|
The Results Are In!
By Chuck Clinton
The recent June, 2006 NASEO survey of all the state energy
offices (SEO’s) in the USA has been completed, taking a measure of its
membership on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the founding of
the organization. I want to share with you the “headlines,” that is, some of
the major findings.
Where applicable, comparisons will also be made to results of the 1989
survey, which was completed during the organization’s third year of
existence.
The state energy offices collectively control a budget of $1.5 billion in
the current fiscal year. Respondents (77%) reported, however, that they
expect a significant downturn in available funding for next fiscal year,
indicating they project only a total budget in the range of $1 billion. When
the same question was asked of the SEO’s in 1989, they reported controlling
approximately $1 billion. This year California’s budget alone accounts for
$300 million, while in 1989 Oregon’s budget amounted to $107 million.
The total number of employees in all SEO’s amounts to 1361, for an average
SEO staff size of 27. Next year respondents project a loss of an average of
one full time staffer, down to 26. No doubt this tracks with the predicted
downturn in funding.
When asked specifically how the downturn in funding would be handled,
directors responded overwhelmingly by “cutting staff or cutting programs.”
What accounts for the anticipated downturn in funding? Three answers were
routinely given: SEP cuts, fewer Special Projects, and dwindling PVE monies.
SEO director salaries range from $42,500 to $126,000, with the average being
$82,443. (Five directors chose not to answer this question.)
Regarding length of service, a couple of very interesting patterns emerged
from the survey data. One out of five SEO directors has been in office less
than one year. Only three (6%) have served longer than fifteen years (23,
28, and 29 years respectively). [Editorial comment: make that two, as I have
officially retired now from DC government service.] 42% have served from one
to five years; 20% have served six to ten years; and 12% have served eleven
to fifteen years. [Editorial comment: perhaps NASEO should consider a school
for new directors, just as NARUC does for newly named utility
commissioners.]
The largest block of SEO’s reside in economic development or commerce
departments (32%). Another third (36%) are spread evenly over natural
resources or environmental agencies (12% each) or are independent agencies
(12%). The remaining third are located in numerous other bureaucratic
locations, e.g., lt. governor’s office, PUC.
Fourteen state energy offices operate WAP; ten said they administer LIHEAP.
When asked to list their program priorities, the top four were:
A second tier of priorities included: commercial, financing,
and agricultural programs.
When the same question was posed back in 1989, the top two responses were:
-
commercial,
-
institutional,
followed closely by:
-
residential,
-
alternative energy, and
-
planning and regulation.
A second tier of priorities back then included
transportation, government, and agricultural programs.
Conclusions that can be drawn from these data are that government programs
are much more important to SEO’s seventeen years later, while commercial
programs have dropped in importance, as have institutional ones. Both
alternative energy and residential programs have remained high priorities of
SEO’s.
Next, respondents were queried about involvement with Energy Star, an
initiative jointly sponsored by DOE and EPA. 84% reported being Energy Star
partners. 62% indicated having at least one full time employee dedicated to
the program, who more often than not focuses on marketing and promotion.
Most states said they use multiple funding sources to operate the program.
63% said they’d operate more Energy Star programs, if technical assistance
were provided. Further, they indicated that their three top areas of need
for additional help are:
72% of respondents reported using NASEO’s Energy Star
website, while 96% said they use EPA or DOE materials.
Respondents were then asked about the Energy Programs Consortium (EPC),
created by NASEO along with the groups that represent weatherization (NASCSP)
and energy assistance (NEADA) directors in order to assist states
deregulating electricity and creating system benefit charges programs. More
than half of the survey respondents reported never having heard of EPC and
another 10% didn’t respond. Of the 40% who said they had heard of EPC, 72%
said they’d like more technical assistance, and 55% asked for more policy
making guidance. [Editorial note: these findings comport nicely with EPC
Executive Director Mark Wolfe’s vision of broadening EPC’s mission.]
When asked about possible ways DOE could improve its service to SEO’s, two
answers most often came in: increased funding – SEP in particular, and any
other general purpose monies – and more state-by-state technical assistance.
In addition, a theme emerged in comments supplied, that SEO directors wished
DOE would treat them more as partners and less as contractors.
The respondents also said, in answering an open ended question about
challenges faced, that there were two dominant ones: funding and staffing.
Many other answers were given, but fell into no pattern.
A former city administrator in DC for whom I worked often said “if you can’t
count it, you probably didn’t do it.” It was in that spirit that survey
questions #26, 28, and 29 were asked. What do you as a SEO do to quantify
results of your efforts that impact on energy savings (#26), your state’s
economy (#28), and air quality (#29)? Two thirds claimed they measured
energy savings that resulted from their efforts, but only 40% said they
quantified the impact of their programs on either the state’s economy or the
environment. [Editorial comment: clearly this is an area where NASEO can be
of greater assistance to its member states.]
One state director, Rebecca Wagner, specifically asked that information be
collected on what SEO’s do to coordinate various proposal submissions. A
pattern emerged of comprehensive assistance from the SEO’s, ranging from
publicizing of the solicitations and recruiting partners for responses, to
providing grant writing assistance and letters of support where appropriate,
and also serving as a clearinghouse for applications and submitting them
through Grants.gov.
The response rate to date has been 89%, meaning six of 56 jurisdictions
still need to turn their responses in to the NASEO or DCEO websites where
the survey instrument can be accessed. I am pleased to say that, of the six,
three have told me here at our annual meeting that they intend to submit
their responses promptly! 89% was also the response rate back in 1989. Our
goal is 100% participation.
All data collection and analysis on the forty-six questions in the 2006
NASEO survey has been performed by the planning and evaluation staff of the
DCEO, Nebiat Solomon, Belien Tadesse, and Sosina Tadesse. Many, many thanks
go to them. Kudos also go the DCEO staffers Joe Morcos and Woody White, both
of whom lent considerable technical assistance to the project.
A project review committee includes Peter Smith (NY), Dub Taylor (TX), Chris
Benson (AR), Jeff Pillon (MI), and myself (DC), along with NASEO’s executive
director Diane Shea and counsel Jeff Genzer. They will review the final,
complete report and then release it to the general NASEO membership. The
target date for this release is the end of this month.
One more issue remains that I would like to address. In the 1989 survey, we
included a “pink sheet” section, which was intended, at the suggestion of
then NASEO chair Mitch Beaver (IN), to both assess organization needs and
measure performance of NASEO’s leadership, staff, committees, and services.
Much useful data was collected, and the lessons learned helped NASEO grow as
an organization. Similar questions should be asked in the next survey, and
should prove as helpful as was the case in 1989.
Lastly, I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you briefly of my own
plans, now that I am embarking on the next phase of my professional career.
My goal is to continue to push for energy efficiency through the network of
state energy offices. Two wonderful opportunities have been afforded me.
Sentech, Inc., of Bethesda, MD, has hired me as director of state energy
programs. They have worked extensively with DOE, and with SEO’s in Hawaii,
Texas, and Alaska, to name a few. Mark Wolfe, executive director of EPC, has
also asked me to assist with initiatives there funded by DOE, EPA, and the
Ford Foundation – all aimed at helping SEO’s.
I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the NASEO survey results, and
I look forward to working with you in the future!
|