Findings from a Pilot Led Bulb Exchange Program at a Neighborhood Scale

8 In the U.S. 44% of low-income households struggle to pay their utility bills, affecting their ability 9 to afford necessities such as food and health expenses. Several government and utility funded 10 energy efficiency programs exist to assist those experiencing energy insecurity. In Salt Lake 11 City, Utah, there is a high demand for, but low availability of, energy efficiency services in 12 underserved neighborhoods creating an opportunity for creative community-based programs to 13 fill this inherent gap. This pilot project, involving the exchanging of LED bulbs in Salt Lake City, 14 highlights the development of a community-based energy efficiency program that aims to bring 15 energy savings to a uniquely targeted portion of the city and determines its feasibility in 16 addressing energy insecurity at a larger scale. Through the 8-month project duration, 1,432 17 bulbs were exchanged at 23 events reaching 181 households in low-income areas. Through a 18 year of use, these bulbs are estimated to save residents approximately $18,219 in electricity 19 bills and reduce CO2 emissions from power plants by 122.23 metric tons, in addition to a 20 savings of $4,400 in social cost of carbon as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection 21 Agency. Since this pilot reached less than 1% of households, we extrapolated a reach of 2%, 22 5%, and 7.5% and found substantial potential decreases in power plant emissions and financial 23 savings. As this project is ongoing and being expanded, we discuss relevant findings that will 24 help shape future community-based models so that they are appropriately deployed and more 25 effective in alleviating local energy insecurity. 26


Introduction
Range to the west, the Traverse Mountains to the south, and the Great Salt Lake to the 40 Northwest, resulting in a topographical bowl of mountains that almost completely surround the 41 SLV. 42 This unique geography has serious implications on local air quality and makes Salt Lake County 43 especially vulnerable to both wintertime and summertime air pollution issues. SLCo is especially 44 susceptible to winter inversions that trap ground-level particulate matter in the valley. During the 45 winter, elevated fine particulate matter (PM2.5) results from a combination of increased local 46 urban emissions due to heating demands and atmospheric inversion events. Much like the 47 majority of the Western U.S., the SLV faces elevated ozone levels due to large amounts of solar 48 radiation and high elevation, in addition to emissions from fossil fuel combustion. 49 within Salt Lake County, Utah, along with average household income. 52 These seasonal periods of poor air quality in the SLV are significant enough to warrant national 53 attention. In 2018, the American Lung Association's annual "State of the Air" report recognized 54 the Salt Lake City metro area (SLC/Provo/Orem) as one of the "most polluted" cities for short-55 term particle pollution -number 8 on the list (American Lung Association, 2018). Additionally, 56 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated Salt Lake County-along with six other 57 counties in Utah-as a "serious nonattainment" area for failing to meet the National Ambient Air 58 Quality Standards (NAAQS) for short term (24-hour) particulate pollution for PM2.5, particulates 59 that are 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller (Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 2017). 60 The average amount of winter days when air quality exceeds unhealthy levels, also known as 61 red air days, is between 15-20 a year, and individual pollution events last between 5 and 7 days. the Salt Lake Valley. Using a state-of-the-art mobile observation platform that includes 65 instrumentation mounted on light rail trains (Mitchell et al., 2018) and a news helicopter 66 (Blaylock, Horel, & Crosman, 2017), large spatial and temporal gradients in pollutant 67 concentrations have been observed across Salt Lake County. The health impacts of poor air 68 quality in Utah range from high incidences of pneumonia (Pirozzi et al., 2018), to increased 69 hospitalizations due to respiratory issues (Horne et al., 2018). Furthermore, emerging 70 associations between poor air quality and negative health outcomes such as pre-term births 71 (Hackmann & Sjöberg, 2016) and suicides (Bakian et al., 2015) have been found in the Salt 72 Lake Valley and Utah, furthering the importance of pollutant reduction strategies. 73

