Rural Hard to Reach Local Government Partnerships’ Working Group SUMMARY NOTES September 14, 2016, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Call #: 800-791-2345, Access Code: 22540# Attendees: IMPLEMENTERS Steve Campbell, AMBAG Craig Schlatter, CDCMC
Pam Bold, HSEF* Rick Phelps, HSEF Lou Jacobson, RCEA
Sarah Farell. SJVCEO* Courtney Kalashian, SJVCEO Jon Griesser, SLO County
Greg Jones, SBC
SUMMARY NOTES Welcome Jon Griesser welcomed everyone to the call. Regulatory Update CAEECC business plans were just released. RHTR group needs to try to put our feedback together by Friday. The group can either do this for just the public sector or those sitting on other subcommittees can take the reins on other sector business plans and the group and come together later to agree on feedback. The conversation turned to global issues documents. One came out of an RHTR meeting at SEEC; the group determined a need to outline high-level challenges for all sectors. The other came out of LGSEC’s proposal for local government partnerships. Lou Jacobson noted that they were formed from two parallel ideas, but they seem to be similar documents addressing different situations. Courtney Kalashian suggested the group looks at them as parallel conversations. What will now be called the “GWD”, or Global Word Document, addresses the sector business plans and can be used to get feedback in by September 19th. What will now be called the “GED”, or Global Excel Document, addresses the challenges RHTR faces regardless of PAs, programs, etc. This is what the group should use to speak with the IOUs at our October meeting. Craig Schlatter hoped to come up with top 3 challenges from the GED and have a subcommittee agree to meet with the IOUs ASAP to say “if we want to defeat LGSEC, this is where we need to align”. Greg Jones said that he wouldn’t have capacity now to provide insightful feedback on business plans, but could review others’ feedback; CK noted that many were in this position. JG summarized by saying that the two documents are directly related, but the applications are different and related timelines of use are different. LJ volunteered to review the Residential and Commercial business plans and look over the GWD at a higher level. LJ will send the GED out after this meeting. JG said SLO would support LJ on res and commercial and AMBAG will also provide support on Commercial. CK noted that SoCal REN is submitting a single chapter, but hasn’t yet. The only sector missing a single chapter is Cross Cutting. GJ noted that regardless of who the PA is, the GED is a list of universal concerns we have as RHTR and all should have some consideration; it’s a strong list of grievances and we have an opportunity to bring it to IOUs or someone else. This document shouldn’t be partitioned down to a top 3, but should be prioritized. Using this, CK outlined her approach to providing feedback on business plans. If the group wants to consider all issues outlined in the GED, we need to look for opportunities for where they can be addressed. Business plans are so high-level that CK looks for
trigger warnings such as “What do I want to happen that just won’t happen” and “what do I want to happen that might just happen”. Moving forward, she will use the concerns outlined in the GED as trigger warnings as well. JG noted that we don’t want to run any risk of neglecting issues with LGSEC despite the CAEECC timeline. CK explained the CAEECC process: On September 21st, there will be a CAEECC meeting to discuss the business plans single chapters. If we can get our comments in before this, they will be available for full CAEECC group consideration. All PAs will then use these comments when they write their full business plans. LGSEC did not put forward a proposal; they were not invited to put forward a business plan. CK will confirm if LGSEC is presenting on 9/21. LJ will send out GED after this meeting; group doesn’t want to get into too much detail about next steps until everyone has a chance to rank and prioritize the list. Getting Ready for In-Person Meeting October 6th is the CenCal LGP meeting in SLO. After this event, from 3 – 5 PM, there will be a 2hour RHTR meeting with IOU participation, followed by a voluntary RHTR dinner. On October 7 th, there will be an RHTR only meeting from 9AM to 2PM. Kim Rodriquez (SCE), Paulo and Becky (SCG), Leif and either Mike Foster or Jessica (PG&E) and possibly Michelle Costello (SDG&E) will represent the IOUs at the 10/6 meeting. At the RHTR/IOU meeting, the group needs to be collaborative and show the value of IOUs partnering with the group. The GWD and GED should be finalized for and used as reference materials in this meeting. RHTR needs to come with a wish list and the conversation itself should be collaborative. JG noted that our approach should be to advocate for and improve services and programs we offer our rural customers. Regardless of who achieves this or how its achieved, this must be our starting place. We have grievances for our customers and we’re trying to do our best by them. The IOUs know we’re all involved in the CAEECC and LGSEC processes. CK suggested CS leads this conversation with the IOUs, bringing strategy and negotiating prowess, and LJ can bring emotion and passion. Group should send CS all high level concerns. The purpose of this meeting is to express customer-focused issues and how we can better serve them regardless of business plans and PAs. CK will ask if IOUs can stay for 3 hours instead of 2. With the help of CK and LJ, CS will put together RHTR/IOU agenda. Group should send CK agenda items for 10/7 RHTR only meeting. CK will have Sam and Suzie coordinate on meeting locations and invitations for the CenCal LGP meeting and other events. Conclude
Action Items in yellow