AGENDA East Bay Energy Watch — Strategic Advisory Committee

Date | Time February 13, 2015 | 9:30 - 11:30 | Meeting called by Brendan Havenar-Daughton!

Alameda County Chair: Rachel DiFranco Contra Costa County Chair: Cara Bautista-Rao Hayward, CA

Time Item Presenter

9:30am Welcome and Introductions, Incentive Request Form Co-Chairs

9:35am SAC December Meeting Minutes Co-Chairs

9:40am SAC Charter Co-Chairs

9:55am Present the EBEW PIP (PMP) Brendan Havenar-Daughton

10:05am Website Introduction Overview Brendan Havenar-Daughton

10:20am Your Energy Manager presentation CESC

10:45am Special Appreciation EBEW Leadership Team

10:50am Engagement Incentive Brendan Havenar-Daughton

11:05am EBEW Evaluation Approach Neal DeSnoo

11:15am Rolling Portfolio Phase II Tentative Ruling Summary Brendan Havenar-Daughton

11:20am Review 2014 Reported Savings and Projections Brendan Havenar-Daughton

11:30am Adjourn

East Bay Energy Watch Partnership Management

Brendan Havenar-Daughton, Senior Partnership Manager 510.817.4683 BHDaughton@gmail.com

Naila Ahmed, Senior Program Manger, PG&E 415.973.8257 NXAP@pge.com!

Strategic Advisory Committee December 8, 2014 Meeting Minutes

In-Person Attendance (by phone denoted with *)

Cara Bautista-Rao Eddie Camacho Naila Ahmed Erin Fisher Wesley Dayton Rachel DiFranco Amy Dao Neal DeSnoo Derrick Rebello Dan Schoenholz Jodi Pincus

Molly McCobb Demian Hardman Michael P. Cass Adam Lenz Corinne Ferreyra Nancy Humphrey Shayna Hirshfield-Gold Brendan Havenar-Daughton Tim Bankroff* Laura Wright* Ella Samonsky*

Meeting called to order 10:10am by Cara Bautista-Rao Approval of September 8, 2014 SAC meeting minutes: Neal DeSnoo motioned to approve minutes, Michael Cass - second motion: Minutes approved without objection. Tim reviewed Administrators report. Summary of budget and expenditures through September 30, 2014. Shared status of quarterly goals. Neal asked about what the committee could expect in terms of savings for December and how EBEW performance compared to other Local Government Partnerships. Naila responded that EBEW is doing better (in terms of cost-effectiveness) than the majority of other partnerships but all partnerships are performing substantially below goal. Brendan asked about QuEST’s Portfolio Manager work with the city of Concord. Tim identified Justin Ezzle (last name spelled phonetically) at the current contact at the City but shared that Justin may not be aware that municipal usage data has been inputted in to Portfolio Manger. Naila provided an update on the contracting activity with EBEW Service Providers (DNVGL, CESC, 4CL, CCC). She has submitted all necessary paperwork to PG&E and is awaiting next steps/approval. There are no

outstanding issues with respect to contracting. We are on track to complete this task by January 2015. Brendan briefed the committee on the Strategic Energy Resource (SER) scoping process and reviewed the approved SER funding decisions (final SER budget provided in agenda packet). Derrick and Erin co-presented on the Mini-RCx initiative. Derrick reviewed the programmatic approach with technical detail including example measures, ideal SMB candidate, savings, costs, overall budget, goals, timeline and learning objectives. Erin presented the next steps which included customer & contractor recruitment and staff training. Derrick mentioned that the “data transfer” process still needed to be worked out with PG&E. But once the data is acquired it is very easy to ID opportunity with a utility bill and address (customer screening process). Erin mentioned that there is already one mechanical contractor on board and Derrick has strong relationships with at least two more. There was a question about Auto Demand Response and the possibility of including this capability in our program offering. Derrick responded that one of the thermostats that QuEST has worked with has the capability and that they are interested in exploring implementation of Auto-DR. Neal asked how realistic it is to eventually make this program self-sustaining in order to get away from being “hostage to the incentive.” Derrick spoke about the work that LBNL is doing to “level the playing field” in the realm of build controls technologies. LBNL is working on “open source” technology that will allow greater “horizontal integration” across building systems (e.g. security, energy management) and reduce the current reliance building operator have on “vertically integrated” (sometimes “black box”) technologies. The other main concern/need for this model to be successful is the presence of an Ethernet connection, involving consideration of cost and security issues. Brendan explained the term BOA/CBOA - a spreadsheet tool used to calculate RCx measure savings. He asked if cities were welcomed to ID potential candidates in their jurisdictions for participation in this initiative – Erin responded “by all means”, we highly encourage cities to refer their businesses. Rachel asked about the payback period and if it would be under one year. And given that southern CA has higher demand charges (making these projects possibly more financially attractive down south) - would East Bay projects have a less attractive payback period. Derrick responded by saying that there is

