Central ca lgp workshop by Samantha Dodero

Central California and Central Coast Local Government Partnership Workshop

Doing More with Less Thursday, October 8, 2015 | 9:00am-2:30pm Paso Robles

Workshop Agenda – Part 1 Workshop Moderators:

Courtney Kalashian, San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization Trevor Keith, County of San Luis Obispo

9:00

Welcome and Introductions Courtney Kalashian, San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization Trevor Keith, County of San Luis Obispo Leif Christiansen, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

9:15

9:50

Regulatory Update: “What It Really Means for LGPs”

Leif Christiansen, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Don Arambula, Southern California Edison

Improving Energy Data Access Garen Grigoryan, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

10:35 Break

Workshop Agenda â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Part 2 10:45 Creating Multi-Agency Collaborations Vince Kirkhuff, County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Jon Griesser, County of San Luis Obispo Anna Olsen, Local Government Commission Craig Schlatter, Mendo-Lake Energy Watch

12:10 Networking Lunch 12:50 Leveraging Resources Joseph Button, AMBAG Energy Watch Sarah Farell, San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Watch

2:15

Meeting Debrief and Next Steps Courtney Kalashian, San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization Trevor Keith, County of San Luis Obispo Paulo Morais, Southern California Gas Company Julia Kim, Local Government Commission

2:30

Adjourn

Regulatory Update:

“What It Really Means For LGPs” Leif Christiansen Pacific Gas and Electric Company Don Arambula Southern California Edison

Energy Efficiency: Proposed Decision Overview

Dated October 8, 2015

EE OIR Overview (R. 13-‐11-‐005, Opened

November 2013)

Phase I: Programs and Budgets •  2015 Applica7ons covered limited policy issues (e.g., locaFonal targeFng, Prop 39, water-‐energy, etc.). Funding approved October 16, 2014. •  2015 Applica7on acknowledged EE has long-‐standing, complex issues. Signiﬁcant policy issues/changes will not be considered, many of which will be addressed in Phase III •  Programs and budgets should be an extension of 2013-‐2014 •  Expecta7on that incremental program changes will be needed

Phase II: “Rolling PorKolios” •  Scope includes “revamping” program cycle, applica7on, and other regulatory processes (Rolling PorTolios) •  Possible 10-‐year funding authorizaFon with annual or bi-‐annual check-‐ins star7ng in 2016 •  Providing guidance on changes for 2016 porTolio •  Upda7ng various porTolio metrics (e.g., DEER values)

EE OIR Overview (R. 13-‐11-‐005, Opened November

2013, Cont’d)

Phase III: Miscellaneous Policy Issues •  California Long-‐Term EE Strategic Plan •  Program integrity •  LocaFonal targeFng •  Market transforma7on •  Non-‐IOU program implementa7on •  Financing •  Custom project rules and incen7ves •  To code •  EUC fuel switching rules •  ME&O programs •  Data accessibility and conﬁden7ality •  Cost-‐eﬀec7veness

EE Overview – Proposed Decision q Adopts 2016 EE Goals

•  Modeling for 2016 was not a ground-‐up re-‐examina7on of modeling assump7ons and methodology. A broader re-‐examina7on of the modeling will be in “Stage 2.”

•  Commission considers 2016 goals to represent a “mid-‐case” scenario. •  Discusses calibra7on, emerging technologies, use of smart meter data, behavioral savings, REA issues, Codes and Standards.

q Largely Adopts EE CoaliFon’s Rolling PorKolios Proposal

•  Establishes 10-‐year funding applicaFons with “rolling” annual AL true-‐ups •  Allows Program Administrators (PAs) to make minor EE program changes more easily •  Establishes a stakeholder forum to vet EE porKolio plans outside of formal regulatory proceedings

•  Adopts a “bus stop” Fmeline for technical (e.g., savings, goals) updates •  Coali7on includes SCE, other IOUs, NRDC, TURN, ORA, and 15+ other stakeholders •  Delays 2016 and beyond program guidance un7l second PD •  First Rolling PorTolios applica7on an7cipated September 2016

