Leadership Opportunities with the Low Income Weatherization Program in Oregon

1. Leadership Opportunities with the Low Income Weatherization Program in Oregon Maximizing Equity, Economy, and Environment

2. What is the problem? Why is weatherization an important starting point? Why does the state of Oregon’s program need to be changed? What leadership strategies are most appropriate for addressing the problem?

3. What is the problem? • The rising costs of energy are overburdening Oregonians, especially those classified as low-income. • The LIWP as managed by Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) doesn’t offer enough flexibility to maximize equity, economic, and environmental value. • Collected data suggests that new practices for reducing energy usage in low-income housing developments is needed and that the LIWP is a good candidate for implementing these practices. • There is the need for a new leadership strategy which opens up dialogue between OHCS and the affordable housing community regarding the LIWP.

4. Why is weatherization an important starting point? The LIWP has defined metrics of measurement that can be tested against. The program is a powerful legal and financial incentive that brings OHCS, the developer, and input from local authorities together at a common table. OHCS is currently experiencing a period of organizational redesign, creating a window of opportunity to make significant changes in LIWP.

5. Demonstration Project of Cottonwood II Senior Apartments

6. Categories for Measurement-LIWP

7. Outside air temperature is 95.5 degrees F on a July afternoon. Building siding is registering between 154.4 degrees and 157.3 degrees. Anthony Watts, Watts Up 2009

9. Home Improvement Blog, 2011

10. It’s A Wonderful Life, RKO Pictures, 1946

11. Recticel Insulation from France Archiexpo.com 2012 Building science.com, 2012

12. Cottonwood II, site walk 8-27-09

19. Why is it important to change the LIWP? • Monetary Costs • Attempts to maximize energy reductions through costly and complicated mechanical and electrical upgrades rather than more passive solutions, which focus on an “envelope first” approach. • Values expensive modeling programs and certification processes. • Doesn’t lend itself to information sharing between the developer and OHCS. • Lacks malleability and a way to act as a performance based program. • Third-party verifications are expensive.

20. Why is it important to change the LIWP? • Equity and Environmental Costs • Doesn’t maximize equity to residents, property owners, or the general public. • Doesn’t do as much to help the environment as it can.

21. What leadership strategies are most appropriate for addressing the problem? • Existing barriers • Communication barriers as defined by a government and service provider relationship. • Mid-level managers have no power to advocate for championing a cause, goal, or program. • There is an absence of a shared understanding of how best to provide value. • Resignation to the status quo because of organizational culture and capacity.

22. What leadership strategies are most appropriate for addressing the problem? • Opportunities • Cashing in on OHCS’ recent hierarchical shifts. • Highlighting the history between organizations; we’ve been working together successfully for over 20 years. • Co-producing builds organizational capacity. • The data provided by the case study from Cottonwood II maximize value for the three E’s. • Utilizing the power of existing communication channels OON.

23. Proposed OHCS Org. Chart for LIWP, Oregon.gov 2012

24. Conclusions and a path forward… Leadership at Northwest Housing Alternatives (NHA) needs to take initiative to open communication with OHCS. NHA needs to continue collecting benchmark data that demonstrates the economical, equitable, and environmental data to enlist growing support for our weatherization strategy. As a matter of policy, NHA needs to adopt an “envelope first” approach to all of our developments, both new construction and rehab.