Low-income Healdsburg residents who participate in the City Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program will now have 100% of their electric bill taken care of by the city for the next three months, until June, in light of the coronavirus pandemic and the financial stress it may cause families.
“Currently the CARE program provides low-income discounts to our electric grid rate payers, about 415 of them, and these (households) are those with income levels of 200% of the national poverty level, which is about 50% area median income (AMI),” said Healdsburg City Manager David Mickaelian.
Fifty percent of AMI for Sonoma County is considered “very-low-income.”
Those who are enrolled in the program typically have 25% of their electric utility bill discounted by the city, however, Healdsburg City Council voted unanimously to make the change from 25 to 100% at their most recent meeting held virtually on April 6.
According to the city of Healdsburg, those who qualify for the program are households that meet the following maximum income guidelines:
-One to two persons in a household with an annual income of $34,480.
-Three persons in a household with an annual income of $43,440.
-Four persons in a household with an annual income of $52,400.
-Five persons in a household with an annual income of $61,360.
-Six persons in a household with an annual income of $70,320.
-Seven persons in a household with an annual income of $79,280.
-Eight persons in a household with an annual income of $88,240.
Those who are the current recipients of Medi-Cal/Medicaid, food stamps/SNAPS, the National School’s Free Lunch program and other low-income programs are also likely to qualify for the CARE program.
Councilmember Joe Naujokas asked if folks can apply if they’ve recently had their income drop below that threshold.
“Sure. What they would do is fill out the application electronically, fill out salary history information and we’d then review the application and assuming they meet the criteria we’d then provide that subsidy,” Mickaelian said.
The money used to offset the cost of CARE comes from a $2 or so charge on residents’ utility bill, called “The Public Benefits Charge.”
Vice Mayor Evelyn Mitchell asked if there is going to be a monetary shortfall if the city is covering 100% of the bill for those enrolled in CARE.
Mickaelian said there are adequate funds to support this at this point.
Those who submitted public comments on the item via email supported the change, however, one resident, Anne Niederberger, suggested that the council expand the program to those who have recently applied for unemployment.
To apply for the CARE program, visit: https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/173/Utility-Programs.
At the same meeting on Monday night, city council nixed the idea of issuing a $50 utility bill credit to all residential accounts for the months of April and May, funded through the city’s Cap and Trade auction proceeds with the intent that residents could use the extra money for an energy efficiency project.
“Through having a utility, the state’s Cap and Trade program provides the city with freely allocated allowances and those allowances can be sold in an auction and the proceeds for that can be used to benefit electric rate payers as well as meeting the goals of AB 32,” said Terry Crowley, the city’s utility director. “AB 32’s goals are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the past the city has used these funds to promote the adoption of electric vehicles, implement energy efficiency strategies and develop the city’s REACH code,” among others.
Councilmembers questioned whether this was the best use of Cap and Trade funds and if it was really the best way to help residents during the pandemic.
Several residents expressed similar concerns.
“As a homeowner I welcome ways to reduce my expenditures in this unparalleled time,” resident Bob Benoit wrote to the council. But, “I’d rather my $100 ($50 per person, $100 total for a household) go to people in greater need, or be parcelled out. $100 would do so much more for someone without shelter or food.”
Niederberger echoed Benoit’s thoughts and said, “There is no reason to believe that it will have the intended outcome, namely to ‘help customers, after all shelter-in-place orders are lifted, jump start energy efficiency projects that will have a lasting effect to lower their energy usage…’ A far better alternative — one that would deliver immediate economic stimulus and cut GHG emissions and energy bills far into the future — is to increase the available rebate levels on efficient product purchases, which can be made online during the crisis (like clothes washers, dishwashers, room air conditioners, water heaters). For a limited time, the program could pay up to 50% of the cost of super-efficient products for the general population and 90% of the cost for income-qualified customers (combined with the bill discounts, this should put super-efficient purchases within reach of those who need them most).”
Other residents such as Tim Unger, pointed out that a $50 bill credit would likely go unnoticed by residents.
“There are a lot of good points made,” Councilmember David Hagele said of the public comments. Hagele said the Cap and Trade funds are really intended for reducing GHG emissions.
“I tend to agree with David,” Naujokas said. “I also think we can do better. There are a lot of good ideas on how we can do this. I agree with the belief that folks may not even know that we did a credit. We should slow down and get a bit more input and I like the idea of going out to the community to figure out how to better apply the Cap and Trade fund.”
Mayor Leah Gold directed staff to return to council with a proposal for the intended purpose of reducing GHG emissions and to come back with ways on how the city could help people who need it the most during the COVID-19 crisis.