EE Overview – Proposed Decision (Cont’d) 1)  Establishes longer-‐term funding applicaFons with “rolling” annual AL true-‐ups •  ApplicaFon approves funding levels for ten years •  Annual Tier 2 ALs specify precise budgets •  Applica7on to include new “business plans” broken into chapters by sector •  Applica7ons may be triggered within the ten years: •  In response to goals or to stay within business plan or cost-‐eﬀec7veness parameters •  If the Commission calls for a new applica7on •  Eliminates tracking “vintages” of funds 2)  Allows PAs to make minor EE program changes more easily •  Eliminates very speciﬁc program details from applicaFon in lieu of implementaFon plans being posted and maintained on the web •  Eliminates fund-‐shi\ing ALs and in lieu of reporFng

EE Overview – Proposed Decision (Cont’d)

3)  Establishes a stakeholder forum to vet EE porKolio plans outside of formal regulatory proceedings •  Stakeholder CoordinaFng Commi^ee (CC) can be used to vet business plans, annual ALs, implementaFon plans, and porKolio metrics while they are in development •  The CC will have a chairperson, be run by a facilitator, include Commission Staﬀ par7cipa7on, and establish annual agendas through ALs 4)  Adopts a “bus stop” Fmeline for technical (e.g., savings, goals) updates •  Technical updates are “picked up” at scheduled points. Items that are not ready at that 7me wait “for the next bus” •  Similar to custom projects, workpapers can be picked up the 1st and 3rd Mondays in the month •  DEER will be updated and frozen once a year, with limited excepFons •  Declines adop7ng a “market transi7on” period for custom projects in the pipeline

Legislative Overview

AB 802 (Williams) – To Code EE Savings & Large Building Usage Data “To-‐Code” Savings •  To-‐Code: EE savings shall take into considera7on the overall reduc7on in normalized metered energy consump7on. The programs shall include energy usage reduc7ons resul7ng from the adop7on of a measure or installa7on of equipment required for modiﬁca7ons to exis7ng buildings to bring them into conformity with, or exceed, the requirements of Title 24, as well as opera7onal, behavioral, and retrocommissioning ac7vi7es reasonably expected to provide mul7year savings. •  No explicit date, but expect to be at a minimum in Phase III of EE OIR.

Building Usage Data •  Usage Data: By Jan. 1, 2016, each u7lity shall maintain records of energy usage data for all buildings for at least the most 12 complete calendar months. •  No later than Jan. 1, 2017, each u7lity shall, upon request and wrifen authoriza7on of the owner, owners agent or operator of a covered building, deliver or otherwise aggregate usage data to be provided through ENERGY STAR PorTolio Manager; •  The data shall be provided within four weeks of receiving a request; •  The CEC shall also have access to this usage data for purposes of sejng energy.

SB 350 -‐ Doubling EE through 2030 EE ObjecFves: Double EE Savings Through EE End Uses

•  Sejng EE Targets; •  CEC to set annual EE targets through 2030, by Nov. 1, 2017 •  Targets are based upon a doubling of the EE mid-‐case poten7al es7mates (the mid-‐case is representa7ve of SCE’s current EE goals) •  CPUC establishes EE targets for the IOUs based upon the CEC’s targets •  CEC and CPUC targets must be cost eﬀec7ve, feasible, and not impact public health or safety •  Key EE Policy Changes •  Directs the CPUC to review and update its policies governing EE programs to achieve the targets set by the CEC •  At a minimum: •  Establishing market transforma7on and pay for performance programs •  Coun7ng opera7onal, behavioral, and retrocommissioning savings •  Basing incen7ve payments on measured results

•  CPUC can revise the targets and shall also modify, revise, or update its policies as needed to address barriers preven7ng achievement of those targets

Q&A Regulatory Update:

“What It Really Means For LGPs” Leif Christiansen Pacific Gas and Electric Company Don Arambula Southern California Edison

Improving Energy Data Access Garen Grigoryan Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Energy Data Request Program

This presenta,on is on behalf of PG&E, SoCalGas and Southern California Edison.

Program Background §  In May 2014, CPUC issued a Final Decision which outlined guidelines for IOUs to provide customers’ energy usage data to eligible third-‐par7es. §  Commission, amer reviewing 12 diﬀerent use cases, authorized u7li7es to provision data to 4 third par7es.