plenty of opportunity and highlighted the need to focus on daily usage, cutting out the HVAC usage during unoccupied hours. Neal mentioned the potential for savings in the realm of ventilation control – specifically siting CO sensors as a possible measure. Brendan presented on Municipal Capacity Building supported with a handout of possible capacity building pathways. He shared that the 4 co-chairs all leaned toward a solution that would provide highly skilled technical assistance (TA) to local governments. Brendan admitted that he was concerned about the redundancy of this possible solution in the context of the existing TA that MIT offers. Neal shared that the two financing options (direct grants or OBF bridge funding were not true “capacity building” solutions. Dan shared that the diversity of municipal needs makes it challenging to answer the question of “how best to spend this money.” In Fremont – “no external resource would have make our project move any faster”, Neal replied “ but it could make it better” – Dan agreed. Conversation shifted toward the discussion of creating a “blanket contract” that cities could use to put together comprehensive energy efficiency plans/projects (possible ESCO, but not necessarily). Brendan presented the scopes of work for the collection of smaller SER initiatives to ensure that the committee understood the expected impact of individual SER initiatives. He included a brief explanation of the following SOWs: 4CL, StopWaste, Smart Solar, CYES, T24 Permit Streamlining, SAC Stipends. Erin Fisher presented on the SER initiative: “Your Energy Manager.” This initiative serves larger SMB customers, or multi-unit property managers with comprehensive energy and water efficiency consulting services. The goal is to “go deeper” in terms of EE and water savings, create lasting customer relationships and inspire greater action, above and beyond the expectations of EBEW’s traditional SMB offering. Brendan posed this question: “Imagine that we are here meeting at the same table a year from now, how would you describe what has occurred in this program? Erin responded by mentioning full participation, demonstrated ability to deliver on customer needs, the creation of a “deeper/stronger” customer relationship, gaining high levels of customer feedback and creating a model that is “self-sustaining” in terms of project financials.

Neal presented on the EM&V SER initiative. We have $70,000 to allocate to this study. Brendan provided a draft project plan that described the various possibilities of an EM&V study. Evaluations are categorized into three types: Impact, Process, & Market. Neal recommended that EBEW utilize the Impact evaluation approach as the deliverables from this evaluation are best aligned with current EBEW needs. The objective of the impact evaluation is to determine if a program (or portfolio of programs) met its stated goal. Impact evaluations are often heavily qualitative. Neal shared highlighted the most important EBEW-specific objectives as follows: Obtaining an independent analysis of the effectiveness of our partnership, measuring well against CPUC evaluation criteria while defining our own cost-effectiveness metrics that we want to use, track and implement in the future. Adam wanted clarification on the “risk analysis” objective – Neal and Brendan responded that this objective attempts to address risk generally – what risks do we face? Adam made the point that there are “internal” and “external” risks and that we should be aware of what we are specifically asking the evaluator to do when accessing risk. Brendan reviewed a few of the (high level) outstanding questions that might be answered by the study, as well as the scoping process and deliverables. He also mentioned the importance in aligning this effort with PG&E and California long-term goals. Adam, Dan, Neal, and Brendan will form the EM&V working group to continue to flesh this plan out and initiate implementation of the initiative. Cara and Rachel will be kept informed. The last third of the meeting consisted of an open discussion about EBEW partnership priorities. Brendan opened the floor to “any and all” comments from lessons learned to big bold goals for the future. Brendan updated the group on the incentive structure work he has been developing and presenting to other Government Partners and the PG&E EE team. He described a structure that rewarded customers for their engagement. Customers could earn an additional 5 cents per kWh if they completed the “engagement checklist.” This list would be composed of the items or tasks that delivered the most valuable information or impact to the partnership. Tasks include but are not limited to: online surveys, enrollment in My Energy, offering referrals, participation in pilot programs, submission of statements/material to support case studies, and other information or impact-

