More than 305,000 state families cannot afford their energy bills: Operation Fuel

Operation Fuel Inc., the statewide non-profit that tries to help people cope with their utility bills, is out with the 2014 edition of their annual report on the affordability of energy in the state. It’s chilling, in more ways than one. The statewide gap has more than tripled since 2006.  There now are over 305,000 Connecticut households that can’t afford their energy bills, with a gap of $784 million. Now is the time to add an extra dollar to your monthly utility remittance.

Here is the link:

http://www.operationfuel.org/wp-content/uploads/Connecticut-2014-HEAG-Final.pdf

Some findings:

“1. While the Home Energy Affordability Gap varies somewhat based on geography within
the state of Connecticut, there can be no question but that the Affordability Gap is a
statewide phenomenon. The 2014 statewide Affordability Gap of $784 million is split
nearly evenly over each of Connecticut’s Congressional districts. While the distribution
of the Affordability Gap is not identical over Connecticut’s Congressional districts, the
variation is relatively small.
2. Care must be taken in using the statewide average Home Energy Affordability Gap as
illustrative of the affordability (or lack thereof) in any particular region of Connecticut on
a per-household basis. The per-household Affordability Gap in most Congressional
Districts differs from the statewide average, sometimes substantially.
3. Congressional District 4 consistently makes the lowest contribution to the total statewide
Affordability Gap. In each of the Federal Poverty ranges presented, District 4 has the lowest percentage contribution to the state total. In contrast, while Congressional District 3 makes the greatest contribution to the statewide Affordability Gap for households with income less than 50% of Federal Poverty Level, it falls to the third lowest contribution by the time incomes reach 185% to 200% of Poverty, with District 2 making the largest contribution.

4. Statewide, the three lowest Poverty Level ranges (0-50%, 50-100%, 100-150%), despite
their substantively different Affordability Gap levels on a per-household basis, contribute
roughly similar amounts to the aggregate home energy affordability gap. This equal
contribution occurs in every region.
5. In all Congressional Districts except District 2, the aggregate Affordability Gap drops
significantly at between 150% and 200% of Poverty. The proportionate contribution of
the highest income range to the aggregate Affordability Gap cluster around 19 – 21% in
Congressional Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5. In contrast, the contribution of the Poverty range
above 150% in District 2 is 24%.
6. Care must be taken in making assumptions about the impact of differing affordability
strategies in different regions of the state of Connecticut. Directing assistance toward the
lowest income households in order to reach the greatest need would miss a considerable
portion of the total aggregate Affordability Gap in each Congressional District. In
contrast, expanding income eligibility to the higher ranges of income would be effective
in meeting a significant proportion of the aggregate Affordability Gap.”

 

Here is more.

“1. Connecticut’s children are, as a group, worse off than the population as a whole when
measured against whether they live with income above or below the Federal Poverty
Level.
2. Nearly one-in-six Connecticut children (15.3%) live with incomes below the Federal
Poverty Level. The rate of childhood poverty in Connecticut is increasing. Data
collected in 2014 shows a childhood poverty rate 1.2x higher than the rate in 2013.
3. Similar to the overall incidence of Poverty, Connecticut’s children have a much higher
penetration of “deep poverty” than does the state’s aging population. Income at or below
50% of the Federal Poverty Level is considered to be “deep poverty.” Within the past
four years (2011- 2014), between five percent (5%) and seven percent (7%) of
Connecticut’s children have lived in deep poverty.
4. The increase in the percentage of children in deep poverty reflects an increase in the
absolute numbers of children in deep poverty. While the penetration of children living at
or below 50% of the Poverty Level fell from 2011 to 2012, (from 58,000 to 43,000), the
numbers are again rising (up to 52,000 in 2014).

5. While a significant number of Connecticut’s aging (age 65 or older) live with income
below the Poverty Level, Connecticut’s aging population is relatively better off than its
non-aged adult population (age 18 to 64).
6. Connecticut’s aging population consistently shows a higher penetrations of “high
poverty” (income above 175% of Federal Poverty Level) than exists in the state’s
population of children. While the proportion of adults aged 65 or older with income
between 200% and 300% of poverty consistently falls in excess of 40%, the proportion of
children with income at that level consistently falls below 15%.
7. Between the two extremes, Connecticut’s older aging population is relatively “poorer”
than the rest of Connecticut’s population. While 30% of or more of the Connecticut
population age 75 or older lives with income below 200% of Poverty (nearly 40% in
2014), no other age bracket comes close to those proportions.
8. In considering the absolute dollar amount of income by age, when one examines mean
incomes by ratio of income to Federal Poverty Level, with one exception, across-the-board,
aging households have lower incomes holding Federal Poverty Level constant.
9. In Connecticut, it is not simply a few people who lack the ability to meet their basic
household needs budget. The average income of even the second quintile –each quintile
represents twenty percent (20%) of Connecticut’s population—is below Connecticut’s
living wage.
10. The inability to make ends meet in Connecticut is not occasional, but instead is frequent.In the state as a whole, as well as in every county, the mean income for both the lowest income quintile and the second income quintile is insufficient for households to meet their basic necessities.