Socioeconomic divide & air quality implications
74 While the entire Salt Lake Valley is prone to experiencing severe air pollution, certain parts of 75 the city are more likely to experience elevated levels of PM2.5. These areas are largely 76 concentrated in the commonly defined "West Side" of Salt Lake City that lies west of I-15. 77 Substantial spikes in air particulates on SLC's West Side are largely attributable to its numerous 78 industrial facilities that include the airport, railways, refineries, as well as heavily trafficked 79 highways ( Figure 2). The combination of industrial polluters and significant vehicle emissions 80 contribute to an air quality landscape that contains larger and more instances of emissions 81 sources than other parts of the SLV. 82 Street, dividing the East from the West Side. Symbol size is associated with relative emission 85 magnitude. 86 In addition to differences in air quality, the West Side of SLC also has a lower median 87 household income than other parts of the city (U.S. Census Bureau; American Community 88 Survey, 2018) and is the most culturally and ethnically diverse part of Utah. The combination of 89 these factors poses challenges to the West Side to overcome the air quality burdens it faces. 90 Residents of this area are also more likely to speak a language other than English, which makes 91 many utility and advocacy group messages relating to air quality, relayed predominantly in 92 English, unhelpful to the population. Additionally, West Side residents of lower socioeconomic 93 status are unlikely to possess the financial resources necessary to make home improvements 94 that protect their health and simultaneously lower energy bills. 95

Socioeconomic divide & energy insecurity 96
The West Side's lower median household income compared to the rest of SLC also makes its 97 population more vulnerable to experience energy insecurity. Energy insecurity (also often 98 referred to as energy poverty or fuel poverty), is the inability to afford to pay monthly utility bills 99 to support proper heating, cooling, and other energy needs in the home (T. G. Reames, 2016 surrounding the provision of energy. In the U.S. there is an expectation of an energy-intensive 127 standard of living with a low cost for utility services (Sovacool, 2009). This, coupled with a 128 general lack of knowledge about the intensity of energy use or how energy is produced, creates 129 obstacles in alleviating the effects of energy injustice (Sovacool, 2009 Lake City Council adopted a joint resolution to transition the Salt Lake City community to 100% 134 renewable electricity by 2032 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2040 (Salt 135 Lake City, 2016). This city-wide goal is intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated 136 with Salt Lake City's residential and commercial electricity usage, as 62% of the city's electricity 137 is generated by burning coal (Rocky Mountain Power, 2015). The Salt Lake City government 138 has pursued a multifaceted approach to reach these ambitious emissions reduction goals. In 139 addition to programs and goals related to reducing emissions from energy use, Salt Lake City 140 also seeks to incorporate social equity issues into its sustainability, energy, and air quality 141 efforts. burdens. The HEAT program is another federally funded income-qualifying program that 166 provides services to high energy-burden households in the form of utility bill and energy crisis 167 assistance for households with incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level. 168 Localized networks of government agencies and nonprofits distribute the funds for these 169 programs. 170 While these essential programs aim to address injustices caused by energy disparity, they also 171 undergo challenges in meeting the great need of services. Areas of difficulty in program 172 execution are seen in the distribution of funds, variability in effectiveness of energy cost savings, 173 and split-incentive issues. Bird  how long they will reside in their residence, making high-capital cost efficiency investments risky 191 if they do not remain in the unit long-term (Bird & Hernández, 2012). 192 In addition to government funded assistance programs, many utilities also offer low-income 193 financial support and energy efficiency upgrade programs. Despite these programs, there is 194 high demand for, but low availability of, energy efficiency services in underserved communities 195 throughout Salt Lake City and surrounding areas. Two utilities serve Salt Lake City: Dominion 196 Energy (natural gas) and Rocky Mountain Power (electric), both of which offer assistance 197 programming. But these utility-sponsored programs fall short of the vast demand, with low-198 income households occupying a small proportion of spending for demand-side management 199 programs. One study has examined utility and municipality low-income program spending in 51 200 US cities, including Salt Lake City, finding that both Dominion Energy and Rocky Mountain 201 Power hold some of the lowest expenditures on low-income programs. Rocky Mountain Power 202 was within the five lowest spending electric utilities, allocating $0.30 per low-income customer. 203 In contrast, the highest spending electric utility, serving Boston, allocates over $90 per low-204 income customer (Drehobl & Castro-Alvarez, 2017 programming is to develop partnerships with non-energy related community organizations that 217 work directly with low-income households (Cluett et al., 2016). Community-based energy 218 efficiency projects can empower and encourage members of a community to take action 219 collectively while surpassing individual barriers to energy efficiency upgrades and education (T. 220 G. Reames, 2016). Using a community-based approach allows organizations and communities 221 to hold productive conversations about the connections of energy access and social justice 222 issues (T. G. Reames, 2016). This framework encourages the development of programs that 223 provide assistance to communities of color, renters, and low-income groups through trusted 224 networks of existing organizations. 225 In order to develop equitable energy efficiency programs that are also more cost-effective and 226 scalable than traditional weatherization service, programs can focus on the provision of 227 residential lighting upgrades, at no cost to the resident, instead of whole-house retrofits, which 228 are inherently limited in terms of scale. LED bulbs provide an excellent opportunity to deliver 229 immediate savings in a low-cost, non-invasive way that is appealing to both renters and 230 homeowners alike. LED light bulbs use 75% less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs, 231 and can last up to twenty-five times longer (T.G. Reames, Reiner, & Stacey, 2018). Additionally, 232 they require minimal effort to install, making them a great first step towards implementing 233 energy efficiency measures. However, the higher capital cost of bulbs and limited availability 234 can be a barrier for low-income communities (T.G. Reames et al., 2018). This has motivated the 235 development of programs that distribute or exchange old, inefficient light bulbs for energy 236 efficient LEDs. 237 reporting, and only one of the five programs utilized a light bulb "swap" format (VanderLaan, 247 2018). A summarized comparison of program elements can be found in with other organizations to host a "Cut Pollution-Mow Electric" lawnmower exchange program in 257

