11 Timely and Meaningful Public Participation, , 2605(b)(12) - Assurance 12, 2605(c)(2)

11.1 How did you obtain input from the public in the development of your LIHEAP plan? Select all that apply. Note: Tribes do not need to hold a public hearing but must ensure participation through other means. Tribal Council meeting(s) Public Hearing(s) Draft Plan posted to website and available for comment Hard copy of plan is available for public view and comment Comments from applicants are recorded Request for comments on draft Plan is advertised Stakeholder consultation meeting(s) Comments are solicited during outreach activities Other - Describe: Public Hearings, 2605(a)(2) - For States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Only 11.2 List the date and location(s) that you held public hearing(s) on the proposed use and distribution of your LIHEAP funds? Date Event Description 1 07/22/2025 Public Hearing - held virtually through Microsoft Teams 11.3. How many parties commented on your plan at the hearing(s)? 13 11.4 Summarize the comments you received at the hearing(s). Elizabeth Darby spoke in support of changes #3 and 4, stating it would streamline budgetary management process for subrecipients and eliminating budget modifications to shift funding around and allows better visibility on how clients are being served. CFS is in a rural area with only one approved vendor for repairs and replacements and without a Weatherization department, so they lack resources to be able to administer it properly. Thomas Hartnett-Russell clarified that crisis benefits still need to be tracked separately from regular benefits, so change #3 would not result in the same kind of holistic number that Elizabeth seems to be expecting. • Deborah Myerson asked if IHCDA had conducted analysis to determine impact of the changes on low-income households. Thomas Hartnett- Russell clarified that most of this year’s changes were about streamlining administration on the back end and making the program more efficient and nimble. TJH-R shared that scenario testing had been done prior to the reduction of benefits in PY2025, and that while the methodology appeared to be sound, the end result was not quite what IHCDA had expected. IHCDA did use a similar scenario testing for the proposed increases in PY2026, and will revisit these numbers when they hopefully have a new policy analyst toward the end of the program year in order to better inform PY2027 decisions. IHCDA is committed to data-driven decision making. • Emily Parker asked if applications were being backlogged as a result of using the 2-1-1 call center to accept telephonic applications, and whether applicants were aware of the availability of this call center. TJH-R clarified that each local agency was processing the telephonic applications for its service region rather than IHCDA processing centrally, so the answer to that would depend upon how efficient any given local agency was operating, and I could not give a holistic answer. As for applicants being aware of the call center, TJH-R stated that IHCDA marketed that availability pretty aggressively and asked the subrecipient agencies to market it as well. We also saw year-over-year growth of applicants applying through the call center, so it would seem that applicants were by and large aware. TJH-R anticipated a follow-up question and spoke to why IHCDA was discontinuing the call center. The primary reasons are (1) because paying the contractor was incredibly expensive and was taking away from benefit dollars that could be use to serve more households or serve existing households with larger benefits and (2) while it provided additional application volume, the fact that an applicant could not submit documentation telephonically meant that it created more follow-up on the subrecipient end, resulting in a far less efficient process. It was decided that this was not the best use of limited LIHEAP resources. • Deborah Myerson stated that it appears that items 7 and 9 would likely reduce the number of applicants, and whether IHCDA has any predictions with that regard. Regarding #9, TJH-R reiterated the discussion we had just had about the 2-1-1 call center and clarified that subrecipient agencies would still be expected to accept a telephonic application directly from an applicant who wished to apply that way. Furthermore, 2-1-1 is a known call center for resources that will continue to operate; their role now will be to direct callers requesting energy assistance to their local agency or to the online application portal. It may bring down scale, but the hope is that it results in more complete and actionable applications and fewer denials. Regarding #7, TJH-R clarified that agencies still may send out those early application packets, but that IHCDA was no longer requiring it. Along with this, IHCDA was loosening restrictions on who the application may be sent to early, allowing each agency to determine what the needs of their communities are and what works best for their agencies. TJH-R assured Ms. • Myerson that IHCDA would evaluate the results of this change. Deborah Myserson asked if IHCDA tracks metrics in order to measure the effectiveness of policy changes. TJH-R affirmed that IHCDA does track a lot of metrics; some are required in federally-mandated reporting in order to meet the accountability required by the block grant, but a lot of the reporting is also done internally to evaluate the impact of changes, to determine what other changes need to be considered, and to inform discussions with the Indiana Energy Association. TJH-R clarified that wither more staffing stability we are hoping to have a stronger data set to analyze going forward. • Cynthia Thomas asked if the list of updates being discussed would be sent out. TJH-R clarified that the finalized state plan and the manual would both be posted to the IHCDA Partners website in September, after the state plan has been submitted to and accepted by OCS. • Angel Riley asked if there was a date on which the PY2026 application would be released. TJH-R responded that there is no date yet, but it was anticipated by mid-August. • Julie Wilson asked if the movement of ERR from EAP to Weatherization was a final decision or if it still might be reversed. TJH-R commented that his understanding was that it was a final decision, but it primarily impacted the way the funds were distributed and reported and did not necessarily have to impact an agency’s internal processes and procedures. Greg Glassley clarified that the decision has not been finalized until the state plan has been submitted, and that IHCDA may reverse course on this decision. Julie advocated for keeping ERR under EAP. • There were no further comments. 11.5 What changes did you make to your LIHEAP plan as a result of public participation and solicitation of input? As a result of public participation and stakeholder input, we made four major changes: We reversed on a policy from PY2025 that prevented release of a benefit for the entire program year if the approved applicant household had a credit balance on its heating or electric utility that exceeded the threshhold. • We increased benefit amounts by adjusting the matrix. • We reversed course on our intention to move ERR under Weatherization. • We discontinued application by central call center, as it was resulting in high occurrences of incomplete applications that were ultimately denied. • If any of the above questions require further explanation or clarification that could not be made in the fields provided, attach a document with said explanation here.