Summary notes q 1 peer to peer 03 01 13

Summary Notes Peer to Peer Working Group, Q1 2013 Meeting Friday, March 1, 2013, San Gabriel Council of Governments 1.

ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE Regional Energy Network It was shared that the Regional Energy Network (REN) would not have a large emphasis on conducting audits. They will, however, go through an audit conducted with Technical Assistance (TA) and look at possible financing for the project. There is an implementation plan that is focused on financing. From a partnership prospective it was discussed that the finance offerings help to make On Bill Financing (OBF) through the utilities more attractive.

Some initial shortcomings that members of the group identified in the REN model include unwillingness to accept or unfamiliarity with the Southern California Edison (SCE) process for incentives and they don’t have enough staff with experience dealing with contractors. Marissa shared that she and her Account Manager go through each city working with the REN on a call once a month. The call takes about two hours but it does keep each city out of the grind.

The group agreed that it was important to be open about any dissatisfaction or challenges with the REN if the program is going to be successful. Another tip that was shared for working successfully with the REN tech team was to be very specific that they do not talk to the cities, that they go through the implementer to avoid confusion. The group discussed that it would likely be worthwhile for the peer to peer members to meet with the REN tech team to discuss implementation as well add a standing agenda item to address REN issues.

Action Items: 1. Explore options for peer to peer meeting with REN Tech team.

2. Add REN as a standing agenda item to meeting.

Utility Related Implementers made a request to utility managers that anything said in the peer to peer meetings be kept in confidence and that there be follow up and clarification before what is said in the meeting is shared with account or program managers.

Next Meeting The next meeting will be held at The Energy Coalition Irvine Offices from 2:30-4:30 p.m.

Action items: 3. TEC will update group with new address 4. The REN tech team will be invited to the meeting (*probably need to better define why we want them there and for how long) Old Business The group addressed that we have not yet organized a cross training between municipalities and utilities on the incentive/project process. It was noted that at the June 2012 meeting Frank Spasaro suggested an all day workshop. Marissa shared that the SGVCOG had been encouraged to host their own event by their program manager. They are in the planning process and at this time inviting city staff, contractors and the REN tech team.

Action items: 5. SGVCOG will share the event invitation and best practices with the peer group.

2.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PROJECT CHALLENGES

There remains a lack of transparency between partnerships and program managers as well as a lack of control of TA dollars. The Energy Coalition has made some progress and their program manager will now provide information on the cost of a requested audit. They are also using a “not to exceed” process where the program manager can respond with an audit is not to exceed a certain amount depending on the site.

It was noted that program managers have the ability to use TA dollars to complete a post study on the back end, which reduces the overall amount of money available to the partnership.

In an effort to better track project process SGVCOG has gone to their account managers office, sat at his desk and gone project through project comparing their list with the CRM list. Anecdotally they shared that the experience taught them to not trust the reports that come from CRM. It was shared that there are two reports that SCE can generate—the program manager report, which is more like a sales lead list and the account manager report that comes out of CRM. Neither tracks the point between installation and completion so The Energy Coalition does that per their program manager’s request.

South Bay has a 15 minute call each week to stay on top of projects and TA requests.

It was shared that account managers are encouraged to primarily use express efficiency.

It was also shared that Southern California Gas Company (SCG) will accept application on a project throughout the whole program cycle whereas SCE will only accept an application on a project within the same calendar year.

Implementers agreed that a standardized budget report, from Program Managers, that kept us updated on a monthly basis would be incredible. The group was willing to provide a sample of what is being requested. The Energy Coalition agreed to take a first run at the effort and share out with the group for feedback.

Multiple partnerships have had negative experiences with the current contractors for audits. Onsite Energy has not been producing, and recently AESC has been providing poor audits with a lack of depth and content. It was discussed that a change in leadership is the reason for AESC falling off. The Energy Coalition is working with AESC and providing training on what expectations are from the various audit levels. WRCOG reported that Willdan Energy Solutions had done a terrible job with their audits in the 2010-12 program cycle. The group expressed concern that vendors lack scope, and in some cases an understanding of audit requirements. For example, and ASHRAE level two audit needs to have a preassessment conducted, however the SGVCOG found that it depended on the audit company as to whether or not that happened.

The group agreed to review ASHRAE standards and call out our expectations on what each level means.

After much discussion it was agreed that knowing the average cost per square foot on audits would be helpful in planning an implementation. The best way to get that information from the utilities is to prepare a logic based case on in the field experience with audits from the partnerships. Courtney agreed to send out an email to peer to peer implementers and the larger implementer group asking for best practices and lessons learned in audits. A list will be created and sent out to the group for review before sharing with the utilities.

Action items: 6. The Energy Coalition will attempt a draft of a monthly budget report that would be helpful to receive from the program managers. TEC will send the draft template out to the group for review for feedback.

7. The Peer to Peer workgroup will review ASHRAE standards and identify expectations for audits at each level. *Needs a lead.

8. Courtney to send out a request and compile a list from all implementers on best practices and lessons learned with audits. The list will be shared with the workgroup for review prior to wider dissemination or submission to the utilities.

Energy Action Plans Discussion addressed that the Energy Action Plans (EAP) have essentially become just a checklist for moving through the Energy Leader model. There remains concern as to what ‘implementation of EAP’ means. At the SCE Strategic Planning Initiatives meeting Jesse Langley mentioned a resolution being provided to the local governments for council approval. Members of the workgroup have great concern even on a resolution as legally, a current council cannot bind future councils. The proposed language that is intended to go to council is off-putting.

SBCOG will draft a letter of language and the various implementers can choose whether or not to support.

The group also discussed SCE not utilizing the peer to peer group to address the challenges with EAPs. At the Strategic Initiatives Meeting Jesse mentioned that he had worked with SBCOG and the solution was what he presented. It was felt that the peer to peer group could be better utilized by those not of management level. The group would like to work with the utility managers to determine how their teams can utilize the peer to peer group in an effective manner.

The group feels that there is a lack of consistency across EAPs and how they are reviewed.

Action Items: 9. SBCOG will draft a letter addressing the concerns in using a resolution at the council level for EAP approval.

Demand Response It was shared that the DR guidelines are changing. For cities that don’t have eligible accounts they are able to use “complete N/A” in the DR checklist of the Energy Leader model.

Additionally, if DR items were ‘lost’ in the ELP year end review send your approval from Tara to Holly and you will get the credit.

Cobranded Material Review Times Agreements state that review of cobranded materials at the utility level should take no longer than five days. However, some partnerships are facing extended review times in excess of multiple weeks when waiting from the utility marketing and legal departments.

Action items: 10. SGVCOG will put together a business cost analysis of what the delay costs in staff time, lost opportunity, expedited printing and delivery charges, etc. that we can share, along with contract agreement language in an effort to improve the review times.

Strategic Planning for 2013-14 The group reviewed what each partnership is pursuing under embedded strategic plan work. SGVCOG is doing work in codes and standards; WRCOG is expanding their current policies and creating an implementation plan. The others were still unconfirmed in their efforts.

Other SGVCOG is hosting a pulse metering event on March 13. Marissa will follow up by sending the group any relevant information.

A water/energy RFP is coming out.