Local Government Partnerships “Peer to Peer” Working Group Agenda September 6, 2012, 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. Western Riverside Council of Governments, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501-3609 Invitees Partnerships Community ELP, Laurel Rothschild San Gabriel Valley ELP, Marisa Creter San Gabriel Valley ELP, Caitlin Sims San Joaquin Valley ELP (VIEW), Maureen Hof San Joaquin Valley ELP, Courtney Kalashian South Bay ELP, Jacki Bacharach South Bay ELP, Marilyn Lyon South Bay ELP, Catherine Showalter Southgate Partnership, Dave Torres Ventura Partnership, Cheryl Collart Western Riverside ELP, Barbara Spoonhour
Time 12:30 p.m. 12:35 p.m. 12:52
Southern California Edison Demand Response, Tara Becnel Energy Efficiency Programs, Marjorie Hamilton Energy Efficiency Programs, Greg Haney Energy Efficiency Programs, Nancy Jenkins LG Accounts Team Manager, John King Public Affairs, Chris Peck Southern California Gas Company Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Becky Estrella Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Paulo Morias Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Frank Spasaro Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Chauncy Tou
Item Lunch provided by WRCOG Welcome and introductions a. WRCOG facility information b. Additions/revisions to agenda
Lead Barbara
Nancy turned over to Dan to discuss Account Management changes at SCE. AM side consolidated – Dan and Matt Garcia will be handling government side. Matt to lead for cities and counties, Dan – federal side. John King will now be taking over all hospitals, k-12, water, outage management team. Idea was to align all of gov accounts into one area. Demand Response – Tara will be transitioning over to lead dynamic pricing program and other marketing initiatives at SCE. Holly will be taking over for DR. Chris Peck – shift in regions for LPA. – can get list from Chris. Previous Business Items a. Reports on items and efforts of 06-01-2012 meeting All accomplished. Will briefly discuss city manager’s report. Laurel presented report that incorporates efforts of both utilities. Would be shared with PM or LPA to share with city managers or whoever else appropriate. Nancy suggested making change of language from ‘kicker’ to LGP. Language change on the city managers report. b. Questions regarding the ELP Community Participation Amendment that was sent out by SCE early August Would like to prepare comment back because all partnerships would like to make sure on the right track. Laurel – wanted to
Courtney
Laurel
address three items as a group and specifics per partnership can be addressed at later time. 1. partnership email list to be updated. Laurel can be the contact person to provide corrections. Laurel said she preferred that implementer only get the communication and then send out to their cities. Nancy said they would need to discuss. Courtney suggested an email come out that explains what the email is – this email address is specific to partnerships, etc., keep an eye out, updates, important announcement. Greg – send out notice to all email recipients so they know what to expect. Greg – email is important to get message out to everyone so message is in ‘black and white’, can be further discussed in partnership meetings to drive messages home. Barbara – as implementers would like to have advanced notice if and when emails go out in case there is need for clarification, make sure does not go to spam, etc. Could emails be reviewed by this ad hoc peer group in advance of going out? 2. Budget – as implementers is it allowed to bill out time for the new community requirements? Ie efforts, printing costs for any of the marketing pieces. Greg – for these new requirements trying to make cities take individual action. Expertise as implementer and partnership team (utility partners) can be used to assist. Ideally would like the city partner be engaged as much as possible and not have implementer take the lead. Yes, the implementer can help with talking points but would like them engaged as possible. Barbara – her cities would be very reluctant to do certain types of presentations to electeds. Marjorie responded saying that that particular menu item may not be the one to do then. Courtney suggested having a budget within the budget to support the amount of assistance that can be provided to these community menu items. Courtney will put more thought and details into this idea and send it out to the group. Nancy – reminder that presentations should prob include LPA because they will want to be a part of that. Having implementer or utility person present, however, is not the idea behind this menu item. Catherine thanked SCE for the option of the menu. Tara – worked with Laurel on cities so she should have some best practices to share. 3. opportunity for education on both sides for what it takes to do a project and process a project (application process). Peer group put together list of challenges. Courtney thanked john greg nancy because peer group was able to bring app issues to light and was able to get project through. Page 2 of 5
Common misunderstandings of projects – would like a list from SCE. Will take peer list of challenges and add in possible solutions. Would like SCE and SCG to come back with input. Would like to have a separate meeting on this subject alone but will have to further develop list. Conference call sooner than later. Nancy suggestion for scope – think broader than the current application process bc filed with CPUC to offer expanded services to local govs in order to get project id’d, exectuted, etc. would like to better understand the gap in services to local gov so think broadly in what are the needs to support. Was clarified that it isn’t just the app process but the entire life of a project in which these challenges take place… Sooner the better – from utility side – the challenge list doesn’t have to be complete. Nancy – within a month. In person would be best. Peer group will put together document within next week and will organize meeting within the next month. c. Municipal Project Challenges with utilities 1:30
Discussion Items a. Lessons learned/challenges from 2013-14 application process; ways to improve? From utility point of view, what worked for all of you and how would you like to see process improve in future, and what could we be working on as group in future to make process smooth and effective?
