1. NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2011 Grants October 26, 2012

2. Evaluation Goals Characterize 2011 NJ SHARES grant recipients Characterize 2011 NJ SHARES grants Examine good faith payments Analyze post-grant payment compliance 2

3. Evaluation Components 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

4. Evaluation Data Data received from: –ACE –ETG –NJNG –PSE&G –RECO –SJG –JCP&L 4

5. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts 5 Number of GrantsGrant Dollars 2007 Recipients 6,536$3,842,183 2008 Recipients 11,950$7,127,444 2009 Recipients 18,534$11,342,111 2010 Recipients 11,635$7,125,485 2011 Recipients 3,193$1,667,327

6. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Fuel Supplier 6 2011 Grants Utility Number of Grants Percent of All Grants Grant Dollars Percent of Grant Dollars ACE2548%$96,6006% ETG2026%$108,2626% JCP&L97230%$351,38721% NJNG30510%$174,06710% PSE&G1,21138%$797,53648% RECO201%$7,202<1% SJG1806%$99,8646% Oil/Propane492%$32,4092% TOTAL3,193100%$1,667,327100%

7. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Fuel Supplier 7 TypeQ1 2007Q1 2008Q1 2009Q1 2010Q1 2011Q1 2012 ACE 2416%2446%4034%3095%1518%566% ETG 2597%2897%5075%2193%1216%414% JCP&L 2316%46711%9448%6039%74539%10711% NJNG 812%2486%5375%2914%19410%525% PSE&G 2,56569%2,73264%7,64868%4,24065%57730%68369% RECO 17<1%15<1%23<1%18<1%151%2<1% SJG 3249%2636%4444%2654%945%475% Others 00%0 54<1%331%00%0 Oil/Propane 00%0 7116%5388%7<1%2 TOTAL3,7184,25811,2716,516 1,904990

8. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Grant Type 8 TypeQ1 2007Q1 2008Q1 2009Q1 2010Q1 2011Q1 2012 Electric Only 71519% 1,00 8 24% 2,10 4 19% 1,35 8 21%85745%20821% Gas Only83222% 1,03 6 24% 1,99 3 18% 1,09 7 17%48125%19119% Electric & Gas 2,03155% 1,97 8 46% 5,80 8 52% 3,18 8 49%31116%52053% Electric Heat 1404%2366%6556%3355%24813%697% Oil-- 6726%5138%7<1%2 Propane-- 39<1%25<1%-- TOTAL3,7184,25811,2716,5161,904990

9. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by County 9 2011 Grant Recipients County Number Served Percent of Total County Number Served Percent of Total Atlantic 1334.2% Middlesex 2588.1% Bergen 1474.6% Monmouth 42713.4% Burlington 1193.7% Morris 2136.7% Camden 1775.5% Ocean 33810.6% Cape May 230.7% Passaic 892.8% Cumberland 401.3% Salem 551.7% Essex 2497.8% Somerset 742.3% Gloucester 942.9% Sussex 782.4% Hudson 1845.8% Union 2427.6% Hunterdon 501.6% Warren 953.0% Mercer 1083.4% TOTAL3,193100.0%

10. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Agency Type 10 Agency Type Q1 2007Q1 2008Q1 2009Q1 2010Q1 2011Q1 2012 #%#%#%#%#%#% Legislative Office 00%642%1,59514%78912%1598%9710% Other Nonprofit 3,718100%4,19498%9,67686%5,72788%1,74592%89390% TOTAL3,7184,25811,2716,5161,904990

11. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Number of Years of Grant Receipt 11 Number of Years Percent of Grant Recipients 2010 Evaluation 2011 Evaluation 2012 Evaluation 1 Year78%79%77% 2 Years15%14%15% 3 Years4% 5% 4 Years2% 5 Years1% 6 Years<1% 7 YearsN/A<1% 8 YearsN/A <1%

12. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Number of Household Members Contributing to Household Income 12 Number of Household Members 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients None <1 %0% <1% 0% One 75%73%72%71%68% 69% Two 22%24%25%26%29% 28% Three or More 3% Mean Number 1.3 1.4

13. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Income Sources 13 Income Source 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients Employment 88%89%88%89% 86%83%78% Pension or Social Security 12% 13%12% 14%18%23% Unemployment Compensation 6%5% 12%15%14% Disability 5%4%5% 4% 5% Child Support 4% 3%2% 3% 4% Other 3% 4%6%4%

14. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Annual Household Income 14 Annual Household Income 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients <$20,0006%5%3% <1% $20,000 - $29,99928%22%18% 12%9%12% $30,000 - $39,99929% 26% 23%21%24% $40,000 - $49,99919%20%21% 23%21% $50,000 +19%24%32% 41%48%42% Mean Annual Income $38,921$41,844$45,567$49,133$51,931$49,429

15. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level 15 Household Poverty Level 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients <175%6%5%4%1%<1% 175-199%24%20% 4%2%5% 200-224% 18%17%16%11%3%15% 225% - 249% 14%13%14%22%17%18% 250% - 299%16%17%18% 31%36%28% 300% +22%28%29% 32%42%34% Mean Poverty Level257%273%277% 280%294%278% LIHEAP Eligible175% 225% 200% Note 1: As of January 23, 2009, income eligibility is capped at 400% of poverty. Note 2: LIHEAP eligibility is for fiscal years.

16. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition 16 Note: A household can be included in more than one category. Household Composition 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients <6 Years Old29%26%28%23% 22%20% ≤ 18 Years Old 61%60%64%58% 57%54%51% > 60 Years Old 8% 13%12%16%18%21%

17. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors 17 2011 Senior Focused AgenciesYear Added Center For Independent Living of South Jersey Lawrence Township Senior Center-Cedarville Camden City Independent Living Center-Camden 2009 City of East Orange Division of Senior Services (East Orange Seniors Only) 2009 DAWN Center for Independent Living-Sussex 2009 MOCEANS-Center For Independent Living-Ocean County 2009 Resources For Independent Living, Inc. –Seniors and Disabled Population 2009 Tri County Independent Living Center-Cumberland 2009 MOCEANS-Center for Independent Living-Monmouth County2010 West Milford Township Older Adult Services2010 Brick Senior Outreach Services2011 Cape May County Department of Aging and Disability Services2011 Agencies were identified as focused on seniors if they have the words “senior” or “independent living” in their name.

18. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors 18 2011 Recipients Elderly AgenciesOther AgenciesAll Agencies #%#%#% Household Member Over 60 No15978%2,36679%2,52579% Yes4522%62321%66821% Total204100%2,989100%3,193100% % of all recipients6%94%100% 2010 Recipients Elderly AgenciesOther AgenciesAll Agencies #%#%#% Household Member Over 60 No48972%9,09783%9,58682% Yes19228%1,85717%2,04918% Total681100%10,954100%11,635100% % of all recipients6%94%100%

19. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition 19 Note: “Single Parent” and “Elderly Only” households were identified using the age grouping variables, in the database not the variable “Category”. Household Composition 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients Single Parent14%13%27%24% 21%18%17% Elderly Only4%5%9%7%8%9%12%

20. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level 20 Household Poverty Level 2010 Recipients2011 Recipients All ≤ 18 Years Old > 60 Years Old All ≤ 18 Years Old > 60 Years Old <225%5%6%5%20%22%21% 225% - 249%17%18% 17%19% 250% - 299%36%35%34%28%27% 300% +42% 43%34%33% TOTAL100%

21. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level 21 Household Poverty Level 2010 Recipients2011 Recipients All Single Parent Elderly Only All Single Parent Elderly Only <225%5%6% 20%27%22% 225% - 249%17%20% 18% 21% 250% - 299%36%38%35%28%27% 300% +42%36%40%34%28%30% TOTAL100%

22. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Size 22 Household Size 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients 126%22%24%21% 20% 230% 28%29% 28% 29% 321%22%21%22% 21% 414%15%17% 18% 5 +9%10%11%12% Mean Size2.52.7 2.8

23. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Main Heating Fuel 23 Main Heating Fuel 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients Natural Gas82%83%84% 83%81%78% Electric13%11% 7%6%11% Oil5% 4% 10%12%10% Propane<1% 1% Other<1%

24. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipient-Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application 24 Reported Bill Balance 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients < $2508% 7% 8% $250 - $49925%20%23%21% 19%20%23% $500 - $74923%22%24%21% 19%20%23% $750 - $99916%15%17% 16% $1,000 +29%35%29%35% 40%37%30% Mean Balance $892$993$879$963$1,070$1,028$936

25. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application 25 Grant Type 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients Electric Only$563$566$557$635 $723$687$737 Gas Only$654$740$762$782 $831$776$764 Electric & Gas $1,108$1,268$1,168$1,298 $1,443$1,407$1,438 Electric Heat$831$823$904$1,010 $1,048$1,088$1,036 All Grants$892$993$879$963$1,070$1,028$936

26. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application 26 2011 Recipients Bill Balance Percent of Federal Poverty Level < 225%225-249%250-299%300% + < $50032% 33%28% $500 - $74922% 26% $750 -$99913%16%15%17% $1,000+33%30% 29% Mean Balance$933$953$910$949

27. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Collections Actions Pending at Application 27 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% because a household with grants for more than one utility may have two different collections actions. Collections Actions 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients Past Due Balance8%3% 17%20% 26%30%38% Past Due Warning Notice 47%18% 17%19% 23%18%13% Shut-Off Date Not Passed 20%22% 20%17% 16%19%15% Shut-Off Date Passed26%49% 41%39% 32%30%27% Utility Shut-Off0%9% 4%6%3% 8%

28. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reason for Grant Application 28 Reason for Application 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients Temporary Financial Crisis 60%68%-- High Energy Costs 27%24%69%77%78%73%71% Medical/Health7%5%11%8%6% 8% Unemployment3%2%6%4%8%10%11% Reduced Hours/Change in Employment -- 6%5%6%8%7% Other3%2%8%6%3% 2%

29. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Detailed 2011 Recipients’ “Other” Reasons for Grant Application Household changes (spouse leaving or dying or a new baby) No social security increase College tuition Not receiving child support/alimony Mortgage or rent Over income limit for LIHEAP Car repairs 29

30. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Guidelines - Maximum Grant Amounts 30 Grant Amount 20052006-20072008-2011 Electric Only $250$300 Gas Only $250$700 Electric & Gas $500$1,000 Electric Heat $500$700 Oil/Propane -- $700

31. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts 31 Grant Amount 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients < $30045%14%11% 10%9%11% $300<1%14%20%22% 23% 33% $301 - $69955%28%24%21% 19%21%19% $7000%10%17%16% 20% $701 - $9990%12%10%9% 7% 5% $1,0000%22%17%22% 25%24%12% Mean Grant$373$603$588$596$612 $522

32. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts 32 2011 Recipients Grant Amount Grant Type Electric Only Gas OnlyElectric & Gas Electric Heat OilPropane < $300 18%11%3% 0% $300 82%0%<1%1%0% $301 - $699 0%42%22%26%54%100% $700 0%47%<1%71%46%0% $701 - $999 0% 22%0% $1,000 0% 53%0% Mean Grant$284$563$833$643$661$691

33. NJ SHARES Database Analysis % Receiving Max Grant Allowed 33 Grant Type Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat OilPropane 2005 89% 76%67%-- 2006 67%40% 48%-- 2007 75%50%43%58%-- 2008 78%47%53%62%16%-- 2009 80%56%62%65%15%-- 201082%48%62%71%17%9% 201182%47%53%71%46%<1%

34. NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Grant Amount By Utility 34 Utility 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 2010 Recipients 2011 Recipients ACE $286$331$329$350 $359$367$380 ETG $237$504$572$579 $589$541$536 JCP&L $278$303$333$329 $332$339$362 NJNG $246$557$563$547 $583$551$571 PSE&G $420$669$698$710 $704$740$659 RECO $237$284$319$326 $309$303$360 SJG $236$544$586$565$594$580$555

35. PART 2 Utility Data Analysis Methodology Focused on Q1 2011 grant recipients Transaction data from utilities Files contain payments, charges, account balances Analyzed: –Existence of “Good Faith Payment” –Grant coverage of pre-grant balances –Ratio of payments made to charges incurred at key intervals Used Q1 2010 and Q1 2012 recipients as comparison groups 35

