Meeting Minutes 12 17 2009

Meeting Minutes 12 17 2009

• 1.
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY &CONSERVATION STRATEGY MEETING MINUTES MHSM # 0907.00 December 17, 2009 Committee Members Present:  Jeanne Hamming [email protected]  Greg Coates [email protected]  Jeff Wellborn [email protected]  Leia Lewis [email protected] Committee Members Absent:  Lee Jeter Sr. [email protected]  Joe Pierce Jr. [email protected]  Ian Webb [email protected]  Stuart Crichton [email protected] Other Attendees:  Wes Wyche [email protected]  Tim Wachtel [email protected]  Kim Mitchell [email protected]  Sharon Swanson [email protected]  Caroline Majors [email protected]  Patti Trudell [email protected]  Lola Kendrick [email protected]  Murray Lloyd [email protected] CC:  Mike Strong [email protected]  Bruce Hoffman [email protected]  Richard Lane [email protected]  Gala Daftary [email protected]  Caroline provided a brief recap/update on the EECS. The complete set of grant documents were submitted to the DOE on December 4th.  The review process may take some time. Wes stated that the City is unsure when they will hear the results. Committee members will be kept informed of DOE feedback and approval status.  Caroline presented the project team’s self-assessment of the EECS process. And steering committee members provided feedback. Please refer to the attached assessment summaries. Meeting Adjourned
• 2.
  EECS Steering CommitteeMeeting December 17, 2009 Energy Efficiency & Conservation Strategy Debrief: Learning Together The EECS Consultant Project Team is evaluating the process used to prepare the EECS and would like your help. From the outset we promoted the “Strategic Doing” methodology. The fourth question in this methodology is “How will we learn?” Our purpose today is to share with you our Team assessment and to openly listen to your assessment of the process and product delivered for the EECS grant. Our goal is to learn from each other and position ourselves to be more effective in the important work that lies ahead. EECS Project Team Self-Assessment Our Challenges: 1. Minimal Time Frame to Complete Work - Original contract was drafted with a 120 day time frame for completion of the scope of services. Delay in contract signing resulted in an actual 65 day time frame for completion of our work. This was complicated by the fact that this was a new, first time grant with unique grant requirements. 2. Balancing Long Term Goals vs. Short Term Requirements - Contract directive required us to prepare for a longer term, comprehensive process while meeting short term requirements for the grant submission/selecting shovel ready projects. 3. Maintaining Schedule – Could have done better sticking to established timeline and goals set for each Steering Committee meeting. 4. Establishing Clear Roles & Expectations - Expected city to provide more detailed information early on regarding city energy efficiency projects (past, existing and planned). Communication mixed from city representatives at times. Role of Steering Committee unclear. Roles among project team members unclear. Lessons We Learned / Corrective Actions for the Future: 1. Provide better direction on the types of expertise and specific stakeholders needed to guide EECS projects and, in particular, the CEECP process. 2. Perform a more comprehensive inventory of current projects/programs happening in our community. 3. Clearly define roles of the city, project team, and Steering Committee and communicate that to all involved. 4. Identify a Project Team Manager with authority to delegate and coordinate tasks among all team members, better manage timeline and ensure production of deliverables. 5. Distribute tasks and responsibilities based on strengths and skill sets of team members. 6. Provide more complete information, in advance, to the Steering Committee to facilitate their decision making and guidance of the plan process. 7. Improve overall quality and timeliness of deliverables. 8. Improve communication to be more direct, concrete, and clear. 1
• 3.