Laurel
All
Paulo – additional time would help! Nearly 400 pages to respond to. Would like to have convos with local gov partners. Courtney – we are hoping to be able to share our process with the commisisioners. Would love to hear utility feedback so can advocate. Are workgroups effective? Paulo – does think these PAG meetings are effective. Good aprt to get input from a lot of different areas and industry professionals; down side is also too many opinions wanting to pull in their own direction. What to expect? Paulo – process seems to change, people change, jobs change, vision changes, etc. there is always chaos, process always evolving from one cycle to another. Marjorie – you never know what to expect. Requires flexibility, do best can. The local gov part of the whole process is really a small piece. Preparation – if going into process implementers, cities know that it will require excess time then can somewhat prep. Could maybe help to take out some of the anxiety. Paulo suggested sharing Page 3 of 5
concerns with PUC. Nancy – to a certain extent it is not within their control. Most valuable were meetings with individual partners to get feedback on how to shape partnership portfolio. Laurel – it would be useful to know if there are opps for this group to help shape other pieces of partnership. Expanded project management, strategic plan work, and water energy – three main pieces for SCE. Paulo – for SCG, will close gap and serve all partners that SCE currently has. Laurel – could start something to get comments re: SCE’s list of three pieces – see above. Water. marisa = greg to follow up re potential projects that were supposed to be in EAP; contractor issues. Laurel – layers of transparency across partnerships re budgets and savings. Communication directly from program managers would be appreciated so planning for 13-14 can begin. Nancy – drastic differences due to regulatory teams’ interpretation of budget. All lighting was consolidated – anything to do with lighting, interior, exterior controls, etc. the partner budgets are not affected but they look different. Hoping decision comes out by end of year but could take longer. Catherine – if trying to budget for next year, what do you suggest? Program managers have what was submitted and it is SCE understanding that this is what will be. b. LA County REN: what it means to Partnerships, how the IOUs are working with the REN on implementation
SCE/SCG
Nancy – the commission has given no indication that this is what will be. It is unclear what will be approved. Barbara – there will be a presentation at their next partnership meeting. Nancy – biggest fear is that partners are confused at what services will be offered thru partnerhip and REN. Babara – want to make it work so it is not a battle. Nancy – yes, believe there is mutual desire and intent to make this real, collaborate not compete. Greg has been SCE internal lead. Courtney – VIEW situation different because of what it is situated. No REN in area because PGE offered joseph in fresno another Page 4 of 5
opp. How do you reach such an expansive territory? Laurel – attended meeting with san Gabriel valley COG, very informative. Howard did say this was all a work in progress and not all figured out. Ck – still logistical concerns from our cities. Paulo – there is a logistical challenge but partnerships like VIEW are the bridge to the gap. Someone locally is going to have to be a player in order to have the interaction. Concerns have been shared with howard. Timing of proposed decision from CPUC – RENS and partnerships. Think they are on the same schedule. Financing piece and third party contractor and timeline – SCG. Contractor has been selected, Frank S working on it, moving forward aggressively. Consultant is HBC. Becky and Paulo can get more info. Laurel – Beaumont. Direct install for municipalities. Is this an opp to consider for 2-13-14? Paulo – are evaluating DI measures, would be a third party program, looking at cost effectiveness – which has been the struggle in the past. Not a lot of opps for gas in small biz. Nancy – did start to look at this for transition period but really hard to make cost effective. Are looking at something that could be co-funded (the partner would copay). In transition period could possibly look at possibilities for next program cycle. Small biZ DI will be continuing. 2:30 p.m.
Adjourn Meeting Specific questions will be addressed directly…
Issues for Review from June 1, 2012 Laurel and Nancy will follow up regarding issue with account reps. Maureen will work with Greg to put together a list of current core program materials for the Peer to Peer page on the VIEW website. Laurel to create the list of issues with the incentive application process, with input from all implementers based on feedback from jurisdictions. Laurel and Courtney to meet regarding a co-branded, comprehensive city manager’s report.
Page 5 of 5