MFWG Sm/Med PO/O –Discussion Notes

Review Sm/Med PO/O Panelist Discussion from 12.13.2017 Webinar
12.19.2017 / 3:00 P.M. – 3:30 P.M. / Conference Phone No: 1 (712) 451-0524
Conference ID: 972084
Meeting Facilitator / Elsia Galawish, Galawish Consulting
Agenda / Attendees / The meeting agenda and attendees are located at the end of the notes.
Action Items / Lead / Deadline
  • N/A

Next Ad Hoc Meeting
Date: January 10, 2018
Location: Webinar
Time: 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Agenda:Ad Hoc Meeting #5 – Review Q1 Milestones, Schedule, Deliverables
Feedback from 12/13/2017 Sm/Med PO/O Discussion Webinar

General Discussion regarding takeaways from webinar:

  • Elsia –PO/Os have concerns about the selection of products to be installed, ease of finding same products for replacement; communication with PO/Os.
  • Rosette- PO/Os expressed desire for top-down approach, work with property manager first, instead of tenants, to get full property enrolled.
  • Syreeta- perception that smaller properties weren’t always best bang for buck, not sure how best to move forward with this.
  • Caroline – everyone likes LIWP, why can’t utility programs be just like LIWP?
  • Blanca – PO/Os prefer the technical assistance provided by LIWP. Advantages of LIWP:
  • Technical assistance helps PO/O identify programs; plan projects; identifies savings from participating in programs and which measures to install.
  • Provides flexibility to owners – can choose own contractor (does offer list of contractors, but no requirement to use them)
  • Has a single point of contact, guides manager through major milestones of the project.
  • Considers entire portfolio (can apply to LIWP with multiple props).
  • Even if ESA program offers less measures than LIWP, common area is new and owners will be interested. These two programs could work together, help owners do a lot more than just ESA alone. ESA may be particularly beneficial in smaller properties, need to make it easily accessible to owner.
  • Rosette – it’s easier to apply to LIWP because measures are more expensive, rules are broader, looks more enticing for property owners and will encourage them to go through all the rules.
  • Lindsey – what is it that’s limiting the number of measures that ESA can offer?
  • Irma – working with list of measure due to cost effectiveness, looking beyond EE measures, have to look at program whole, have a target to meet for savings.
  • What are the differences in ESA and LIWP?
  • Hazlyn – authorized budgets and targets are described by Decision and IOUs; costeffectiveness in statutes – ED cannot say you no longer have tocomply. All measures by ESA program connected to DEER database, for EE savings, which is determined by white papers, which in turn determines how quickly a measure can be added.
  • Hazlyn – wanted to understand small and med MF owners, doesn’t really understand it any better.
  • Blanca – for this panel small properties wereidentified as under 75 units; in the LA region, average is closer to 50 units. Although owners might focus on larger properties, if they don’t have a large project planned, they could focus on their smaller properties. LIWP started at 20+ units, now at 5 units per parcel, LIWP was changed to provide more flexibility.
  • Hazlyn – once budget is authorized, it is hard to augment, everything has to go through rate decision, and to offer more measures, have to have more budget. As MFWG goes through process we can obtain a better understanding of what needs to be changed.
  • Restrictions re: selection of products, are utilities finding ways to combat this hurdle?

12/19/2017 Feedback Discussion Meeting Agenda/Goals:

Subject / Speakers
Debrief from Sm/Med PO/O Discussion / Facilitator and All

List of 12/19/2017 Meeting Attendees( total callers):

Attendee / Company
Hazlyn / Fortune / CPUC
Syreeta / Gibbs / CPUC
Rosette / Solidium / SCE
Emma / Ponco / SCG
Lindsey / Robbins / NRDC
Irma / DePratti / SDG&E
Blanca / DelaCruz / CHPC
Elsia / Galawish / GCA
Caroline / Chen / StatWizards, LLC
Nola / Hastings / Hastings & Co

Page 1 of 2