  EECS Steering CommitteeMeeting December 17, 2009 Accomplishments: 1. Website - We established a website as a repository for working documents and research articles. This site was accessible to and used by Steering Committee members, and can be used to support future work. 2. Long Range Planning - Through the EECS, we established a mechanism to provide a flexible source of planning funds to look at longer term initiatives such as the CEECP, a bicycle and pedestrian plan, and an urban forestry/urban agricultural plan. We developed a thorough framework document to guide the process of performing the CEECP and position it as a priority project for the City of Shreveport. Through CERT’s report, we established a strategy to align higher education to support the CEECP and implementation of EECS projects. 3. New EECS Project Ideas - The Steering Committee was instrumental in seeding the idea for an EECS Incubator that was well received by the city administration. Other ideas generated by the Steering Committee provide a foundation for the work to be done on the CEECP. As a result of the Steering Committee’s advocacy, financial incentives for low and moderate income households were included as part of the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Project Activity. The EECS grant also established potential support for a City of Shreveport “Energy Department” through the allocation of administrative funds. 4. Leveraging - With an initial allocation of approximately $2 million, the EECS process provided the opportunity to identify funds, programs and financing mechanisms that increased the total funding for EECS projects to $20+ million. 5. New Grant Opportunity - We prepared and submitted the Louisiana Retrofit Ramp-Up Grant application. Shreveport serves as the lead for this innovative, $75 million multi-parish, multi-city application. ($25 million for Shreveport, $25 million for New Orleans and $25 million to a statewide revolving loan fund to be administered by the City of Shreveport.) It is anticipated that 16 grants will be awarded nationally. 6. Relationship Building - We developed City Council confidence in the EECS process and grant proposal. We built relationships with DOE and increased the exposure of the City of Shreveport. Statewide coalitions were built through the Retrofit Ramp-Up Grant application which brought together over 30 people in its development. The Steering Committee worked as a team, without an appointed chairperson. Members willingly stepped forward and provided leadership and assistance when needed. Examples include the natural evolvement of Ian as a spokesperson and Jeanne’s editorial assistance. EECS Steering Committee Assessment 1. What were your expectations? 2. What were the challenges? 3. What worked? What were our strengths? 4. What didn’t? What were our weaknesses? 5. What did we accomplish? What are our successes? 6. What Next? What role does the Steering Committee WANT in the months ahead?  Disband?  Take on advocacy role for particular EECS projects?  Take on advocacy for CEECP and other long term plans? How can we prepare to embark on the CEECP?  Request intermittent meeting to get updated reports on development and implementation of EECS projects?  Other? 2
• 4.
  EECS Steering CommitteeMeeting December 17, 2009 EECS Steering Committee Assessment Expectations: The steering committee expected to see advancement in the City’s thinking/action on EEC, and felt this was accomplished. The steering committee expected to be supported in its role to provide authentic citizen-based leadership, and they were excited about the response from the Council. Committee members expected to become formally involved, as individuals, in the City’s EEC effort –to become “insiders,” building relationships and meeting other allies in the EEC movement across the city. They felt this was accomplished. Some steering committee members expected to be tasked to do more work –including research, reports, and other commitments to promote EEC. The steering committee was more involved with broad ideas and less with the details of the EECS than expected. The steering committee felt it was able to guide and influence the outcomes of the EECS, but some project activities were predetermined or required. Members expected to have more opportunity to form and select projects. Steering committee members expected the process to be more open-ended, but a number of constraints existed that were not fully understood. Strengths: City demonstrated an advancement in their thinking about EEC, evidenced through the formation and support of the steering committee. The City embraced citizen leadership through the steering committee. The Council respected the outcome/work of the committee. Unaware of the full set of constraints, the steering committee had the opportunity to think outside of the box –to think more creatively. The process allows for “coopitition.” It encourages cooperative partnerships among competitors. It was ambitious for the City to attempt to complete the EECS given time and other constraints. It is impressive that the EECS was completed at all. The steering committee offered a broad range of on-the-ground knowledge/expertise –people who are actively involved in doing positive work in the community. 3
• 5.
