Page 1

Rural Hard to Reach Local Government Partnerships’ Working Group SUMMARY NOTES July 8, 2015, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Attendees: IMPLEMENTERS Elizabeth Russell, AMBAG Rick Phelps, High Sierra Eng Found Lou Jacobson, RCEA

Matthew Marshall, RCEA Courtney Kalashian, SJVCEO Jon Griesser, SLO County

Jennifer Rosser, SBC

ACTION ITEMS Date assigned

Party assigned



07/08/15 07/08/15 07/08/15 07/08/15 07/08/15


07/08/15 07/08/15 07/08/15


Item Description Coordinate members’ dinner to coordinate with Cal Poly Climate Conference in August. Identify critical moments and where direct action can make an impact Review and submit edits of Strategic Action Plan to JG Resend reoccurring calendar invite Update “Matrix” and send out to group Create temporary online home for RHTR documents Speak to CS about interest in leading Goal #2 efforts (and submitting comments re: LGP Evaluation & Research Methodology) Choose a goal you want to work on and get involved Work on CE/TRC/NTG issue

Due Date


07/31/15 08/12/15 08/31/15 07/31/15 08/10/15 08/12/15


08/12/15 08/12/15 TBD

SUMMARY NOTES Jon Griesser, SLO County opened the call at 11:00 a.m. roll call followed. Housekeeping  Review Logistics for Upcoming Meetings JG shared that the work ahead of the RHTR group is great and in order to tackle it all the group will hold to a monthly meeting schedule (2nd Wednesday of the month at 11am) for the remainder of 2015. 

Review Action Items (from June 19, 2015) Action items from the June 19 meeting were all complete.

Upcoming Events Courtney Kalashian, SJVCEO informed the members of the California Climate Action Planning Conference to be held at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo August 13&14. CK stated she and JG would like to hold an informal work session to address RHTR issues; any other members attending the conference were welcome to join. Elisabeth Russel and the AMBAG plan to attend the event, and ER asked if a RHTR social outing could be arranged. CK to coordinate an activity. Tentative for September 25, the Central California Local Government Partnerships meeting, aka “Paso meeting” is in the planning process. Rick Phelps, HSEF, plans to attend with Pamela Stanton. CK and JG are on the LGC led planning committee.

Summary of Sacramento Meeting JG shared his feedback; AM was used to answer ‘what do we want to focus on, how do we use the IOU time, what do we want to share?’ It was agreed that Jeremy Battis, CPUC, had the impression that we are less organized than the group felt we are. With many open questions on a specific ask to the IOUs the members were able to discuss and quickly pulled back and refocused at the strategic plan level. During the time spent with the four IOUs the group avoided the going off into the weeds. Don Arambula, SCE and Becky Estrella were very open and helpful with directed feedback on the proposed RHTR mission and goals. 

Key Take-Aways from June meeting Lou Jacobsen, RCEA, complimented Craig Schlatter, CDCMC, for his masterful narrative on growing up in rural Illinois and the tie-in to RHTR work. All agreed that Leif Christiansen, PGE went a bit rogue in pivoting to a cost effectiveness conversation. CK asked the group to pay careful attention to DA’s continued questions, “to what end?” The RHTR members have differences but need to keep in mind the strategic overlap regardless of our differences.

Mission & Strategic Goals  Incorporating IOU feedback Matthew Marshall, RCEA and LJ were tasked with boiling down the original six draft strategic goals into three higher level goals. LJ explained that they used the notes from the group and brainstormed on their lengthy drive back from Sacramento. The process was to move in objective, measurable, verifiable goals, using the SMART and WWW strategies. JG shared the results with the group in an email attachment sent 07/08/2015. The document has revision controls on. MM spoke to the sub-goals listed and the question, “to what end”. RHTR wants great programs and what does that look like? How does RHTR include decision makers? 

Mission LJ and MM removed the comparative nature from the mission per IOU recommendation (J. Waggoner, PGE). They also removed ‘same’ and discussed the concept of what is better than same? Consistent? Quality? MM and LJ did not include cost effective in the mission and the RHTR members were pleased with that. Draft Vision Statement: To provide sustaining and crosscutting energy services and products to rural California communities that align with and promote the State’s big, bold 50/50/50 goals. Draft Mission Statement: To collaborate with and advocate for rural California communities to bring consistent and quality energy services and products necessary to meet the State’s big, bold 50/50/50 goals in our represented communities. Conversation followed the need to stay on top of the cost effective and total rate cost (TRC) issue. LJ, state that the CPUC has a net to gross ratio (NTG) change memorialized—how does RHTR get the IOUs to incorporate NTG? It was decided that LJ and CK would work on CE/TRC/NTG issues. LJ referred to an email conversation with Jenn Rosser, SBC, her questions was ‘what is the notion of energy products and services? Can we be more direct?’ LJ thought no, that the mission isn’t about our individual contracts with the IOUs, it is about moving our communities toward the 50/50/50 goals. The group concurred.

RP stated he thought the group should set a manifesto of what we want and send it out to everyone. He wants to see more meat on the bones of all this work. He suggested the product be simple enough that RHTR can get some traction and expressed concern that the group is getting too process oriented. Conversation with the group followed. JG pointed that it may be too short sighted to just write down what we want. RP agreed and countered that perhaps it was necessary get voices in a room with a white board. *note taker lost line* RP continued that the RHTR group needs to take some risks and set guidelines—direct action means go in there and do something! LJ proposed an action item to have a group to determine what those critical moments are and where direct action can make an impact. RP and LJ agreed to take on this task. 

Strategic Goals The group discussed the consolidated strategic plan goals and related objectives. Interest and actions were identified. The group agreed to set timelines and discussed the need to understand how to make the goals do what we need them to do.




Collaborate to increase the quality of delivered energy related services and products to rural California communities.



Party assigned/interested Ck/JG/LJ/RP



Conduct quarterly meetings and/or conference calls.



Create a platform to share programmatic products and services, support documents, resources and best practices.

CK interested, needs more development on G1/O3


Create and maintain partner program matrix maps to identify and track ongoing areas of overlap

CK, JG and to limited extent, LJ

Coordinate monthly calls, quarterly meetings and as needed fill in meeting. Manage RHTR calendar. Create and house platform. Create temporary home for RHTR docs. Group needs to decide what they want to do and how to

where quality can be increased. G2


Assess rural California’s ongoing and crosscutting barriers to the market adoption of energy related services and products.

Craig Schlatter?

O1 O2

Identify barriers Identify drivers and strategies


Share barriers and drivers


Develop and maintain communication channel with CPUC, CEC, IOU and local government decision makers Submit responses and comments to regulatory agencies and IOU program administrators. Secure and maintain a “seat at the table” for decisions regarding energy products and services.

LJ suggested a matrix of barriers, drivers and strategies.

Positively influence local, regional and state policy and regulatory discussions and decisions to address barriers and drivers in rural California



do it. JG to send out his “Matrix” CK to ask CS if interested. CK to bring IOUs in when needed.

Craig Schattler?

Rhtr memberscall summarynotes 07 08 15  
Rhtr memberscall summarynotes 07 08 15