Peer to Peer Working Group Meeting Notes December 20, 2011 Peer-to-Peer Group Organization The larger peer-to-peer group meetings will be held in conjunction with the SCE All Hands meeting and will discuss long-term issues and solutions for the Partnerships. The Peer-to-Peer Working Group meetings will be held quarterly and will discuss issues that require more immediate action. Account Managers and Program Managers Account managers seem to have too many cities to manage. Because the process to complete projects depends on account managers, in some cases, projects cannot move forward. There is a lack of clarity as to which responsibilities fall to the program managers and which fall to the account managers, and in some situations, both account managers and program managers are hesitant to give up responsibilities. Possible solutions being discussed at SCE include a pure module, in which each account manager are assigned only local governments customers. Partnership representatives suggested that a collaborative approach and greater use of 3rd party technical services could be used to provide improved service to cities. After discussion, the SCE and the Working Group decided that each individual Partnership team would work together to fill in gaps in work where necessary. LPAs On many partnership teams, there is a lack of communication between the LPAs and the rest of the Partnership team. This is especially difficult because, while some LPAs attend monthly partnership meetings, others do not. After discussion, SCE and the Working Group decided that with the LPAs, communication and working as a team needed to be improved. Energy Leader Model Community Savings For some cities, because of their size, dominant zoning type (i.e. industrial or residential), lack of large home improvement store, or a variety of other reasons, it is difficult for them to meet the community requirements for the Energy Leader Model. This discourages some cities from participating in the Partnership. SCE concurred that alternative approaches to meeting the community savings requirement should be available to cities; however, the change must be simple and consistent and must demonstrate cities’ commitment to educating the community on energy efficiency. The Working Group proposed a checklist, similar to those used for the Demand Response requirements, in which a city could select certain items to fulfill. This would be measurable and clear, yet under the cities’ direct control. After discussion, SCE and the Working Group agreed that both sides would develop a proposal for changes. Additionally, SCE would confirm that there are no regulatory barriers to implementing this type of change to the ELM. The Working Group will provide their proposals to SCE by January 15, 2012. Municipal Savings The Working Group requested that cities be able to receive EE savings credit for projects that no longer receive SCE incentives (i.e. reflective street signs); for which the incentives have been upstreamed (i.e. HVAC); and for projects that were completed out of sequence and therefore cannot receive incentives. Because of the fiscal impact, SCE indicated that savings could not be credited for EE projects that are not eligible for incentives. However, the same appeals process will continue for projects that were completed out of sequence.
Peer to Peer Working Group Meeting Notes December 20, 2011 With regards to upstreamed HVAC, SCE is working with manufacturers to see if the necessary information is available to allow cities to receive the EE credit. Energy Action Plan Requirements The Working Group expressed concern over the lack of clarity regarding the EAP requirements, particularly related to Platinum level “implementation.” There is confusion about the extent of short-term vs. long-term projects expected in the Plan, and whether all projects (regardless of projected timeline) are required to be implemented prior to it being accepted as Platinum. In the current system, there is incentive to do short-term projects but no incentive to make long-term changes. I SCE stated that future Energy Action Plans should include an “Implementation” section, in which the city will define what implementation looks like. The city will then be held to the standards that they put forward in the implementation section. Demand Response Requirements The Working Group is pleased with the changes that have been made over the past year to clarify the requirements, particularly related to marketing and outreach. For the Demand Response requirements to enroll 25% and 50% of eligible facilities, it is difficult for cities that have fewer than 4 facilities greater than 100,000 kWh because they have limited or no choice in terms of which accounts to enroll, regardless of the use of the facility. SCE is looking to address that. The Working Group asked that completed audits, and those that are completed in the future, be provided to the Partnerships. There should be Demand Response co-branded marketing materials that include the Partnership logo, not just those of the cities. Technical Assistance Budget and Audits The Partnership team should receive more information and provide feedback in making decisions about the technical assistance budget and which audits should be completed. There needs to be more transparency about the audit budget and how much audits cost. While the program manager ultimately requests the audits, the entire team should have a say in which audits are undertaken. iDSM audits have also been completed, and SCE encouraged cities to look at those audits as well. Additionally, SCE recommended that Partnerships work with their account managers to utilize internal SCE resources. There are some facilities where both EE and Demand Response audits were completed. There needs to be more communication to ensure that this does not happen. SCE will provide iDSM audits to Partnerships, in addition to cities. Next Steps/Recommendations In order to improve communication, in the future, there should be email updates about any changes to incentives offered. SCE agreed to send out these email updates going forward. There would also be separate Demand Response emails to notify Partnerships of changes. The focus of the next quarterly meeting will be branding.