36. Utility Data Analysis Sample Group Definitions 36 Q1 2011 Recipient Treatment Group Q1 2010 Recipient Comparison Group Q1 2012 Recipient Comparison Group Accounts Included All Q1 2011 grant recipients Accounts receiving grants in Q1 2010 only Accounts receiving grants in Q1 2012 that did not receive grants in Q1 2011 Analysis Period Starts1 day following grant 1 year + 1 day after grant 1 year + 1 day before grant Analysis Period Ends 1 year + 1 day after grant 2 years + 1 day after grant 1 day before grant Analysis Period SpanQ1 2011– Q1 2012

37. Utility Data Analysis Sample Group Definitions 37 2010 Q1 2011 ANALYSIS PERIOD Q1 2010 ANALYSIS PERIOD Q1 2012 ANALYSIS PERIOD GRANT DATE GRANT DATE + 1 YEAR + 1 DAY GRANT DATE + 1 DAY GRANT DATE GRANT DATE – 1 DAY 2011 2012 GRANT DATE + 1 DAY GRANT DATE 1 YEAR

38. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis “Good Faith” Period Definition 38 The “Good Faith” payment period is defined as 90 days prior to intake through the day before the grant is applied to the account. Only payments made by the customer are counted. INTAKE DATE – 90 DAYS INTAKE DATE GRANT DATE “GOOD FAITH” PERIOD GRANT DATE – 1 DAY

39. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Attrition Analysis 39 Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients Number Submitted 5,9141,883860 Number Returned 5,3691,853848 Eligible for Analysis* 5,0431,778811 Percent of Requested Accounts 85%94% * 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.

40. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Percent Making “Good Faith” Payment 40 Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients Utility That Received Grant 97% 94% Any Utility98%99%96%

41. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Percent Making “Good Faith” Payment By Utility 41 Q1 2012 Recipients Utility Number of Customers Percentage Making “Good Faith” Payment Utility That Received Grant Any Utility ACE4298% ETG2986%97% JCP&L6793%99% NJNG3990%97% PSE&G59795%96% RECO2100% SJG3583%91% TOTAL81194%96%

42. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made 42 Payments Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients $02% 4% $1 - $991%2% $1007%8%21% $101 - $25017%23%22% $251 - $50026%30%27% $501 +47%34%24% Mean Payment$615$541$399

43. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made By Utility 43 Q1 2012 Recipients PaymentsACEETGJCP&LNJNGPSE&GRECOSJGTotal Number of Customers 42296739597235811 $00%7%3%5%4%0%11%4% $1 - $992%7%4%5%1%0%6%2% $10014%28% 13%21%50%29%21% $101 - $25029%34% 49%18%0%31%22% $251 - $50026%21%19%18%30%0%14%27% $501 +29%3%10% 28%50%9%24% Mean Payment $391$216$239$221$450$323$199$399

44. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made By Poverty Level 44 Q1 2012 Recipients Payments Federal Poverty Level <225%225-249%250-299%≥ 300% $04% 3%5% $1 - $990%1%5%1% $10024%20%21% $101 - $25023%19%22%23% $251 - $50026%33%25%27% $501 +24% Mean Payment$366$380$371$439

45. “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Number of Payments for Those Paying at Least $100 45 Payments Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients 25 th Percentile211 50 th Percentile222 75 th Percentile333 Mean Number of Payments 2.72.42.1

46. Grant Coverage Analysis Attrition Analysis 46 Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients Number Submitted 5,9141,883860 Number Returned 5,3681,853848 Eligible for Analysis* 5,1601,802832 Percent of Requested Accounts 87%96%97% * 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.

47. Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage 47 Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,462$954$1,103 Mean Grant $714$486$650 Mean Post-Grant Balance $748$468$452 Mean Percent of Pre- Grant Balances Covered 72%74%79%

48. Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Utility 48 Q1 2011 Recipients ACEETGJCPLNJNGPSE&GRECOSJGTotal Number of Customers13311872819452815861,802 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,097$850$775$807$1,232$915$1,028$954 Mean Grant $395$545$368$578$618$358$546$486 Mean Post-Grant Balance $702$305$407$229$614$558$482$468 Mean Percent of Pre- Grant Balances Covered 46%72%74%81%80%54%78%74%

49. Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Grant Type 49 Q1 2011 Recipients Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Number of Customers805488271238 Mean Pre-Grant Balance$739$918$1,522$1,113 Mean Grant$284$572$798$639 Mean Post-Grant Balance$455$346$724$474 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 69%77%82%79%

50. Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Main Heating Fuel 50 Q1 2011 Recipients ElectricGasOilOther Number of Customers2431,33020920 Mean Pre-Grant Balance$1,105$974$685$654 Mean Grant$629$495$281$290 Mean Post-Grant Balance$476$479$404$364 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 79%74%71%56%

51. Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage Distribution 51 Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered Percentile 10%25%50%75%90% Q1 2010 Recipients 26%42%63%87%106% Q1 2011 Recipients 26%41%63%88%118% Q1 2012 Recipients 33%51%72%95%108%

52. Payment Compliance Analysis Attrition Analysis 52 Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients Number Submitted 5,1991,883860 Number Returned 5,0831,853848 Accounts with Usable Data* 4,7481,802833 Amount of Data Available for Analysis 3 Months 3,9001,701725 6 Months 3,7251,603691 9 Months 3,5201,502665 12 Months 3,3501,429630 Percent of Requested Accounts 64%76%73% * 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.

53. Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid 53 Date Range Months after Grants Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients Q2 20113 Months 147%96%128% Q3 20116 Months 137%101%132% Q4 20119 Months 123%104%121% Q1 201212 Months112%98% Good payment coverage 2 nd year after grant Payment compliance better than in past years. Payment compliance declines prior to grant receipt.

54. Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid 54 Q1 2008 RecipientsQ1 2009 RecipientsQ1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Years After Grant Receipt Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt FirstSecondFirstSecondFirstSecond 3 Months 84%148%97%162%96%147%96% 6 Months 93%136%102%142%102%137%101% 9 Months 89%125%95%118%96%123%104% 12 Months79%105%89%104%90%112%98% Accounts Included 2,6901,2185,6344,4264,2113,3501,429

55. Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid Same Accounts 55 Q1 2008 RecipientsQ1 2009 Recipients Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Years After Grant Receipt Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt FirstSecondFirstSecondFirstSecond 3 Months 86%146%100%157%98%145%96% 6 Months 94%134%104%139%101%136%101% 9 Months 90%124%97%118%97%123%104% 12 Months81%104%90%103%90%111%98% Accounts Included 1,057 3,248 2,827 1,429

56. Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid By Utility 56 Q1 2011 Recipients ACEETGJCPLNJNGPSE&GRECOSJGTotal Number of Customers 1118457715942215611,429 3 Months 100%87%104%75%97%95%86%96% 6 Months 94%113%98%101%102%87%118%101% 9 Months 103% 101%102%106%95%118%104% 12 Months101%89%99%94%98%101%108%98%

57. Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount 57 2 nd year after grant1 st year after grantYear before grant Date Range Month after Grant Q1 2010 RecipientsQ1 2011 RecipientsQ1 2012 Recipients Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% Q2 20113 Months 69%76%40%49%57%63% Q3 20116 Months 72%81%44%59%65%74% Q4 20119 Months 71%84%51%70%67%77% Q1 201212 Months 70%86%41%65%36%59%

58. Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 100 Percent of Billed Amount 58 Q1 2008 RecipientsQ1 2009 RecipientsQ1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Years After Grant Receipt Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt FirstSecondFirstSecondFirstSecond 3 Months 32%64%37%70%36%69%40% 6 Months 36%69%43%71%42%72%44% 9 Months 30%72%39%65%38%71%51% 12 Months16%59% 27%54%26%70% 41% Accounts Included 2,6901,2185,6344,4264,2113,3501,429

59. Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 Percent of Billed Amount 59 Q1 2008 RecipientsQ1 2009 Recipients Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Years After Grant Receipt Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt FirstSecondFirstSecondFirstSecond 3 Months 40%70%45%75%44%76%49% 6 Months 49%78%54%79%53%81%59% 9 Months 47%81%55%77%54%84%70% 12 Months32%76% 48%73%47%86% 65% Accounts Included 2,6901,2185,6344,4264,2113,3501,429

60. Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility 60 Q1 2011 Recipients Pay≥100%ACEETGJCPLNJNGPSE&GRECOSJG 3 Months41%38%47%28%38%40%13% 6 Months36%55%41%48%44%40%52% 9 Months56%55%47%52% 47%54% 12 Months53%31%44%36%41%60%26% Accounts Included 111845771594221561

61. Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility 61 Q1 2011 Recipients Pay≥90%ACEETGJCPLNJNGPSE&GRECOSJG 3 Months48%43%57%34%47%53%25% 6 Months50%69%59%61%58%53%56% 9 Months68%65%73%67%68%67%61% 12 Months70%55%72%57%64%80%43% Accounts Included 111845771594221561

62. Payment Compliance Analysis Percent of Bills Paid 62 2 nd year after grant 1 st year after grant Year before grant Percent of Bills Paid Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Q1 2012 Recipients < 50% 2% 6% 50% - 75% 4%10%13% 76% - 90% 9%22%23% 91% - 99%16%24%23% 100% + 70%41%36% Mean 112%98%

63. Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Bill Balance 63

64. Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Bill Balance By Utility 64

65. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 65 Successful (49%)

66. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 66 Year After Grant Receipt Q1 2006 Recipients Q1 2007 Recipients Q1 2008 Recipients Q1 2009 Recipients Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Successful 26%24%19%32% 49% Marginal Success 7%6%5%6% 7% Need More Help67%70%76%61%62%44% TOTAL 100%

67. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 67 Q1 2009 Recipients Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Electric Only Electric and Gas Electric Only Electric and Gas Electric Only Electric and Gas Successful 36%30% 43% 29% 56% 45% Marginal Success 7% 5% 8% 5% 8% 5% Need More Help 56% 65% 49% 66% 36% 51% Total100%

68. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 68 Q1 2011 Recipients Grant Type Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by ≥ $100 TOTAL Electric Only 27%29%8%36%100% Gas Only 18%22%9%51%100% Electric & Gas 17%28%5%51%100% Electric Heat 21%26%3%50%100%

69. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 69 Successful (73%)

70. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 70 Q1 2008 RecipientsQ1 2009 RecipientsQ1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Years After Grant Receipt Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt FirstSecondFirstSecondFirstSecond Successful 19%62%32%57%32%73%49% Marginal Success 5%7%6%9%6%7% Need More Help 76%31%61%34%62%20%44% Accounts Included 2,6901,2185,6344,4264,2113,3501,429

71. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Same Account 71 Q1 2008 RecipientsQ1 2009 Recipients Q1 2010 Recipients Q1 2011 Recipients Years After Grant Receipt Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt FirstSecondFirstSecondFirstSecond Successful 22%60%35%56%34%74%49% Marginal Success 5%8%6%9%6% 7% Need More Help 73%32%59%35%60%20%44% Accounts Included 1,057 3,248 2,827 1,429

72. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility 72 Q1 2011 Recipients Successful Marginal Success Need More Help

73. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility 73 Q1 2011 Recipients Successful Marginal Success Need More Help

74. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 74 Q1 2011 Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by ≥ $100 Number of Customers 319384102624 Percent of Customers 22%27%7%44% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $611$1,491$799$809 Mean Grant Amount $410$498$432$518 Mean Post-Grant Balance$201$993$367$291 Mean Number of Payments*10 98 Mean Percent of Bills Paid110%117%97%80% * Note: Only customer payments are counted.

75. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 75 Q1 2011 Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by ≥ $100 Number of Customers 319384102624 Percent of Customers 22%27%7%44% Mean Charges $2,384$2,969$2,204$2,673 Mean Payments $2,626$3,413$2,152$2,202

76. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Mean Charges 76 Q1 2011 Recipients Grant Type Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by ≥ $100 Electric Only $2,348$2,975$2,657$2,977 Gas Only $1,636$1,890$1,305$1,768 Electric & Gas $2,690$3,404$2,431$2,999 Electric Heat $3,514$4,296$2,997$3,344 TOTAL $2,384$2,969$2,204$2,673

77. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 77 Q1 2011 Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 37121142 Percent of Customers 26%15%3% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $748$817$1,306 Mean Grant Amount $493$536$645 Mean Post-Grant Balance$255$281$661 Mean Number of Payments*986 Mean Percent of Bills Paid86%74%61% * Note: Only customer payments are counted.

78. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 78 Q1 2011 Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 37121142 Percent of Customers 26%15%3% Mean Charges $2186$3,010$5,274 Mean Payments $1,955$2,396$3,416

79. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Mean Charges 79 Q1 2011 Recipients Grant Type Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Electric Only $2,408$3,170$7,266 Gas Only $1,561$2,162$2,564 Electric & Gas $2,483$3,197$4,659 Electric Heat $2,765$4,061$4,070 TOTAL $2,186$3,010$5,274

80. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 80 Q1 2011 Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by ≥ $100 Number of Customers 319384102624 Percent of Customers 22%27%7%44% Mean Starting Balance$180$980$362$273 Mean Ending Balance-$61$537$414$743 Percent Paying ≥ 90%90%100%98%26% Percent Paying ≥ 100%65%100%0%

81. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 81 Q1 2011 Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 37121142 Percent of Customers 26%15%3% Mean Starting Balance$245$253$618 Mean Ending Balance$477$868$2,476 Percent Paying ≥ 90%40%6%2% Percent Paying ≥ 100%0%

82. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Q1 2011 Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by ≥ $100 Number of Customers 319384102624 Percent of Customers 22%27%7%44% Median Annual Income $46,644$50,490$45,480$50,112 < 225% FPL 13%14%19%17% 225% - 249% FPL20%21%16%17% 250% - 299% FPL33%29%32%28% ≥ 300% FPL34%36%33%39% Percent Single-Parent10%12%21%14% Percent Elderly-Only20%11% 13%

83. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 83 Q1 2011 Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 37121142 Percent of Customers 26%15%3% Median Annual Income $49,200$50,928$53,442 < 225% FPL 20%13%5% 225% - 249% FPL16%18%24% 250% - 299% FPL26%30%33% ≥ 300% FPL39%40%38% Percent Single-Parent15%13%19% Percent Elderly-Only13% 12%

84. Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis 84 Q1 2011 Recipients Grant Type Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + TOTAL Electric Only 57%37%6%100% Gas Only 66%33%1%100% Electric & Gas 56%30%14%100% Electric Heat 55%33%12%100%

85. Receipt of Energy Assistance Percent Who Received USF or LIHEAP In the 12 Months Following Grant Receipt 85 Q1 2011 Recipients UtilityNumber of CustomersPercent Receiving USF or LIHEAP ACE111 8% ETG84 4% JCP&L577 4% NJNG159 8% PSE&G422 5% RECO1513% SJG618% TOTAL1,429 5%

86. Receipt of Energy Assistance Percent Who Received USF or LIHEAP In the “Good Faith” Period 86 Q1 2011 Recipients UtilityNumber of CustomersPercent Receiving USF or LIHEAP ACE111 1% ETG84 0% JCP&L577 1% NJNG159 1% PSE&G422 1% RECO150% SJG612% TOTAL1,429 1%

87. TRUE Grant Eligibility 87 Number of NJ SHARES Grantees % Meet True Income Eligibility Guidelines % True Income Eligible & True Good Faith Requirements Individual Utility Both Utilities 2010 Q1 4,798>99%66%70% 2011 Q1 1,84296%61%71% 2012 Q1 84896%44%50%

88. Key Findings NJ SHARES provides grants to those in temporary need of assistance. –77% received a grant in only one of the past eight years. –Recipients made an average of 2.1 payments in the 90 days preceding the grant. Changes in types of households served. –Senior households were more likely to receive grants than in previous years (21%). –Clients had lower income, due to changes in LIHEAP eligibility. –Electric only grants much more common and electric and gas grants much less common. 88

89. Key Findings NJ SHARES continues to serve those hit by the recession. –Similar to 2010 recipients, 14% of 2011 recipients reported receipt of unemployment compensation, compared to 12% in 2009 and about 5% in previous years. –Similar to 2010 recipients, 11% of 2011 recipients reported unemployment as reason for grant application, compared to 8% in 2009, and 2% to 6% in previous years. 89

90. Key Findings Evidence to increase electric only grant. –82% of electric only grant recipients received the $300 maximum. –Electric only grant recipients had a mean balance of $739. –Electric only grants covered an average of 69% of the balance (77%-82% for the other grant types). 90

91. Key Findings Grant recipients did better in the year following grant receipt than in the past. –49% of Q1 2011 recipients were successful in their first year, up from 32 percent in past two years and 19% in year before that. Many grant recipients may need more than one year to get back on their feet. –Grant recipients improve their payment behavior in the second year after grant receipt compared to the first. (73% successful) The only observable difference between more and less successful recipients is that those with higher bills build up greater balances in the year following grant receipt. –These households may be a good target for subsidized energy efficiency services. 91