NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2016 Grants October 20, 2017

Evaluation Goals Characterize 2016 NJ SHARES grant recipients Characterize 2016 NJ SHARES grants Examine good faith payments Analyze post-grant payment compliance 2

Evaluation Goals Part 1 – NJ SHARES database analysis Characterizes grant recipients Characterizes grants Part 2 – Utility transaction data analysis “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Grant Coverage Analysis Post-Grant Payment Compliance 3

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grants Distributed In 2016, 2,213 grants were provided and a total of $1,417,663 was distributed. Compared to 2015: 98% increase in number of grants 83% increase in grant dollars distributed 4

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grants Distributed by Utility Number of Grants Percent of All Grants Grant Dollars Percent of Grant Dollars ACE 244 11% $124,443 9% ETG 63 3% $27,143 2% JCP&L 228 10% $104,628 7% NJNG 91 4% $39,528 PSE&G 1,440 65% $1,047,940 74% RECO 5 <1% $2,486 SJG 142 6% $71,495 5% TOTAL 2,213 100% $1,417,663 5

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grants Distributed by Grant Type Number of Grants Percent of All Grants Grant Dollars Percent of Grant Dollars Electric Only 553 25% $236,386 17% Gas Only 372 $177,971 13% Electric & Gas 1,066 48% $867,969 61% Electric Heat 222 10% $135,337 TOTAL 2,213 100% $1,417,663 6

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grants Distributed by County 2016 Grant Recipients County Number Served Percent of Total Atlantic 172 8% Middlesex 151 7% Bergen 171 Monmouth 60 3% Burlington 165 Morris 90 4% Camden 107 5% Ocean 126 6% Cape May 18 <1% Passaic 73 Cumberland 48 2% Salem 20 Essex 477 22% Somerset 52 Gloucester Sussex 13 Hudson 53 Union 97 Hunterdon 5 Warren Mercer 224 10% TOTAL 2,213 100% 7

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grants Distributed by Legislative Offices Note: NJ SHARES began working with legislative offices in 2008. 8

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Repeat NJ SHARES Recipients Years of NJ SHARES Receipt Percent of Recipients who Received Grants in Multiple Years 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 Year 78% 79% 77% 2 Years 15% 14% 3 Years 4% 5% 4 Years 2% 5 Years 1% <1% Notes: Data includes grants received from 2005 through 2017. Fewer than one percent received grants in six or more years. 9

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipient Income Sources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Employment 89% 88% 86% 83% 78% 80% 84% 82% Pension or Social Security 12% 13% 14% 18% 23% 22% 20% 25% 24% Unemployment Compensation 5% 15% 11% 10% 6% 3% 4% Disability Child Support 2% Other 10

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Annual Household Income 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean Income $41,844 $45,567 $49,133 $51,931 $49,429 $48,578 $48,447 $50,482 $50,734 $49,386 11

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipient Poverty Level Household Poverty Level 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean Poverty Level 273% 277% 280% 294% 278% 275% 270% LIHEAP Eligible 175% 225% 200% Note 1: As of January 23, 2009, income eligibility is capped at 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Note 2: LIHEAP eligibility is for fiscal years. 12

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition Note: A household can be included in more than one category. 13

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition Note: “Single Parent” and “Elderly Only” households were identified using the age grouping variables in the database, not the variable “Category”. 14

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors by Household Composition 2016 Recipients Elderly Agencies Other Agencies All Agencies # % Household Member Over 60 No 56 49% 1,708 81% 1,764 80% Yes 59 51% 390 19% 449 20% Total 115 100% 2,098 2,213 % of all recipients 5% 95% 2015 Recipients Elderly Agencies Other Agencies All Agencies # % Household Member Over 60 No 66 66% 796 78% 862 77% Yes 34 34% 222 22% 256 23% Total 100 100% 1,018 1,118 % of all recipients 9% 91% Not Updated 15

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors Not Updated 16

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Main Heating Fuel 17

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipient-Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Mean Balance $993 $879 $963 $1,070 $1,028 $936 $1,124 $1,248 $1,082 $996 18

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application 19

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Collections Actions Pending at Application 20

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Collections Actions Pending at Application Shut Off Date includes shut off date not passed and shut off date passed. Past Due includes past due balance and past due warning notice. 21