Program Eligible Third Parties State and federal agencies

Local governments

NaFonally accredited research insFtuFons

Community Services & Development

Energy Data Request Program (EDRP) §  EDRP has two key program features 1.  Publish customer usage data on a quarterly basis by zip code and customer class 2.  Implement a streamlined Data Request and Release Process (DRRP) online (2) Data Request and Release Process (DRRP)

(1) Publicly available reports posted on web portal

(1) EDRP Home Page - Public Reports §  Energy usage reports by zip code published quarterly on each IOU’s websites. •  SoCalGas: www.socalgas.com/energydatarequest •  SCE: www.sce.com/energydatarequest •  PG&E: www.pge.com/energydatarequest

(2) Data Request and Release Process §  New Process •  Submit energy data requests online

Intake

Data • IOUs apply data aggrega7on rules, validate 3rd party and business need

• Release data amer approved 7me-‐ frame

Release

DRRP Timeline Overview Maximum 7 Business Days

Maximum 15 Business Days

Respond to LG if the data request is complete

Respond to LG if the request can be granted and provide a proposed schedule

If request is incomplete, respond with what addi7onal informa7on is required to process the request

If cannot grant access to the data, provide speciﬁc reasons and/ or oﬀer other op7ons

Mandatory 4 Weeks

Data can be released 4 weeks from the date the Execu7ve Director of the Commission is no7ﬁed

TSA / NDA-certificate Requirements Within 7 business days

Terms of Service Agreement (TSA) Local Governments would be required to sign a Terms of Service Agreement with their respec7ve IOUs.

Non-‐Disclosure Agreement (NDA) CerFﬁcate If a local government has chosen to acquire the services of a consultant, before data may be provisioned, the said consultant must sign a NDA-‐Cer7ﬁcate.

Within 15 business days

Approval and NoFﬁcaFon Upon conﬁrma7on that the request applica7on is complete the u7lity will review and either approve or deny the request. At the end of 15 days u7lity will no7fy the Execu7ve Director of the Commission its disposi7on, concurrently no7fying the 3rd party as well.

Data Protection – LG Rules Aggregated Data

15/20 Rule for ResidenFal, Commercial, Agricultural ConsumpFon Data Aggregated over a group consis7ng of 15 customers in a single customer class. No single customer accounts for more than 20% of the total energy consump7on in an individual month. Data should be aggregated to a least the monthly level.

5/25 Rule for Industrial ConsumpFon Data Aggregated over a group consis7ng of 5 customers in a single customer class. No single customer accounts for more than 25% of the total energy consump7on in an individual month. Data should be aggregated to a least the monthly level.

Anonymized Data

100/10 Rule for ResidenFal, Commercial, Agricultural, or Industrial ConsumpFon Data Anonymized (stripped of PII) over a group consis7ng of 100 customers in a single customer class. No single customer accoun7ng for more than 10% of the total energy consump7on in an individual month, and excludes solar customers. Data interval may be at the monthly, quarterly or yearly level. No overlapping requests may be permifed.

Public vs LG Aggregation Rules Public AggregaFon Rules

Local Government AggregaFon Rules

Residen7al Customers

Minimum 100 customers

Residen7al, Commercial, and Agricultural Customers

Minimum of 15 customers and no single customer may be more than 20% of total usage*

Commercial, Agricultural and Industrial Customers

Min 15 customers and no single customer may be more than 15% of total usage

Industrial Customers

Minimum of 5 customers and no single customer may be more than 25% of total usage*

*If the rule isn’t met usage will be added to the bordering ZIP code.

*Applies to any designated geographic area **If the rule isn’t met CPUC decision (D) 14-‐05-‐016 directs u7li7es to work with reques7ng party to resolve.