  EECS Steering CommitteeMeeting December 17, 2009 Challenges: The committee did not know the full set of constraints on the EECS. There was a lot of ambiguity early on. The steering committee was not given enough detailed information to allow them to work effectively. The committee needed more details earlier in the process. Best practices were posted on the website, but the group needed time to explore and discuss these examples together –to develop a clearer vision of what other cities are doing. The timeline/schedule was tight. It did not allow for thorough discussion. The process did not provide an adequate amount of time to define values and discuss impacts on the quadruple bottom line. The committee is unsure the projects included in the EECS accurately reflect their values for sustainability – these values (environmental sustainability, economic prosperity, social equity, and cultural vitality) still need to be clearly articulated. Meeting preparation needed to be improved. Materials needed to be provided in advance. Multiple simultaneous conversations were happening at meetings. People were talking over one another. The time of day may have been an issue. In the future, we need to be more respectful of one another, set rules of conduct, and manage our meetings more effectively. The recommendation for separating Urban Forestry and Urban Agriculture was overlooked on the EECS activity sheets. This will need to be amended. Next Steps: The steering committee needs to remain assembled at least until DOE review is complete. Members present were enthusiastic to proceed as a committee. The steering committee and consultant team should proceed as if approved, not waiting for review updates or project funding approval. Projects need to be further developed. And we should not delay because project implementation will be on a tight schedule –the 36-month clock is running. The committee should continue conversations (have a series of meetings) to clearly define sustainability, identify operational values for the quadruple bottomline, and develop EECS projects to meet these values. All appropriate stakeholders should be invited to participate in these meetings. One or two projects could be addressed per meeting. Projects not selected for the EECS should also be considered and developed for future action. Trust needs to be formed with the City to ensure that funds (acquired through bond savings) will be used according to the committee’s recommendations. This particularly applies to the various planning initiatives. How do we keep these funds from being pilfered? The City needs to demonstrate a strong commitment to do what’s right, to be “green.” We need to commit funds early on –leave less room for changes to be made. If committee members cannot continue, they should appoint individuals to fill seats –people who have time, capacity, and expertise to contribute to the work of the committee. Can a consultant hold a seat on the steering committee? Money in grant could pay someone to lead the committee, provide continuity, guard values, and serve as a knowledge bank, networker, convener, facilitator, and accountability manager. Could this person be an executive director or paid consultant? We need to look at the profile for a “Chief Sustainability Officer” for insights on the role this person could play. Strategic doing groups may serve some of these purposes, supporting the core team and maintaining momentum in the development and implementation of initiatives. 4
• 6.
  EECS Steering CommitteeMeeting December 17, 2009 Could work be divided? Example: One group to come up with ideas. Another to develop a plan of action. And a third to implement. As we complete “Cycle 1,” we need to define “Cycle 2.” The committee should develop its own rules and organizational structure, i.e. preformation. The committee should decide what it wants the City to pay consultants to do –in order to take the next steps. Educational opportunities should be arranged for the committee: environmental leadership training, strategic doing workshop, field trips, and local site visits. Local site visits may be the most important for us to learn “who is doing the cool stuff” in our community. Ideas for local site visits: Fuller Center, Sankofa, bike tour, ABS meeting, Sci-Port, community gardens, homes/businesses modeling sustainability. Ideas for other field trips: Heifer Intl., Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville Project Team Homework 1. Make arrangements for and facilitate upcoming meetings 2. Start forming a calendar and making arrangements for local site visits 3. Set up a strategic doing workshop Steering Committee Homework 1. “Preformation” Organizational structure –How do you think the steering committee should be organized? –Think of individuals that you might nominate to join the steering committee. Protocols –What sorts of ground rules could the committee adopt to increase effectiveness and improve communication? Values –How would you define, and measure the impact of projects, in terms of the quadruple bottom line? (environmental sustainability, economic prosperity, social equity, and cultural vitality) 2. Defining “Cycle 2” –What should the next phase of work be? (particularly during the next 2-3 months) –What do you want the City to pay the consultants to do? Proposed Meeting Dates January 7th –Discuss “Preformation,” Define “Cycle 2,” and Schedule Local Site Visits January 14th or 15th –Strategic Doing Workshop with Ed Morrison The project team will be consulting with the City. These dates will be confirmed, and the agendas will be sent out after the 1st of the year. 5