rich activities. The goal is to inspire implementation with by offer the choice to substantially increase the project incentive, while simultaneously developing a deeper relationship, gaining vital market knowledge and better understanding customer behavior. Brendan and Naila are meeting with Leif Christiansen to discuss next steps – specifically how we might test out this approach in 2015. Derrick offered insight gained from QuEST’s experience developing Climate Action Plans for East Bay cities. He described the shift between Codes & Standards and utility programs. His comments involved an awareness of the shifting landscape of energy efficiency. There were questions about how this would affect EBEW core programming. Jodi shared an interested to better understand the pathway of identifying and including emerging technologies into our 2016 portfolio. Specifically – how can we produce white papers and who would be the lead on this effort? Rising Sun is happy to pilot new measures. Brendan and Naila offered to connect with the ET team at PG&E. General EBEW marketing was also discussed. There is an interest to strengthen the EBEW brand and produce more partnership content to share throughout the two counties. There was a suggestion to increase “standard and regular” marketing pieces. Specific ideas – to produce press releases on various efforts and strengthen relationships with print, TV media, bloggers and local NGOs. Outreach targets include – local chamber of commerce, business districts and the real estate community (reach out to Hayward and Berkeley specifically to explore/build this connection). Brendan presented an idea that raises awareness among elected officials about the opportunities available thorough On-Bill Financing. He unfurled a giant paper check that would be used as a tool at council meetings to raise awareness. OBF offers $1M in funding for 10 year at 0% interest. SAC members suggested that it is not a one-size-fits all model. For example there are several cities that have already leveraged OBF. Other cities may not want to first work on the staff level to build projects before presenting to the city council. Brendan agreed that all activities related to this initiative would be coordinated directly with the EBEW point of contact in each city to ensure transparency, relevance and effectiveness. Rachel shared that its very important to be prepared with a step by step resource action plan in the event

that council members would like to take immediate action. Brendan agreed to prepare this plan. Michael Cass offered an idea to convene a 5th EBEW meeting each – one for Alameda County and one for Contra Costa County to discuss county specific issues. He feels that sometimes Alameda county issues are “much farther along” than the issues being discussed in CCC. This arrangement may build greater support in CCC specifically since the meeting would be more directly focused on relevant-issues. Brendan agree to consider how best to deliver on the intension of this suggestion. Brendan closed the meeting by soliciting “specific and actionable guidance” for his role as PM from the SAC. There were no verbal suggestions. Brendan welcomed feedback via email. He then reiterated the importance of engagement on our committee. Taking the “EBEW 120 Seconds of Engagement” survey is a great way to provide specific feedback to the Partnership Manager and the Committee as a whole. Brendan also suggested that the SAC leverage the peer relationships that exist between our member cities to encourage engagement. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30pm.