Online Data Request Form - SCG

Online Data Request Form - SCE

Online Data Request Form â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PG&E

Program Benefits Consistent process across all IOUs Submit customer data requests online Single Point of Contact for each IOU Transparency of status of data requests Consump7on reports available online (by zip code and customer class) §  Custom usage data for planning and other needs §  Provide reports in a machine-‐readable format §  Commission oversight

§  §  §  §  §

Questions

Doing More with Less

Creating Multi-Agency Collaborations Vince Kirkhuff County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Jon Griesser County of San Luis Obispo Anna Olsen Local Government Commission Craig Schlatter Mendo-Lake Energy Watch

Central Coast CivicSpark

Crea7ng Mul7-‐Agency Collabora7ons

Central California and Central Coast Local Government Partnership Workshop

October 8, 2015

What is CivicSpark? •  Joint effort by Local Government Commission and Office of Planning & Research •  Ini7a7ve of AmeriCorps unique to California •  CivicSpark Mission: to build capacity for local governments to address climate change •  Goal: to support local governments in their research, planning, and project implementa7on efforts in reducing GHG emissions and responding to climate change

San Luis Obispo Region •  Rural, conserva7ve, and agricultural •  Unincorporated county plus 7 incorporated ci7es •  Popula7on of about 275,000

A History of Climate Action Planning and APCD GHG Initiatives in the SLO Region •  2005 -‐ APCD Board approved the Climate Protec7on Program and instructed staﬀ to ini7ate 7 key programs •  One measure was to encourage and provide support for local governments to address GHG throughout SLO County

•  2007 -‐ Forma7on of the City/County GHG Stakeholder Group •  Group of local governmental agency staﬀ that meet regularly to discuss statewide GHG developments, methodology, tools and resources to address GHG in CEQA and long-‐term planning.

•  2008 -‐ APCD Board approved grant funding for the development of GHG emissions inventories •  Municipal and Community-‐wide inventories were conducted

A History of Climate Action Planning and APCD GHG Initiatives in the SLO Region •  2011 -‐ APCD Board approved funds to assist 6 ci7es in the development of Climate Ac7on Plans (CAP) •  City and County of SLO received s7mulus funding to develop their CAPs •  This project was funded with a combina7on of sources: •  $162,510 from APCD Mi7ga7on Fund •  $237,503 PG&E Green Communi7es Program •  $5,000 SoCalGas Energy Eﬃciency Strategic Plan

•  2013-‐2014 -‐ CAPs were ﬁnalized and approved by all 6 ci7es •  2014 -‐ APCD Board approved contract with Local Government Commission to become CivicSpark regional hub •  Assist ciFes & county with CAP implementaFon

CivicSpark in SLO Region: Why? •  Lack of CAP implementa7on by local governments •  APCD leadership and willingness to host •  GHG Stakeholder Group in existence

CivicSpark | Year 1 •  Funding: $74,000

•  $42,750 from Energy Watch ($35,000 from PG&E and $7,250 from SoCalGas), $24,000 from Strategic Growth Council, and $7,250 from County

•  Posi7ons: 4 CivicSpark fellows, 1 Regional Coordinator •  Par7cipants/Stakeholders: APCD, CivicSpark, 7 Ci7es, Energy Watch, County, PG&E, and SoCal Gas •  Approach/Strategy: iden7ﬁca7on of 9 common measures across all CAPS; vote to select top 3 •  Scope of Work: energy eﬃciency & audit outreach and educa7on, small scale solar PV systems

CivicSpark | Year 1 Results •  Energy Eﬃciency & Audit Outreach/Educa7on •  People reached: 1,600+ •  Publica7ons: 4 •  Monthly e-‐newslefers: 6 •  Materials developed: 9 •  Total developed materials distributed: 1,400+ •  Presenta7ons delivered: 11 •  Events afended: 50 •  Block Party: approx. 600 afendees

CivicSpark | Year 1 Results •  Small Scale Solar PV Systems •  Conduct research & reduce staﬀ 7me through facilita7ng mee7ngs with local solar contractors •  Gather contractor feedback for each jurisdic7on •  Provide the Oﬃce of Planning & Research (OPR) Solar Permijng Guidebook to each jurisdic7on with informa7on/input about AB2188 compliance •  Facilitate mee7ng between local contractors and jurisdic7onal representa7ves

Challenges: limited municipal ability to engage with program, limited funding for non-‐EE measures, repor7ng

