03-02-12 P2P Summary Notes

Local Government Partnerships “Peer to Peer� Working Group Summary Notes March 2, 2012, 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

The Energy Coalition, 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 450, Irvine, CA 92618 Attendees Partnerships Community ELP, Laurel Rothschild San Gabriel Valley ELP, Marisa Creter San Gabriel Valley ELP, Caitlin Sims San Joaquin Valley ELP (VIEW), Maureen Hoff San Joaquin Valley ELP, Courtney Kalashian South Bay ELP, Marilyn Lyon South Bay ELP, Catherine Showalter Western Riverside ELP, Barbara Spoonhour

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 Energy Efficiency Programs, Michelle Prewitt

Item Welcome and introductions. Laurel Rothschild welcomed everyone to The Energy Coalition offices, introductions followed, and she thanked Edison for showing their support at this level through discussions with implementers about partnerships.

Business Items a. Web portal www.viewthesavings.com/peertopeer Courtney Kalashian reported that the VIEW Partnership website has a private page dedicated to Peer to Peer documents, including meeting agendas, summary notes, and group contact information. All documents are posted in PDF but if you need them in a different version, please feel free to contact Courtney or Maureen Hoff. b. Reports on items and efforts of 12-20-11 meeting Referencing the Peer to Peer Working Group Agenda Briefing Document that was provided in the meeting, the group reviewed the issues from the December 20, 2011 Peer to Peer meeting.

Energy Efficiency Programs SCE energy efficiency programs will begin quarterly emails to partnerships with program changes and new offerings. Courtney reported she had received a few email updates from Edison and was wondering who else in the group had. Greg Haney helped to clarify that there are two categories to these emails: a global email address (i.e. partnerships@sce.com) to address larger items that pertain to all, such as new programs; emails to individual partnerships for specific matters, such as project lists. Greg briefly discussed the new HVAC Optimization program saying this program would be included in an email that would go to everyone from the global address.

Report back on success and challenges with account managers. John King reported that he feels improvements have been made since the last Peer to Peer meeting and asked the group for feedback.

Barbara Spoonhour explained that communication with her account manager is very good, but feels there could be improvement in the relationship between her account manager and program manager because there is a lack of coordination. She also mentioned that she is still

waiting on information she requested last year and is worried about the lack of backup support.

Marilyn Lyon shared that there are times when she feels like she is not getting Larry, her account manager’s full attention because he is too overwhelmed. Laurel, who also has Larry as an account manager, said she too felt that he was overwhelmed but noticed he is trying to make an effort, Laurel added that not much has changed since the December Peer to Peer meeting in terms of level of support, noting that one of her account managers, Gerald, fails to participate in calls without notice. Laurel did add, however, that Gerard is a strong rep who is able to successfully complete projects. In addition, Laurel said that she has been able to learn a lot from Rick Raskin, another account manager.

Marisa Creter expressed concern with the upcoming EECBG project deadline in June, worrying that staff time constraints would cause cities to have missed opportunities.

John said he would begin by freeing up his staff members’ time to ensure they can meet other partnership meeting obligations. He will end his weekly staff calls earlier to allow Larry to participate in the South Bay’s weekly Friday morning call. He will also continue to look for ways to re-align workload so the reps can be increasingly focused on local government customer activities.

Update on EE credit for “up-streamed HVAC”. Marjorie Hamilton said Edison has been able to identify savings that would be able to count towards the ELP tier model, but Nancy Jenkins reminded everyone that nothing has been finalized. SCE will report back to the group on energy efficiency credit for “up-streamed HVAC”.

Revised Energy Action Plan template. Courtney reported that the VIEW Partnership’s program manager, Hammad Chaudhry, had provided her with the revised EAP template and that it was very beneficial. Michelle Prewitt explained that the revised template includes more resources off to the side that cities and counties can pull from, such as sample codes and measures. SCE will email the revised EAP template to all partnerships and Maureen will put it on the Peer to Peer page of the VIEW website.

Demand Response SCE demand response will send email to partnerships to alert of program changes. Tara Becnel reported that the Demand Response program cycle is not in sync with the Partnership cycle and technically ended last year. Once summertime rolls around, there will be much more activity in terms of emails regarding program changes.

IDSM audits will be provided to implementers as well as the local governments. Marilyn has yet to receive the IDSM audits so Tara will provide those to her.

Report back from SCE on DR enrollment for cities with fewer than four facilities greater than 100,000 kWh. More clarification and details need to be provided.