***** End of Minutes *****

1

EAST BAY ENERGY WATCH STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER

RATIFIED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2015

Leading by Example

Table&of&Contents&0. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2

1. Background of the East Bay Energy Watch .......................................................... 2

2. Goals of the Strategic Advisory Committee ......................................................... 3

3. Roles and Responsibilities of the Strategic Advisory Committee ..................... 3 A. Roles ................................................................................................................ 3 B. Co-Chair Responsibility ................................................................................ 3 C. Committee Appointee Responsibility ........................................................ 4 D. Non-Voting Member Responsibility ........................................................... 7

4. SAC Committee and Sub-Committee Composition .......................................... 7

5. SAC Eligibility Conditions ...................................................................................... 8 A. Appointment letters ..................................................................................... 8

6. Notices and Agenda Packets ................................................................................. 8

7. Modifying the Charter ............................................................................................. 8

8. Election of Co-Chairs ............................................................................................. 9

9. Voting Procedure and Quorum ............................................................................ 9

10. Records of Revisions and Ratification ................................................................. 9

2

0.&Introduction&A. This document is the founding charter of the East Bay Energy Watch Strategic

Advisory Committee (SAC). The Strategic Advisory Committee was established in 2012 to act as the strategic steering committee for East Bay Energy Watch (EBEW) programming and services.

B. All programs and services of EBEW are guided by the Strategic Advisory

Committee (SAC), a charter-based steering committee that provides recommendations on EBEW operations to their Partnership Manager and to PG&E. The SAC is comprised of municipally appointed representatives of the local governments in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Each appointed member may serve on the committee as long as desired or until replaced by a new appointment from the same jurisdiction. Appointment ends when an appointed member leaves their municipal jurisdiction. Only appointed members of the SAC are eligible to cast an official vote on formal committee decisions. Each municipality is given one vote. Every two years the SAC elects a Committee Co-Chair from both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

1.&Background&on&East&Bay&Energy&Watch&(EBEW)&A. The East Bay Energy Watch is a Local Government Partnership designated by

the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). EBEW represents collaboration between Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and local governments, non-profit and for-profit energy service providers in the East Bay dedicated to providing innovative energy efficiency solutions for residents and businesses in communities throughout Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

B. EBEW was formed to meet three primary objectives:

I. Ensure that local governments throughout the EBEW territory are served by, and aware of, available energy efficiency programs and opportunities (offered through EBEW, PG&E and other parties).

II. Engage local governments and key partners in strategic planning related to design and implementation of programs, incentives, information campaigns and coordination to assist the EBEW territory in maximizing energy savings.

III. Identify and pursue opportunities to develop and implement new models of energy saving strategies to enable long term deep reductions in energy use and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.

C. To accomplish these objectives, EBEW provides information, fosters

coordination and strategic planning, and offers a unique set of programs aimed at reducing energy use within the EBEW territory.

3

D. EBEW activities and administration are funded through the Electric Program Investment Charge administered by PG&E with approval by the CPUC. An independent Partnership Manager who has been selected and evaluated by both the SAC and PG&E manages EBEW. This position is funded by EBEW’s administrative budget and contracted through PG&E. The Partnership Manager (PM) is responsible for convening the SAC on a quarterly basis and ensuring that all members have the opportunity to contribute and shape EBEW programming. The PM represents SAC interests and communicates these interests directly to PG&E.

2.&Goals&of&the&EBEW&Strategic&Advisory&Committee&A. Assist the EBEW PM in maximizing energy savings (kWh, kW, Therms) and

GHGs throughout the partnership territory by optimizing strategic planning, effective use of resources and efficient delivery of services.

B. Ensure ongoing and active representation of local governments and key partners in EBEW decisions.

C. Identify opportunities to continuously improve the structure and function of EBEW to enable innovation in reducing energy use and GHG emissions.

D. Enhance energy management capabilities and activity amongst the staff employed by local governments; providing them with training and guidance to increase their technical proficiency; and information to aid their strategic planning efforts related to energy and sustainability.

3.&Roles&and&Responsibilities&of&the&Strategic&Advisory&Committee&A. Roles

I. SAC Co-Chair (Section 3B) II. SAC Appointed-Member (Section 3C)

III. SAC Non-Voting Member (Section 3D)

B. Co-Chair Responsibility (two co-chairs are elected to the SAC, one from each county)

I. Appointment term: 2 years, unless otherwise decided by the SAC through a formal vote.

II. Responsibilities & Limitations: Co-Chairs are expected to provide SAC leadership and cohesion across their respective counties. Co-Chairs meet with the Partnership Manager (and PG&E) on a bi-weekly basis to discuss Partnership activities. These individuals assume the same responsibilities of the appointed members (Per Section 3C). Additional expectations are listed below:

i. Serve as Co-Chair for a duration of 2 years (or other term length decided by the SAC ).

