10-19-11_Peer to Peer Recap

Peer to Peer Meeting October 19th, 2011 Energy Efficiency Requirements Cities feel as if they did not have enough input regarding Energy Leader Model program design and were forced to participate in the strict model.

Due to limited utility funding, not all partnerships have the opportunity to take advantage of core programs, such as Direct Install, that significantly impact community savings numbers.

Energy Action Plan Requirements The definition of implementation has evolved over time and become too expansive Cities received varying instructions on how to develop their EAPs, particularly their municipal project lists. Some cities were instructed to include “dream projects” in their EAP, and were ultimately told that in order to reach Platinum status, all projects in the EAP must be completed.

A “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work in terms of the level of policy direction cities need from SCE. Cities often do not receive credit for the EE savings for their projects and are forced to write various letters to SCE in order to for their credit to be eligible.

The actions or activities of “early adopter” cities are used unfairly to establish baseline expectations for other cities.

There is a high level of subjectivity on approving energy action plans which impairs the ability of cities from meeting the requirement.

Demand Response Requirements DR requirements have been unclear and changed frequently over the course of the program DR programs are often not a good fit with municipal facilities and operations (i.e. police stations, cool centers, jails, etc.)

DR marketing materials have been very delayed and have often held cities back from advancing levels in the ELM Account and Project Managers Account managers seem to have too many cities to manage. This workload results in account managers giving priority attention to largest projects Account managers often have groups of cities that are not aligned with partnership groups, resulting in conflicting goals/attention In some instances, SCE is pushing hard on moving cities up in the Energy Leader Model but not under the direction of the cities.

Next Steps/Recommendations Cities should receive municipal savings credit in the ELM for EE projects, even if they are nonincentivized or come from projects that have been incentivized „upstream‟ Request that since Energy 360 is suspended, that the PUC consider reallocating funds back to LG partnerships for marketing SCE should offer an alternative path for meeting community EE savings requirements that is more directly under a city‟s control Hire more account managers to distribute the workload more evenly or provide the flexibility for cities to access alternate SCE staff for questions or concerns.

Schedule quarterly “peer” meetings.

Develop an online forum with the SEEC Coordinator where individual partnership leaders can exchange ideas, resources, and program feedback.

Adopt a “menu” style approach for available programs and allow cities to tailor to their needs.

Initiate SCE universal e-mail communication to individual partnership leaders regarding changes to programs, regulations, and deadlines Provide greater transparency in the available services SCE can provide to partnership cities is needed.