CivicSpark | Year 2 •  Funding: $50,000 from Energy Watch (PG&E and SoCalGas) •  Posi7ons: 2-‐3 CivicSpark fellows, 1 Regional Coordinator •  Par7cipants/Stakeholders: APCD, CivicSpark, 7 Ci7es, Energy Watch, County, PG&E, and SoCal Gas •  Approach/Strategy: overlay of municipal and commercial EE measures found commonly across all CAPs with new and exis7ng Energy Watch EE programs •  Scope of Work: CivicSpark fellows will assist local governments in implementa7on of CAPs by working with Energy Watch to increase awareness and par7cipa7on of local government agencies and local businesses in available Energy Watch and u7lity programs

Leveraging Utility Programs to the Benefit of Local Governments •  Current Energy Watch Projects & Ini7a7ves •  County of San Luis Obispo’s Sustainable Solu7ons Turnkey (SST) Project: $4.5 million for 11 measures at over a dozen County facili7es •  Annual savings: $334,000, 201 kW, 1.9 million kWh, 10,000 Therms, and 670 tons CO2e

•  CSD’s Large Integrated Audit (LIA) Project: poten7al for $8.7 million in projects ($2.5 million for energy eﬃciency $6 million for solar genera7on) •  Annual savings: $287,000, 272 kW, 1.7 million kWh, 490 tons of CO2e

Large Integrated Audit

Energy Watch – Commercial Direct Install •  Implemented by Staples Energy •  Full service solu7on including audits, proposals, installa7on, rebate processing, and quality assurance •  Retrofits energy efficiency equipment at higher incen7ve levels than offered through other channels •  Works hand-‐in-‐hand w/ PG&E ES&S team •  Focused primarily on ligh7ng, but also includes some refrigera7on and HVAC •  Targets SMB customers under 100 kW

Questions?

Successful Program Development Through Mul7-‐Agency Collabora7ons A Case Study from Mendocino County, CA

History and Early Program Development Ø  Community Development Department: 1970s – 2006 Homeownership programs, new single-‐ and mul7-‐family housing construc7on, public housing moderniza7on ac7vi7es, County CDBG and HOME admin Ø 2007 – City of Ukiah CDBG and HOME admin added Ø 2008 – Mendocino County Energy Watch forma7on Ø 2009 – In-‐house low-‐income energy efficiency program launched in Mendocino and Lake Coun7es (staff increases to 3) Ø  2010 – In-‐house residen7al Moderate Income Direct Install program launched; economic development programming added; County of Lake homeownership and SF rehab Ø 2011-‐12 – GhG inventories, Innovator Pilot, residen7al Moderate Income Direct Install launched (staff increases to 4)

Doing More With Less: the Revenue-Focused Way THIS WAS US

BUT SO WAS THIS

Doing Less With More Intentionality

The 5 ULTIMATE TIPS FOR SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Doing Less- More Intentionally 5 ULTIMATE Tips 1.  Do strategic planning and let it drive program development. 2.  Build produc7ve rela7onships. Go outside your comfort zone. 3.  Priori7ze customer (community) service. 4.  Focus on performance and consistently deliver results. Be known for this. 5.  Be solu7ons-‐oriented. Innovate, create, and collaborate!

CDC Development and Sustainability Department, 2015 and Beyond Things we are excited about: Ø Helping our Lake County neighbors through Mendocino Lake County Energy Watch Ø Further developing our HTR support services component through the addi7on of housing assets and facili7es management staﬀ Ø Future launch of GreenBILD with City of Ukiah municipal u7lity Ø New and innova7ve sustainable development program oﬀerings with our local partners

Development and Sustainability Department  Community Development Commission of Mendocino County  1076 North State Street, Ukiah, CA 95482  (707) 463-‐5462  www.cdchousing.org/40-‐2/  Mission: “Building Sustainable Communi7es”  Values: Communica7on, Crea7vity, Respect, Stewardship www.mendoenergy.org

Q&A Creating Multi-Agency Collaborations Vince Kirkhuff County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Jon Griesser County of San Luis Obispo Anna Olsen Local Government Commission Craig Schlatter Mendo-Lake Energy Watch

Central California and Central Coast Local Government Partnership Workshop

Networking Lunch Featuring The Beacon Program https://vimeo.com/141231423

Doing More with Less

Leveraging Resources Joseph Button AMBAG Energy Watch Sarah Farell San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Watch

Leveraging Resources for Greater Impact Joseph Bufon AMBAG Energy Watch

DeﬁniFon.