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reason for Grant Application Reason for Application 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Temporary Financial Crisis 60% 68% -- High Energy Costs* 27% 24% 69% 77% 78% 73% 71% 76% 14% 16% 9% 5% Medical/Health 7% 11% 8% 6% 20% 25% 31% 35% Unemployment 3% 2% 4% 10% 15% Reduced Hours/Change in Employment 34% 37% Other 18% Not Updated *High Energy Costs was a standard response option in previous years’ data, but was not included after the 2012 data. For 2013-2015 grantees, this reason for application was identified using verbatim responses for the “Other” option. Note: Percentages sum to >100% because participants that chose the “Other” option may have indicated more than one reason. 22

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipients with Unemployment Utility Unemployment Compensation Application Reason 2013 2014 2015 2016 ACE 13% 9% 7% 4% 23% 17% 11% ETG 14% 3% 5% 6% 18% JCP&L 12% 2% 19% NJNG 10% 20% PSE&G 8% RECO 25% NA 0% SJG Total 15% 23

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Detailed 2016 Recipients’ “Other” Reasons for Grant Application Unspecified bills/costs Household changes (birth, death, move, etc.) Reduced income Car repairs Mortgage or rent Financial hardship Childcare costs Not receiving child support Household repairs Fixed income +----------------------------------+ | _varname count pct | |----------------------------------| 1. | reason_bills 61 5.46 | 2. | reason_hh_ch 35 3.13 | 3. | reason_income 29 2.59 | 4. | reason_car 14 1.25 | 5. | reason_rent 10 0.89 | 6. | reason_finance 10 0.89 | 7. | reason_other 8 0.72 | 8. | reason_child 7 0.63 | 9. | reason_no_support 7 0.63 | 10. | reason_repair 6 0.54 | 11. | reason_fixed_inc 6 0.54 | 12. | reason_weather 3 0.27 | 13. | reason_tuition 3 0.27 | 24

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Guidelines - Maximum Grant Amounts 2005 2006-2007 2008-2013 2014-2017 Electric Only $250 $300 $500 Gas Only $700 Electric & Gas $1,000 $1,200 Electric Heat Oil/Propane -- 25

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts 2016 Recipients Grant Amount Grant Type Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat < $500 39% 50% 21% 18% $500 61% 0% <1% $501 - $699 17% 19% $700 33% 62% $701 - $1199 32% $1,200 27% Mean Grant $427 $478 $814 $610 26

NJ SHARES Database Analysis % Received Max Grant Not updated 27

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Grant Amount By Utility Note: There were no Rockland Electric grants in 2014 28

PART 2: Utility Data Analysis Methodology Focused on Q1 and Q2 2016 grant recipients Comparison groups Q1 and Q2 2015 recipients Q1 and Q2 2017 recipients Analysis Payments in Good Faith period Grant coverage of pre-grant balances Ratio of payments made to charges incurred at key intervals Transaction data from utilities Payments Charges Account balances 29

Utility Data Utilities included ETG did not provide data NJNG ACE PSE&G JCP&L RECO SJG ETG did not provide data 30

Utility Data Analysis Group Definitions 2015 Q1 & Q2 2016 ANALYSIS PERIOD Q1 & Q2 2015 ANALYSIS PERIOD Q1 & Q2 2017 ANALYSIS PERIOD GRANT DATE GRANT DATE + 1 YEAR + 1 DAY GRANT DATE + 1 DAY GRANT DATE – 1 DAY 2016 2017 1 YEAR 31

Good Faith Payment Analysis Good Faith Period Definition Starts 90 days prior to intake Ends the day before the grant is applied to the account Required payment is $100 GOOD FAITH PERIOD INTAKE DATE – 90 DAYS GRANT DATE INTAKE DATE GRANT DATE – 1 DAY 32

Good Faith Payment Analysis Attrition Analysis Q1 & Q2 Recipients 2017 Number Submitted 838 Number Returned 828 Eligible for Analysis* 760 Percent of Requested Accounts 91% * An account was eligible for analysis if the NJ SHARES grant could be located in the utility transactions data, the utility-reported account balances did not conflict with the utility transactions data, and there were at least three months of pre-grant utility data. 33

Good Faith Payment Analysis Percent With Good Faith Payment Q1 & Q2 Recipients Customer Payments All Payments 2015 2016 2017 Utility That Received Grant 97% 96% 98% Any Utility 99% 34