4

ii. Attend and Chair all (4) SAC meetings each year. iii. Support SAC recruitment/engagement activities of municipally

appointed members. iv. Serve on the Planning Committee and attend planning meetings

every other month. v. Meet with Partnership Manager and PG&E every other week (set

SAC agenda, Check-in) vi. Represent EBEW at local and regional events when possible.

vii. Attend CPUC meetings with the Partnership Manager when necessary.

C. Committee Appointee Responsibility (Including all appointed members)

I. EBEW Strategic Advisory Committee Member Expectations

i. Elect Co-Chairs every two years (2015, 2017, 2019…) Note: The SAC determines term lengths.

ii. Serve for at least two consecutive years (SAC may decide to stagger the Co-Chair appointments)

iii. Attend four meetings each year iv. Routinely contribute to Committee activities v. Participate in discussions and review documents within a

reasonable period of time vi. Provide (operations/management) feedback to the Partnership

Manager (when solicited at a minimum) vii. Actively engages in service implementation and promotion

II. Committee members shall collaborate to advise the EBEW PM and

PG&E on strategic planning, use of resources, use of funds, and delivery of services, including programs, research and strategic planning to reduce energy consumption, reduce energy demand and minimize greenhouse gas emissions according to State and municipal climate action goals. The Committee shall consider long and short-term goals (including regional goals and policies) and make recommendations that maximize energy savings throughout the EBEW territory (within the constraints of program resources). The Committee shall also consider a number of issues through the process of strategic planning, including but not limited to the following:

i. Program goals and design: The Committee shall recommend actions to achieve energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions through the creation or adjustment of EBEW services. The Committee shall recommend program goals, strategy, tactics and evaluation metrics. The Committee may recommend changes to strategy or resource allocations to meet municipal needs and

5

program goals. This may include the addition or elimination of program components or the identification of program needs that meet the portfolio cost-effectiveness tests and other utility and regulatory requirements. The Committee shall also advise the EBEW PM regarding research activities, administrative activities and service delivery methods.

ii. Allocation of program resources: The Committee shall review and advise on the development of the EBEW Program Implementation Plan (PIP) which is required by the CPUC and outlines EBEW program offerings, budget and expected outcomes. The PIP will be made available to all EBEW members and may be discussed at quarterly meetings of EBEW members.

iii. The Committee shall review geographic coverage of program activities to ensure that programs are available throughout the EBEW service territory. The Committee shall also provide advice regarding the selection of geographic focus areas. The Committee shall participate in discussions with the PM and PG&E to design guidelines for determining pilot, specialized and saturation campaigns throughout the territory.

iv. Innovation and continuous improvement: The Committee shall identify opportunities to continuously improve programs and services that reduce energy use. The Committee shall generate and consider innovation concepts, integrate them into its advisory recommendations and advocate for them in applications for funding.

v. The Committee shall create or nullify Sub-Committees to the SAC as necessary to reflect the current needs and interests represented by the SAC.

vi. Amending and ratifying SAC Charter: The Committee shall act to ratify this Charter as is or as amended by the Committee and amending the Charter as needed. The Committee shall formally review the Charter each year to ensure accuracy and relevance.

III. Review and offer feedback on EBEW funding proposals

i. The Committee members shall review and provide feedback for any funding proposals from EBEW to PG&E. Proposal outlines generally includes a description of EBEW policies and procedures, scopes of work, savings estimates, and budget according to CPUC requirements. Committee members may be asked to provide letters of support for the proposal to PG&E.

6

ii. The Committee may also seek funding from other sources.

IV. Participate in evaluation of EBEW Partnership Manager

i. The appointed Committee members shall complete an online performance evaluation of the Partnership Manager in coordination with PG&E.