U7lizing non-‐immediate resources to realize increased energy savings and extensive energy reduc7on for a sustained period. 1.  Many (no-‐cost) resources exist to make this possible. 2.  In my experience, leveraging human capital through natural rela7onships makes the greatest impact. 3.  Being a successful “HUB” requires eﬀec7ve and eﬃcient immediate program resources. i.e. – be a magne7c resource to others

Conclusions.

Common Barriers to Greater Impact in our energy world •  Funding •  Iden7ﬁca7on & Analysis •  Implementa7on

Immediate Resources “The Team” •  Yourself and colleagues •  3rd Party Direct Install Ligh7ng Provider

•  Direct U7lity Partners

Immediate Resources Basic FoundaFon •  Be able to ar7culately deconstruct the complexi7es of the incen7ve world to anybody who wants to know –  (3L)

•  Have at least an entry-‐level technical understanding of common projects so that you can be a value add and direct others to deeper impacts. Customers and business seem to value an independent resource •  Posi7on yourself as a solu7ons provider/problem solver/value adder. –  (CED-‐Salinas)

Common Resources Funding and Technical •  CA Energy Commission –  EECBG (ARRA grants) –  ECAA (1% loans) –  Tech Assist ($20k of engineering assistance) –  Prop 39 School Grants

•  U7lity & 3rd Party –  OBF (0% loan) –  Project Review Engineers –  Large Integrated Audit Engineers –  3rd Party Program Engineers

Common Resources 2 Lessons Learned 1. Use all the free money out there and shepherd it’s use to maximize the impact/$

2. Maximize all the free engineering out there and don’t ever let an engineer leave your grasp without gejng project ideas ﬁrst

$1.1M à $0.79M à $.77M

Dissolved Oxygen Sensor #3 – Controls 3-‐5 Aerators

Other Resources Business Sector •  Solar Companies –  Front lines of clean and green energy equa7on.

•  Electrical Distributors –  Trusted resource for many target customers.

•  Energy Service Companies –  EE & renewable leverage masters.

•  Local Contractors –  Do lots of work and appreciate a helpful resource.

Other Resources 4 Lessons Learned 1. There is a lot of work occurring in our communi7es. Our involvement, hopefully, can make it more impacTul. 2. There are about 8 desks where most signiﬁcant ligh7ng sales go across in my region. I should probably have some inﬂuence there.

Easy Project Opportunity Would Have Been Missed Without RelaFonship

Other Resources 4 Lessons Learned cont… 3. ESCO’s aren’t perfect, but neither am I, and they can get a lot of great work done, rela7vely fast. 4. Even specialized contractors need support, advice, and assistance in being eﬀec7ve at selling EE products. Understanding “main players” business models and helping them understand the rebate/incen7ve model can lead to more dynamic opportuni7es for greater savings.

& Opterra (the ESCO) •  12 months of con7nuous projects •  $22.5M in beneﬁt over 25 years. •  AMBAG brought the project to the table through an LIA assessment and Opterra works with us and through us.

Community Resources •  Local non-‐proﬁt with common “sustainable” mission

1 Lesson Learned 1.  Some7mes small “low-‐capacity” ci7es can beneﬁt from the assistance of a local individual or non-‐proﬁt that wants to do every EE project and go 100% solar possible.

San Juan Bau7sta

Leveraging.

Concluding.