Good Faith Payment Analysis Percent Made Good Faith Payment By Utility Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Utility Number of Customers Percent Made “Good Faith” Payment Customer Payments All Payments Utility That Received Grant Any Utility ACE 89 98% 99% JCP&L 107 91% 95% 97% 100% NJNG 59 90% PSE&G 470 RECO 4 SJG 32 81% 88% 94% TOTAL 761 96% 35

Good Faith Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made Q1 & Q2 Recipients Customer Payments All Payments 2015 2016 2017 $0 2% 1% $1 - $99 0% $100 20% 17% 13% $101 - $250 24% 27% 25% 28% $251 - $500 26% $501 + 31% 34% Mean Payment $418 $422 $392 $450 $492 $442 36

Good Faith Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made By Utility Q1 & Q2 2017 Recipients Payments ACE JCP&L NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 89 107 59 470 4 32 761 Mean Payments (Customer Only) $536 $385 $260 $399 $362 $154 $392 (All Payments) $580 $622 $297 $410 $544 $189 $442 37

Good Faith Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made By Poverty Level Federal Poverty Level <225% 225-249% 250-299% ≥ 300% Mean Payment $348 $379 $380 $430 38

Good Faith Payment Analysis Number of Payments for Those Paying at Least $100 Q1 & Q2 Recipients 2015 2016 2017 1 37% 34% 2 31% 30% 33% 3 or More 21% 32% Mean Number of Payments 2.1 2.2 Note: Only includes payments made by customer. 39

Grant Coverage Analysis Attrition Analysis Q1 & Q2 Recipients 2017 Number Submitted 838 Number Returned 828 Eligible for Analysis* 754 Percent of Requested Accounts 90% * An account was eligible for analysis if the NJ SHARES grant could be located in the utility transactions data and the utility-reported account balances did not conflict with the utility transactions data. 40

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage Q1 & Q2 2015 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2017 Recipients Mean Pre-Grant Balance $842 $956 $967 Mean Grant $660 $684 $649 Mean Post-Grant Balance $199 $274 $320 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 83% 81% 79% 41

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Utility Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients ACE JCP&L NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 116 101 44 793 3 59 1,116 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,548 $811 $591 $916 $2,541 $773 $956 Mean Grant $515 $481 $495 $754 $567 $570 $684 Mean Post-Grant Balance $1,033 $330 $97 $163 $1,974 $220 $274 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 52% 74% 88% 85% 28% 80% 81% 42

Grant Coverage Analysis Balance Exceeds Max Grant Amount Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Balance > Maximum Grant Amount ACE JCP&L NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 91 54 12 267 3 28 455 Percent of Customers 78% 53% 27% 34% 100% 47% 41% 43

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Grant Type Q1 and Q2 2016 Recipients Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Number of Customers 237 135 611 133 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $888 $664 $982 $1,255 Mean Grant $425 $526 $830 $637 Mean Post-Grant Balance $465 $149 $153 $618 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 69% 84% 87% 68% 44

Grant Coverage Analysis Balance Exceeds Max Grant Amount Q1 and Q2 2016 Recipients Balances > Maximum Grant Amount Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Number of Customers 141 49 176 89 Percent of Customers 59% 36% 29% 67% 45

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Main Heating Fuel Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Main Heating Fuel Electric Gas Other Number of Customers 133 937 46 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,255 $899 $1,264 Mean Grant $637 $702 $447 Mean Post-Grant Balance $618 $198 $821 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 68% 83% 63% 46

Grant Coverage Analysis Balance Exceeds Max Grant Amount Balance > Maximum Grant Amount Q1 and Q2 2016 Recipients Main Heating Fuel Electric Gas Other Number of Customers 133 937 46 Percent of Customers 67% 36% 63% 47

Payment Compliance Analysis Attrition Analysis Q1 & Q2 Recipients 2015 2016 2017 Number Submitted 535 1,231 838 Number Returned 532 1,224 828 Accounts with Usable Data* 527 1,206 809 Amount of Data Available for Analysis 3 Months 386 1,044 683 6 Months 357 953 654 9 Months 332 872 621 12 Months 307 591 Percent of Requested Accounts 57% 67% 71% * An account was eligible for analysis if the utility-reported account balances did not conflict with the utility transactions data. 48

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid Date Range Months after Grants Q1 & Q2 Recipients 2015 2016 2017 Q2 & Q3 2015 3 Months 121% 80% 125% Q3 & Q4 2015 6 Months 108% 85% 112% Q4 2015 & Q1 2016 9 Months 97% 82% Q1 & Q2 2016 12 Months 99% 87% 84% Good payment coverage 2nd year after grant Payment compliance does not decline at the end of the year following grant receipt as had been seen in previous years Payment compliance declines prior to grant receipt 49