Community Residential Energy Efficiency Program Models
2018. This program subsidized the cost of over 700 electric lawnmowers for residents living in 258 non-attainment areas. Participants, selected by a lottery system, were required to exchange a 259 functioning gasoline lawnmower, and received a significant discount on the cost of the electric 260 mower (participants pay $100 while the mower retails for $329). Waivers for the $100 fee were 261 available for those in need. This program exchanged over 800 electric lawnmowers and cut over 262 91,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions annually (Christiansen, 2018 Energy, the natural gas utility, there is a notable overlap of low-income residents and residents 308 with a higher-than-average consumption of natural gas in these neighborhoods (Camp, 2018). 309 While the bulk of energy efficiency actions capable of improving local air quality are tied directly 310 to reducing natural gas emissions, these actions and technologies are often more expensive 311 and harder for low-income homeowners or renters to implement, especially without existent 312 ideological buy-in to the importance of energy efficiency. 313 The UCE pilot was created with the aim of starting a larger dialogue surrounding an awareness 314 of energy efficiency and air quality issues in the West Side. The program also addressed energy 315 insecurity problems in the area by delivering immediate and measurable energy savings. In 316 order to accomplish these aims, the UCE pilot contained several novel and notable features. 317 the community, anticipating that events would be more enticing to community members who 366

Provision of LEDs
were previously unfamiliar with Utah Clean Energy and its work. These events occurred at a 367 variety of locations located within Salt Lake City target ZIP Codes 84104 and 84116, and 368 included events held at: senior centers, libraries, schools, community centers, and parks. When 369 possible, we sought to hold these light bulb exchanges at events that were focused on cultural 370 heritage, health, large-scale community festivals, or community council meetings. The UCE pilot 371 also sponsored one longer-term bulb exchange in a community center. The strategic goal was 372 to make participation more convenient to potential participants who were otherwise unable to 373 participate due to time constraints. 374 In order to promote individual light bulb exchange, UCE utilized Facebook's targeted ad feature 375 to reach residents of the two ZIP Codes, as well as posted flyers around the target communities. 376 We also worked with community event organizers to brainstorm additional methods of 377 promoting specific Neighborhood Light Swap events. For certain events, UCE also employed 378 additional tactics in order to better tailor promotional efforts to that target audience. For 379 example, one Light Swap event was held at a health fair hosted by a county government senior 380 citizen center. Operating under the assumption that many attendees of that senior center did not 381 have Facebook, UCE staff instead gave a brief presentation about the program one week prior 382 to the event taking place and distributed flyers to remind them to bring light bulbs to the health 383 fair later in the week. As a result, participation rates were one of the highest of the 23 total Light 384 Swaps. In addition to these tactics, the UCE pilot was also featured on local news stations, 385 radio, print newspapers, and a local podcast. household. This data was used to both determine program success in reaching a population 392 representative of the area's demographic diversity, and in helping to iteratively adjust program 393 outreach and messaging strategies. 394 Utilizing the data collected from participant surveys and exchanged light bulbs, we were able to 395 determine: 396 • The spatial distribution of program participants throughout participating ZIP Codes, and 397 the relative distance between participating households and swap locations. 398 • The energy savings and emission reductions resulting from this program, which was 399 based on actual wattage of exchanged bulbs compared to LEDs and was calculated in 400 terms of annual kWh savings and carbon dioxide emissions reductions. 401 • The percentage of program participants that either fell below the Federal Poverty Line or 402 met the criteria to be classified as "low-income," "very low-income," or "extremely-low 403 income" according to the Federal Income Guidelines for Salt Lake City (Department of  404 Housing and Urban Development, 2018  hours at a community center to provide greater convenience for residents interested in 528 participating but unable to attend specific events. 529 In order to gauge the success of outreach, we included a required question on the survey 535 asking how participants heard of the program. 92 percent of households responded to that 536 question, revealing that the most common way participants found out about the Light Swap 537 program was through Facebook (25%), followed by "at the event", and "at the senior center" 538 (both 13% As previously discussed, understanding these demographics (especially those that correlate 549 with a greater likelihood to experience energy insecurity such as income, ethnicity, and renting), 550 is imperative to future community program work. An examination of these figures suggests that 551 future iterations of this program should pursue stronger collaboration with organizations, 552 leaders, and government services agencies associated with vulnerable communities in order to 553 encourage greater participation by community members who would benefit the most from 554 energy efficiency. 555