Leveraging Resources for the Inves7ng in Manufacturing Communi7es Partnership Sarah Farell October 8, 2015

What is the IMCP? •  Obama Administra7on ini7a7ve designed to help accelerate the resurgence of manufacturing in regions across the country. •  In 2013, the SJV was one of 44 regions across the country to receive EDA funds to build a strategy to accelerate growth in the region’s Ag Manufacturing cluster, including expanding exports, employment and innova7on ac7vi7es. •  12 “Manufacturing Communi7es” received designa7on

Partners Â

Industry Stakeholders •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •

College of the Sequoias ConAgra Foods Crystal Creamery Del Monte Foods, Inc. E. & J. Gallo Winery Energy Commission Food Process Solu7ons Fresno EDC Green Valley Solu7ons Grimmway Farms Hilmar Cheese Company Kern EDC Local Resources

MMR Power Solu7ons Quality Fresh Farms Spring Devices, Inc. Staples Energy Toor Farms Tulare WIB Ultra Tech Industrial Systems US Farm Systems Visalia EDC Warren and Baerg Manufacturing •  Water-‐Ways Irriga7on Engineers

•  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •

! ! EDA!Investing!in!Manufacturing!Communities!Partnership:! Water!and!Energy!Efficiency!in!Agricultural!Manufacturing!Workshop! !

June!25,!2015!▪!10:00!AM!/!2:00!PM! !

Energy!Education!Center! 4175!S!Laspina!Street!▪!Tulare,!CA!93274! ! !

E&J!Gallo!Water!and!Energy!Initiatives!|!Kim!MacFarlane!&!Megan!Kalend! E&J!Gallo!Wineries!have!established!goals!to!reduce!water!and!energy!use!through!behavioral!changes,! process!improvements!and!innovative!capital!projects.!This!presentation!will!focus!on!the!company’s! successes!and!challenges!as!well!as!strategies!for!the!future!using!the!3!Rs:!Reduce,!Reuse!and!Recycle.! ! Hilmar!Cheese!Company!Water!Efficiency!Activities!|!Burt!Fleischer! Hilmar!Cheese!Company’s!goal!is!to!minimize!the!use!of!ground!water!throughout!its!facility.!This! presentation!will!focus!on!efficient!water!use!for!production!and!reclamation!of!water!from!wastewater! treatment.!Drought!conditions!and!depletion!of!natural!resources!have!added!an!extra!driving!force!for! companies!to!address!how!water!is!used.! ! Southern!California!Edison!|!Robert!Juskalian! This!presentation!will!focus!on!Southern!California!Edison’s!Automation!Academy.!We!will!learn!about! automation!and!its!benefits!as!well!as!how!automation!can!be!applied!to!water!pumping,!agriculture,! processing,!and!manufacturing.! ! Pacific!Gas!and!Electric!Company!|!Harold!Harris!&!Carlos!Del!Pozo! Pacific!Gas!and!Electric!Company!has!a!wide!range!of!programs!to!help!agricultural!manufacturing! companies!save!money!and!energy,!install!efficient!irrigation!and!refrigeration!systems!and!understand! how!energy!and!water!is!used!at!their!facilities.! ! Staples!Energy!|!Theresa!Sebasto! Staples!Energy’s!mission!is!to!design!and!implement!energy!savings!solutions!and!this!presentation!will! promote!and!detail!the!company’s!Irrigation!Efficiency!Program.! ! California!Energy!Commission!|!Pam!Doughman! The!CEC!provides!several!programs!to!encourage!water!and!energy!efficient!behavior!and!practices.!This! presentation!will!discuss!the!Water!Energy!Technology!Program,!Electric!Program!Investment!Charge! Program,!PIER!Natural!Gas!Research!and!Development!among!others.! ! Kern!Community!College!District!|!David!Teasdale! Dave!Teasdale!of!Kern!CCD!will!discuss!how!to!use!ETP!funds!to!offset!the!cost!of!training!employees!on! new!techniques!and!technologies!and!to!help!them!function!more!efficiently.!

Sarah Farell Program Administrator San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organiza7on Phone: (877) 748 – 0841 Direct: (559) 977 – 7767 sfarell@pesc.com

Q&A Leveraging Resources Joseph Button AMBAG Energy Watch Sarah Farell San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Watch

Meeting Debrief and Next Steps Courtney Kalashian San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization Trevor Keith County of San Luis Obispo Paulo Morais Southern California Gas Company Julia Kim Local Government Commission

Thank You!

Julia Kim Local Government Commission jkim@lgc.org 916-448-1198 x304