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid Q1 2012 Recipients Q1 2013 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2014 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2015 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 85% 141% 83% 144% 154% 74% 120% 80% 6 Months 93% 125% 89% 132% 95% 131% 86% 108% 9 Months 94% 121% 91% 126% 88% 119% 98% 82% 12 Months 102% 90% 111% 99% 87% Accounts Included 672 569 497 318 316 218 474 307 828 50

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid By Utility Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients ACE JCP&L NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 92 86 34 586 2 28 828 3 Months 91% 73% 53% 66% 54% 393% 80% 6 Months 95% 82% 67% 77% 120% 252% 85% 9 Months 96% 84% 72% 109% 141% 12 Months 99% 90% 81% 125% 108% 87% 51

Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount 2nd year after grant 1st year after grant Year before grant Months After Grant Q1 & Q2 2015 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2017 Recipients Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% 3 Months 54% 62% 25% 32% 53% 59% 6 Months 52% 63% 27% 35% 50% 60% 9 Months 42% 58% 23% 36% 39% 12 Months 48% 70% 45% 20% 52

Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 100 Percent of Billed Amount Q1 2012 Recipients Q1 2013 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2014 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2015 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 30% 64% 70% 32% 63% 20% 54% 26% 6 Months 33% 66% 72% 41% 27% 52% 9 Months 69% 34% 79% 68% 25% 42% 23% 12 Months 22% 50% 65% 28% 48% Accounts Included 672 569 497 318 316 218 474 307 828 53

Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 Percent of Billed Amount Q1 2012 Recipients Q1 2013 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2014 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2015 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 37% 70% 34% 75% 68% 27% 63% 32% 6 Months 44% 43% 81% 51% 35% 9 Months 49% 82% 50% 88% 46% 80% 38% 58% 36% 12 Months 39% 84% 48% 45% Accounts Included 672 569 497 318 316 218 474 307 828 54

Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Pay≥100% ACE JCP&L NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG 3 Months 36% 30% 15% 20% 0% 79% 6 Months 40% 12% 22% 50% 89% 9 Months 26% 9% 18% 61% 12 Months 39% 35% 6% 21% 100% 46% Accounts Included 92 86 34 586 2 28 Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Pay≥90% ACE JCP&L NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG 3 Months 43% 40% 32% 26% 0% 82% 6 Months 46% 44% 15% 31% 100% 89% 9 Months 51% 49% 64% 12 Months 55% 56% 38% 41% Accounts Included 92 86 34 586 2 28 55

Payment Compliance Analysis Bill Balance Following Grant Receipt 56

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Successful (34%) Marginal Success (6%) Need More Help (60%) 57

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Year After Grant Receipt Q1 2007 Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010 Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 & Q2 2014 Q1 & Q2 2015 Q1 & Q2 2016 Successful 24% 19% 32% 49% 26% 29% 38% 34% Marginal Success 6% 5% 7% Need More Help 70% 76% 61% 62% 44% 69% 66% 57% 55% 60% TOTAL 100% 58

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Grant Type Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by TOTAL Electric Only 20% 19% 6% 55% 100% Gas Only 32% 5% 8% Electric & Gas 9% 66% Electric Heat 16% 26% 49%

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Successful (55%) Marginal Success 10%) Need More Help (35%) 60

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 2012 Recipients Q1 2013 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2014 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2015 Recipients Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second Successful 26% 53% 29% 67% 38% 69% 55% 34% Marginal Success 5% 10% 8% 9% 7% 6% Need More Help 37% 66% 25% 57% 22% 35% 60% Accounts Included 672 569 497 318 316 218 474 307 828 61

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients 62 62

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 174 110 47 497 Percent of Customers 21% 13% 6% 60% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $659 $2,214 $971 $887 Mean Grant Amount $595 $686 $637 $688 Mean Post-Grant Balance $68 $1,549 $354 $206 Mean Number of Payments* 9 8 Mean Percent of Bills Paid 108% 128% 97% 70% * Note: Only customer payments are counted. 63

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 174 110 47 497 Percent of Customers 21% 13% 6% 60% Mean Charges $1,929 $2,585 $1,951 $2,499 Mean Payments $2,077 $3,195 $1,902 $1,753 64