556
The spatial analysis of the participating households was made possible through the collection of 557 self-reported addresses from respondents, which were kept confidential aside from their use for 558 analytical purposes. Of the 181 participating households, 177 addresses were utilized in spatial 559 analysis as there were 4 participating households that did not disclose an address or disclosed 560 an address that was unable to be read or geolocated. Figure 4 shows a heatmap resolved at 561 0.5-mile resolution for each participant and includes swap event locations. 562  shown as black dots, target ZIP codes are outlined in red and household income by ZIP code is 566 also displayed. 567 The event location type with the highest number of participants was the library, which saw 40 568 participating households across 4 events. This was closely followed by a community center, 569 which was the location of the ongoing Light Swap and two other events seeing 35 participating 570 households. 571 Some findings of the spatial analysis of the program were: 572  97.80% of participating households were able to be geolocated. 573  92.65% of geolocated homes (164 homes) were found to be within a one-mile radius of 574 an event location. 575  Of the geolocated households, 3.95% (7 homes) fell outside the target ZIP Codes due to 576 accidental participation. that the UCE pilot could achieve are listed in Table 2. 586 Power charges Utah customers using a tiered rate design, which ranges from $0.08 -$0.14 in 590 the summer (May through September) and $0.08 -$0.11 in the winter (October through April). 591 Because of this range, UCE assumed an average of $0.11 to utilize in this calculation (Rocky 592 Mountain Power, 2014). 593 3.4 Taking Energy Savings to Scale: Estimated Impact 594 Table 3 reflects the outcome of extrapolated increased participation in the ZIP codes of 84104 595 and 84116, reflecting the assumptions in SI.7. Calculations are based on a 2%, 5%, and 7.5% 596 participation rate in the targeted ZIP codes. 597 598 Table 3. Estimated impact of increased participation in 84104 and 84116 ZIP codes. 599 The outcome of the present value of summed net benefits due to valued avoided carbon and 600 electricity savings is shown in Table 4. 601 602 1 The value of electricity savings listed for each year corresponds to only the savings associated with the bulbs exchanged in that year.  Ambassador is a representative (or a small team of representatives) that will 1) teach residents 671 in the target ZIP Codes about the importance of energy efficiency and 2) help residents cut 672 energy waste in their homes through organizing and hosting creative and impactful events at 673 convenient locations in the community. The Energy Ambassadors initiative seeks both to 674 achieve energy and pollution reductions while furthering the mission of each participating 675 organization through the awarding of a grant to support their core mission. Through this 676 program branch, Empower SLC seeks to reach more diverse households than the UCE pilot, as 677 it has the potential to overcome community distrust, language, or cultural barriers. 678

Actual Neighborhood Light Swap Pilot
In the future, UCE envisions the Empower SLC program moving beyond LEDs in order to 679 encapsulate greater energy-saving opportunities and financial, energy, and emissions impacts. 680 Three upgrades, smart thermostats, furnace filters, and window film, are devices Empower SLC 681 is considering offering as part of this free residential program. 682 As discussed, the UCE pilot was intended to be a well-rounded, collaborative community 683 program. Through continued improvement in developing this program, there is real potential for 684 this work to influence local air quality and regional greenhouse gas emissions.  Table SI.4 Low and high estimated percentages of participating households that would be 754 considered at least "low-income" by SLCo but may also fall into "very low-income" or "extremely-755 low income" categories as well. Also included is the estimated percentages of participants that 756 would qualify for state weatherization services. 757 Low Estimate-Households qualifying as "low-income" a (SLCo standard) High Estimate-Households qualifying as "low-income" a (SLCo standard)