments from the power company each year.  As a matter of fact, one family was just credited $88.36 on their first full month’s utility bill. Today the homes are being occupied by low-income families and, because of the extremely energy-efficient features of the homes, the families now have the financial freedom to use the funds they once spent on utility expenses for other needs. Read the full article here.

Here in Austin we have a low income assistance program and per October 1st we will actually see a charge on everyone's bill that pays for most of the program. We are using that money for financial assistance, not to lower bills. With many energy efficiency programs having a return on investment of less than 5 years, and some less than half a year, we are throwing money away year after year. We would actually save money in the long run as we would not have to keep supporting low-income families every year. Why not invest in this now and have lower cost to society, lower rates and more financial freedom for these families?

What would you do if you were mayor or a council member of a city which owns a utility? Why not find a way (perhaps a bond program) to get the funds for the initial investment and start to actually help families reduce energy consumption, increase their free disposable income and increase their property value. We need to see more of this. Not just one house at a time. What about 10,000 homes per year for starters?