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 196 198 103 Percent of Customers 24% 12% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $719 $827 $1,338 Mean Grant Amount $565 $694 $909 Mean Post-Grant Balance $159 $135 $441 Mean Number of Payments* 8 6 Mean Percent of Bills Paid 84% 67% 47% * Note: Only customer payments are counted. 65

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 196 198 103 Percent of Customers 24% 12% Mean Charges $1,993 $2,351 $3,748 Mean Payments $1,744 $1,699 $1,872 66

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 174 110 47 497 Percent of Customers 21% 13% 6% 60% Median Annual Income $44,256 $48,588 $44,304 $45,528 < 225% FPL 26% 20% 19% 225% - 249% FPL 17% 9% 11% 16% 250% - 299% FPL 30% 32% 28% ≥ 300% FPL 36% 41% 37% Percent Single-Parent 18% 22% Percent Elderly-Only

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 196 198 103 Percent of Customers 24% 12% Median Annual Income $43,242 $46,512 < 225% FPL 16% 21% 225% - 249% FPL 17% 15% 250% - 299% FPL 27% 26% 36% ≥ 300% FPL 40% 38% 28% Percent Single-Parent 20% 22% 23% Percent Elderly-Only 19% 68

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis of Elderly Households Q1 & Q2 2016 Recipients Elderly Only Non-Elderly Only Difference Number of Customers 145 683 -- Percent of Customers 18% 82% Pre-Grant Balance $1,137 $983 $154 Grant Amount $594 $680 -$86** Post-Grant Balance $552 $311 $241** # % Success 55 38% 229 34% 4% Marginal Success 9 6% 38 <1% Needs More Help 81 56% 416 61% -5% ** Statistically significant at the 95% level * Statistically significant at the 90% level 69

Receipt of Energy Assistance USF or LIHEAP Utility Received USF or LIHEAP in 12 Months Following Grant Receipt Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 & Q2 2014 Q1 & Q2 2015 Q1 & Q2 2016 N % ACE 42 2% 35 11% - 25 16% 92 17% ETG 26 8% 17 24% JCP&L 72 4% 49 6% 34 86 9% NJNG 36 33 12% 21 5% 14% PSE&G 461 334 7% 265 364 586 RECO 2 50% 1 0% SJG 28 13 TOTAL 672 497 316 474 828 70

Receipt of Energy Assistance USF or LIHEAP Recipients Utility Received USF or LIHEAP in “Good Faith” Period Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 & Q2 2014 Q1 & Q2 2015 Q1 & Q2 2016 N % ACE 42 0% 35 3% - 25 8% 92 4% ETG 26 1% 17 JCP&L 72 47 34 49 2% 86 NJNG 36 33 12 PSE&G 461 295 265 364 586 RECO 2 1 SJG 13 28 TOTAL 672 454 316 474 828 71

Key Findings Large increase in grants from 2015 and 2016 2,213 recipients in 2016 compared to 1,118 in 2015 $1,417,663 grant dollars in 2016 compared to $772,720 in 2015 NJ SHARES serves needy households Children under the age of six: 17% Single parent households: 22% Annual income below $50,000: 60% Family member over 60: 20% NJ SHARES serves the working poor 83% of households have employment income NJ SHARES provides grants to those in temporary need of assistance 78% received a grant in only one of the past 10 years 8% received a grant in more than two of the past 10 years In 90 days before grant, recipients averaged 2.2 payments and $392 in payments 72

Key Findings Clients coming in for help earlier Fewer have service shut off when they come in Lower balance at grant application Declined to $996 in 2016 From $1,248 in 2014 and $1,082 in 2015 Electric grants still show greater unmet need 62% of electric heat and 61% of electric-only recipients receive max grant Compared to 33% of gas-only grants and 27% of electric and gas grants Opportunity for referrals 24% have income below 225% of poverty and are eligible for Comfort Partners 73

Key Findings Payment compliance following grant declined 34% of Q1 & Q2 2016 grant recipients were successful Compared to 38% in Q1 & Q2 2015 and 2014 Payment compliance in 2nd year after grant declined 55% of Q1 & Q2 2015 recipients were successful in the second year Compared to 69% in 2014, 67% in 2013 Greater percent from some utilities need help following grant receipt ACE, NJNG, and SJG increased % receiving USF or LIHEAP in year following grant NJNG increased from 5% to 14% SJG from 8% to 14% ACE remained high: 16% to 17% Overall increase was modest from 7% to 8% 74