V. Communicate about EBEW activities with other partners

i. It is expected that Committee members will network with other local governments and key partners. The Committee may choose to invite local governments or other partners not represented on the Committee to temporarily participate in its activities. It is the responsibility of each appointed member to inform their respective Co-Chair when inviting guests to the SAC meeting.

ii. Committee members are expected to ensure that other staff and

elected officials from their jurisdictions are informed of EBEW activities.

VI. Request Committee Member Attendance Stipend

i. In order to support the work of the committee members and eliminate undue financial burden on local governments, the EBEW partnership offers stipends for those who attend the SAC meetings. The SAC and PG&E determine the value of this stipend at the beginning of each year. STIPENDS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF FORMALLY APPOINTED TO THE STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY THEIR CITY MANAGER OR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. It is the responsibility of each appointed member to formally request a stipend for each meeting attended. Stipends shall be allocated on a first come first served basis through the following protocol. Stipends are prioritized for:

1. Appointed members attending in-person 2. Appointed members attending by phone

ii. Note: Each municipality is eligible for one and only one stipend

per meeting. The list above does not guarantee stipends; it only clarifies the priority in which stipends are distributed. Please review the EBEW Stipend Policy for greater detail as it may change from year to year.

7

D. Non-Voting Member Responsibility I. Service providers contracted to provide implementation services for

EBEW must, first and foremost, deliver measurable results based on the terms of their contract with PG&E.

II. Service providers are expected to attend all SAC and Sub-Committee meetings scheduled by the Partnership Manager.

III. Service providers shall present to the SAC on issues concerning programmatic operations, progress and challenges.

IV. Service providers are expected to conduct research and develop strategy associated with SAC requests and direction.

V. The Partnership Manger is a non-voting member who convenes the SAC and Sub-Committee meetings. The PM is staff for the SAC and has a detailed list of job responsibilities that can be provided to the SAC upon request.

4. SAC&Committee&and&SubICommittee&Composition&A. The EBEW Strategic Advisory Committee shall consist of the following

members: I. City and county staff from local governments in Alameda and Contra

Costa counties (voting member) II. PG&E (non-voting member)

III. EBEW Partnership Manager (non-voting member) IV. EBEW Service Providers (non-voting member)

B. The Committee may also invite the occasional or ongoing participation of

other partner organizations to add value to the Committee’s work. SAC Co-Chairs should be notified of all guests invited to the SAC meetings.

C. The Committee shall work in a collegial and collaborative manner to achieve the goals described in Section 2. Decision-making shall always be guided by a consensus-seeking approach; however, any member may request a formal vote on any proposed decision. Co-Chairs shall approve or deny the request for a formal vote. A winning vote shall be determined by a majority of those present at a quorum. A quorum shall be the presence of a five (5) or more appointed members. (See Section 10 for Voting Procedure and Quorum).

II. The Committee shall create or nullify Sub-Committees to the SAC as necessary to reflect the current needs and interests represented by the SAC. Sub-Committees are defined as:

i. Non-voting bodies composed of both appointed and un-appointed members.

ii. Required to directly report to the SAC on meeting conversations and deliberations

iii. Convened by the EBEW PM

8

iv. Working groups given the opportunity to explore various aspects of the EBEW Partnership in greater depth.

5. SAC&Eligibility&Conditions&A. Local governments in Alameda and Contra Costa counties are eligible to

participate on the EBEW Strategic Advisory Committee by submitting a letter from their City’s manager or department head appointing the Committee Member prior to the start of the meeting. The local government may also appoint a proxy by naming this individual prior to the start of the meeting. Naming a proxy shall be communicated directly to the Partnership Manager (See section 5.A.II)

I. All original appointment letters must be mailed to: Alicia Bert 1330 Broadway #1605 Oakland, CA 94612

II. An Electronic copy of the appointment document must be submitted to the EBEW PM:

Brendan Havenar-Daughton BHDaughton@gmail.com

B. Representatives from PG&E, the EBEW PM and EBEW service providers will attend all Committee meetings.

6. Notices&and&Agenda&Packets&

A. The PM shall schedule at least one meeting each quarter and shall distribute an agenda packet at least five days in advance of each meeting to all members of the Advisory Committee as well as all city and county staff on the EBEW contact list.