Report back from DR on inclusion of partnership logos on DR co-branded materials. This item was addressed later in the meeting.

Local Public Affairs

Report back on efforts to improve LPA and Partnership communication. Chris Peck said he can track region manager participation in calls and when there are holes in their level of involvement he will flag them and talk to them. Chris added that if there are specific activities that require a region manager and they are unresponsive, to contact him directly.

Courtney said the VIEW partnership has seen less in person involvement, but more participation on a broader level with cities. Laurel reported no change; she makes sure to keep them in the loop and there hasn’t been an issue. Marilyn reported all of her region managers have improved in sending the city manager report because before they were not receiving them at all.

Partnerships Work group would provide a proposal for alternative methods to meet community energy savings by January 15, 2012. The proposal was provided to SCE and, in response, SCE created proposed community savings guidelines for discussion.

Discussion a. Proposed community savings guidelines. Nancy thanked the peer group for the level of effort put in to develop concepts for the proposed community savings guidelines. SCE wanted to make it simple, make it easy to understand and not up for interpretation, and to create impact with what was being done through the menu options.

Marisa asked for clarification on how many items needed to be completed at each level. It was explained that the system is cumulative, not additive, meaning that a total of 3 community outreach events would need to be completed by a jurisdiction to advance from the Valued tier all the way to the Platinum tier. In other words, one community outreach activity is required at each tier level for advancement. Some had concern that this system was too easy until it was explained that these events are to be completed by the cities themselves, not through the partnership, and are meant to be above and beyond a normal partnership event. Document language will be edited to say that these are city events being done in addition to anything the partnership does. This system will eliminate the percentage savings goals, but Greg added that the community savings can still be tracked for some who want to see actual measurements. It was also decided that, where applicable, menu items can satisfy both community EE and Demand Response requirements.

The six community EE menu items were reviewed one by one: 1. Distribute energy efficiency information in bills or business renewal notices. Information to be coordinated with SCE PM. Marisa asked if there could be templates to choose from to avoid waiting for the approval process. Courtney suggested that this is something the partnerships could develop with program managers to help relieve SCE internal resources. Marjorie explained that the programs that would be advertised in the bills or business renewal notices already have existing copy so nothing new would need to be created, just adapted. Laurel expressed that she would like to see what the South Bay partnership has done. The peer group will collect best examples of partnership templates for sharing and these can be placed on the Peer to Peer page of the VIEW website.

2. City Representative to deliver presentation on energy efficiency savings and sustainability to a local organization (i.e. Rotary Club or Chamber of Commerce). It was noted to change the ‘i.e.’

to ‘e.g.’ to be grammatically correct. It was suggested that it would be nice to have a SCE staff person to help with some of the more technical pieces of the presentation for this menu item; however, Nancy clarified that this was not intended to be technical, but more of a city/county experience with energy efficiency savings and sustainability. It was decided this item can be a copresentation with SCE or implementing partner support.

3. Host an energy efficiency workshop targeted towards a hard-to-reach sector (i.e. low income, very small business, non-English speaking customers). Again, it was noted to change the ‘i.e.’ to ‘e.g.’ to be grammatically correct. The workshop category was left open so each city could identify the best opportunity in its community.

4. Develop and publish energy efficiency ‘success story’ featuring a Partnership municipal retrofit project. Marisa expressed concern again with the approval process. Nancy suggested that Marjorie look into why the San Gabriel Valley Partnership is having issues with the technical review of items. The intent is for the cities to produce their own success stories and not use a template design from SCE. It does not have to be a stand-alone piece and could be a story within an existing city newsletter. This menu item will be clarified by SCE on what is the minimum threshold for a success story to count. The Peer group will also provide feedback on what they think should count.

5. Energy Champion (or other city representative) to present at City Council/Board of Supervisors meeting on Partnership overview, offerings, and current activities. As in the case of menu item number 2, this item can also be a co-presentation with SCE or implementing partner support.

6. Place co-branded Partnership display/kiosk in municipal facility. The intent of this menu item was to provide a display/kiosk that offered a take-away of some kind, like a flyer. Courtney said it would be nice to have flyers on all of the current core programs to archive on the Peer to Peer page of the VIEW website for easy access. On a regular basis Maureen and Courtney will make sure that all of the core program information and collateral found on the site is current. Marjorie also encouraged implementers to contact their program manager anytime they needed hard copies of current core program materials. In addition, Chris suggested that whenever a program’s collateral gets updated it will be included in the general partnership email from SCE. After menu items were discussed, there was talk about the timing for these new requirements.