B. The agenda packet will, at a minimum, include the following items: I. An agenda that has been vetted with the Co-Chairs

II. Minutes from the last meeting III. A list of current advisory committee members and their affiliation IV. A status report or dashboard that includes program status, milestones

and metrics on the budget, expenses and program performance

7.&Modifying&the&Charter&A. The Committee may alter this Charter and its rules of governance at any time

by taking a formal vote.

9

8.&Election&of&CoIChairs&A. The Advisory Committee shall elect Co-Chairs every two years or upon

vacancy. B. The respective members of each County nominate co-Chairs.

9.&Voting&Procedure&and&Quorum&A. The Co-Chairs are the only members who are able to call a vote. B. A vote can be called at any time once a quorum is present. C. Quorum is achieved when FIVE appointed members from unique

municipalities are present with the Partnership Manger in the room. D. The majority vote is the winning vote. Every effort will be used to achieve

consensus on every vote. E. An example of the voting protocol follows:

I. The Co-Chair may ask the committee, "Are you ready for a vote?" If no one objects, the Co-Chair proceeds to motion for a vote from the Committee. An appointed member of the Committee must second the motion. The Co-Chair first calls for the affirmative vote and then for the negative vote. In “putting the question” the chair should make perfectly clear what the question is that the Committee is to decide. If the question is on the adoption of a resolution, unless it has been read very recently, it should be read again. For example: "The question is on the adoption of the resolution [which the Co-Chair chair reads]; those in favor of the resolution say aye; those opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the resolution is adopted;" or, "The noes have it, and the resolution is lost."

10.&Record&of&Revisions&and&Ratification&

Date Action June – December 2012 SAC Charter Drafted

December 5, 2012 SAC Charter Ratified

January 2015 SAC Charter revised by Partnership Manager

January 28, 2015 SAC Charter presented to Planning Sub-Committee for review and feedback

February, 3 2015 Partnership Manager revises SAC Charter based on feedback received

10

February 13, 2015 Revised SAC Charter presented to SAC and Ratified.

*** End of Document ***

Engagement Incentive Pilot Program 2015

(As presented at the Planning Sub-Committee 1.28.15)

EBEW is offering an additional 5 cents/kWh as an incentive for customers who engage with the Partnership. The intension is to statistically improve our project conversion rate while gaining critical insight from our customer base.

Engagement Defined

Eligibility ! Implement all measures recommended by the Smart Lights program

Required ! My Energy online enrollment (day of audit) ! Sustainability Pledge (Energy, Water, Waste, Cleaning Products) (day of audit) ! My Community survey, 20 questions (during first week of implementation) ! Water audit (day of audit) ! East Bay business referral to Smart Lights (day of audit) ! Permission to publish photo/ quote and case study (day of audit) ! Data authorization for a period of 3 years (day of audit)

Buildings over 10,000 square feet ! Benchmarking (day of audit) ! Enrollment in Mini RCx (day of audit)

Additional Benefits ! Free recycling of T12 and 700 T8 lamps (during first week of implementation)

Engagement Incentive Structure

Business size Incentive per kWh

Engagement kicker

Total Incentive

Incentive Cap

Tier 1 0 < 100 kW $0.20 $0.05 $0.25 $2,500 Tier 2 100 < 200 kW $0.16 $0.05 $0.21 $2,500 Tier 3 200 < 500 kW $0.11 $0.05 $0.16 $2,500

A Tier 1 project that saves 13,000 kWh earns an incentive of $2,600. If the customer completes the engagement checklist, the incentive jumps to $3,250. (Not capped)

A Tier 2 project that saves 33,000 kWh earns an incentive of $5,280. If the customer completes the engagement checklist, the incentive jumps to $6,930. (Not capped)

A Tier 3 project that saves 73,000 kWh earns an incentive of $8,030. If the customer completes the engagement checklist, the incentive jumps to $10,530 (Capped) Note: The engagement incentive cap applies to projects saving more than 50,000 kWh annually.

!