Nancy said the original thought was to implement the changes in 2013 to avoid any confusion.

Laurel was concerned that those who have already met the community level would be required to do the menu items of the new system. Marilyn was concerned that the partnership program would feel like failure or dud to those cities who couldn’t move up tiers before the end of the year because of the current community savings requirements. The peer group will gather comments regarding start time of the new community savings system. b. Comprehensive energy partnership branding. Laurel expressed concern over not being able to include other utility logos and overall umbrella partnership logos on materials when they are also part of the partnership. The first sample of where the branding moved away from the partnership umbrella was the partnership banner that only had the SCE ELP and city logos.

Barbara added that the umbrella of a partnership is comfortable because cities know who to turn to. She also shared that some city personnel have been confused when they have had

interactions with numerous SCE staff as opposed to someone from the partnership representing everyone. Courtney said the VIEW partnership has partners who like the concept of the umbrella approach but also some who like a more one on one approach. Marilyn said she would like to see the COG logo on materials because they are part of the contract with the utilities.

Greg said that fitting everyone’s needs is going to be impossible and Nancy explained that the Gas Company asked that their logo not be included on anything that is ELP. It was decided that this was a matter for the peer group to discuss with the Gas Company. The Peer to Peer meeting during the July SEEC event will include a discussion with the Gas Company around branding.

Marisa also mentioned that some of the San Gabriel Valley partnership cities did not want a SCE ELP banner, but were pressured into having them printed. Marjorie said nothing of this was ever brought to her attention. Laurel shared that some of her cities opted out and it was not an issue.

Marilyn said all of her cities opted out. c. What is covered under technical assistance. Laurel had concern that when cities hear the term ‘technical assistance’ they only think audits, but there is so much more and wants them to understand what they can ask for. Laurel put together a technical assistance guideline/application and will share with the peer group. Greg said that technical assistance was originally created for audits, but there is a whole spectrum of options. Tara noted that it is a good idea to use the IDSM audits as a preliminary assessment and then perhaps the technical assistance funds can be used for audits that will dig further. Marjorie agreed that the first step is not to use technical assistance funds, but to leverage what you can through your program manager.

Barbara said their entire technical assistance budget has been used up, she was unhappy with the firm that was used to complete the work, and she wished they could have had more input on choosing the firm. Laurel agreed that, looking ahead, it would to be nice if partnerships could have more control over technical assistance funds. Courtney asked that it would also be helpful if there were qualified contractors that are located closer to the Central Valley. Marjorie explained that before SCE goes out to bid for contractors, they do have people make recommendations.

SCE will send out a notice when the process begins for soliciting contractors. The current approved list of contractors will also be added to the Peer to Peer page of the VIEW website.

Other Business a. Next small group meeting, June 1, 2012, South Bay. The June meeting will be scheduled for three hours as this March meeting went over on time. b. Next large group meeting, July 18-19 in Los Angeles. Michelle suggested having the large group meet on either the 17th or 20th. c. Review action items and assignments Adjourn meeting ACTION ITEMS: John King will help free up his staff members’ time to ensure they can meet other partnership meeting obligations.

SCE will report back to the group on energy efficiency credit for “up-streamed HVAC”.

SCE will email the revised EAP template to all partnerships.

Tara Becnel will provide Marilyn Lyon with IDSM audits.

SCE proposed community savings guideline document language will be edited to say that these are city events being done in addition to anything the partnership does. All instances of ‘i.e.’ will be changed to ‘e.g.’ to reflect that suggestions are only examples. Items #2 and #5 can be copresentations with SCE or implementing partner support.

Peer group will collect best examples of partnership templates for sharing.

SCE will clarify menu item #4 of the proposed community savings guideline on what is the minimum threshold for a success story to count. The Peer group will also provide feedback on what they think should count.

As SCE program collateral is updated, it will be included in the general partnership email from SCE. Peer group will gather comments regarding start time of the new community savings system.

The Peer to Peer meeting during the July SEEC event will include a discussion with the Gas Company around branding.

Laurel Rothschild will share her technical assistance guideline/application with the peer group.

SCE will send out a notice when the process begins for soliciting contractors for technical assistance.

Maureen Hoff will put the following on the Peer to Peer page of the VIEW website: o EAP template o Best examples of any partnership templates o Current core program info/collateral – to be updated on a regular basis to remain current o Approved list of contractors for technical assistance

MEH