reminder: leadership group meetings are confidential...
TRANSCRIPT
Reminder: Leadership Group meetings are confidential
Working Council
Monday, August 3, 2015 San Jose Giants Municipal Stadium
588 E Alma Ave, San Jose, CA 95112
NOTE: The August 3 Working Council will be an afternoon meeting 3:30-5:15 followed by the
Annual Public Sector Staff Appreciation Reception hosted by the San Jose Giants
UPDATE DRAFT AGENDA
3:00 p.m. Refreshments & Conversation
3:30 p.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder
Welcome and Introductions
Welcome to new Member Company Representatives
President's Report
Education Summit @ Microsoft – August 28
Game Changers 2016 @ Computer History Museum – September 24
Leadership Group Annual Strategy Conference @ LinkedIn – October 14
Annual Public Policy Luncheon @ Santa Clara Convention Center – October 30
Discussion / Action Items
Leadership Group Branding Survey Results (Information only)
Leadership Group’s Work Plan 2016-2018 – A Sustainable Path Forward
Consider new Revenue Model Options
Consent Items
Approval of the Meeting Minutes: July 9, 2015 Working Council Meeting
Action Items
SB 350 (DeLeon)- The 50/50/50 Energy Proposal –
Committee Recommendation: Support in concept
AB 793 (Quirk) - Energy Management Technologies –
Committee Recommendation: Support
AB 1330 (Bloom) – Energy Efficiency Resource Standards –
Committee Recommendation: Support
Homelessness 2015-2017 Housing & Land Use Workplan –
Committee Recommendation: Modify Plan
AB 802 (Williams) Public utilities: energy efficiency savings.
Committee Recommendation: Support
2015 Home Run Goal Updates 1-minute reports on top item in each portfolio area
Energy Transportation Tax Policy
Education Government Relations Health
Environment Housing & Land Use
Community Technology Policy
5:15 p.m. Adjournment
Next Meeting: September 3, 2015 @ Santa Clara University
2015 Working Council Meeting Schedule
January 8
February 5
March 5
April 2
May 7
June 4
July 9
August 3*
September 3
October 14 Strategy Conference
November 5
December 3
*NOTE: The August 3 Working Council will be an afternoon meeting 3:30-5:15 followed by
the Annual Public Sector Staff Appreciation Reception hosted by the San Jose Giants
Working Council
Thursday, July 9, 2015
7:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.
Blach Construction, 2020 Fortune Drive, Ste. 100
San Jose, CA
Members Present:
Jeff Rangel, Brocade, Vice-Chair
Diane Matulich, AMD
Monica Gomez, Applied Materials
Jill Stoneberg, Avaya
Matthew Brown, BD Biosciences
Gina Balestin, Bridgelux
Mike Potter, Cisco
Katie Stevens, ebay
Vicki Wilkerson, Fortinet, Inc.
Phillip Townsend, Hitachi Data Systems
Lorin Alusic, Hewlett Packard
Judy Castro, JFK University
Nancy Noe, Johnson & Johnson
Hanh Nguyen, Kaiser Permanente
Ashley Howell, Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Diana Bautista, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital-Stanford
Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital-Stanford
Jessy Borges, PG&E
Jennifer Adams, Plantronics
Ron Gonzales, Presencia
Rosemary Ku, Restore Health
Juan Jurado, Suffolk Construction
Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Nell Triplett, Synopsys
John Hogan, TeenForce
Victoria Tung, Texas Instruments
Michelle Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
Donna Blitzer, UC Santa Cruz
Chris Santos, UPS
Jim Pascoe, Western Digital Corp.
Jim Davis, Xovertime
Alex Weis, Yahoo
Staff Present:
Casey Beyer Catharine Ingram Zoe Mullendore
Brian Brennan Peter Leroe-Munoz Kristina Perlata
Paul Escobar Tim McRae Juan Quinones
Alex Felton Judith Miranda Sarah Qureshi
Angela Gile Amanda Montez Connie Vieaux
AGENDA
Carl Guardino called the meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. and reminded the group participants of
meeting discussion confidentiality so that people could speak candidly. Self-introductions followed.
Welcome to two new LRs: Rosemary Ku, Restore Health and Juan Jurado, Suffolk Construction.
Introduction of new staff: Juan Quinones, Executive Assistant to Carl Guardino.
President's Report
Watershed Negotiation Seminar @ BD Bioscience, July 21, 8:30am-4:30pm. Join us for a one-day
"Collaborative Conversations - Excellence in Negotiating" workshop - a great opportunity for you
and your team. Learn how to be a better negotiator in business interactions at the one-day
workshop, facilitated by Watershed Associates. The workshop includes an interactive, substantive
session that helps executives apply a more disciplined and strategic approach to individual
negotiations. For more information contact Catharine Ingram, [email protected] or (408) 453-4753.
CEO BBQ @ the new San Jose Earthquakes Avaya Stadium, July 30, 5:30-8:30pm, hosted by San Jose
Earthquakes CEO David Kaval and Avaya CEO Kevin Kennedy. Member company CEOs, senior
officers and significant others are invited to join the Silicon Valley Leadership Group for our Annual
CEO BBQ. The Annual CEO BBQ is by invitation-only, open to CEOs, senior officers and select
elected officials. Spouses are encouraged to attend the CEO BBQ (sorry, no children). To advance
the Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation's "1,000 Hearts for 1,000 Minds" tutoring initiative, we
are requesting a nominal $100 contribution from our CEOs and their guests. For more information
contact Catharine Ingram, [email protected] or (408) 453-4753.
Education Summit @ Microsoft, August 28, 7:15am-12:00pm. “Innovation and Equity” The confirmed
panelists include Michael Kirst: President, California State Board of Education; Muhammed Chaudry:
President & CEO, Silicon Valley Education Foundation; Elizabeth Slavitt: Lead of Content and
Scaling, Khan Academy; Jay Banfield: Executive Director, Year UP Bay Area; Kimberly Bryant:
Founder, Black Girls Code; Matt Hammer: Executive Director, Innovate Public Schools. Clipboards
were passed. For more information contact Kristina Peralta, [email protected] or (408) 501-7864.
Game Changers 2016 @ Computer History Museum, September 24, 8:00am-12:00pm. Join us for 5th
annual Game Changers 2016 with featured speakers including Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins and
Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen. They will be joined by business and civic leaders in
discussing solutions to the “3Ds” of Silicon Valley: Diversity in the STEM Pipeline, Disruptive
Technologies, Drought. Sponsorships available. Clipboards were passed. For more information
contact Catharine Ingram, [email protected] or (408) 453-4753.
Leadership Group Annual Strategy Conference, October 14 @ LinkedIn, Sunnyvale. Meet with
member company representatives to discuss strategy for the revolving three year work plan for
2016-2018. For information contact Angela Gile, [email protected] or (408) 501-7864.
Annual Public Policy Lunch @ Santa Clara Convention Center, October 30, 11:15am-2:00pm. Join us
as we talk policy in an on-stage interactive dialogue about U.S. competitiveness and the greatest
challenges facing the nation today. Sponsorships available. Clipboards were passed. For more
information contact Catharine Ingram, [email protected] or (408) 453-4753.
Discussion/Action Item
Jeff Rangel welcomed the LRs and announced Carl Guardino would explain the potential 2016
Transportation Funding Measure Poll. The Transportation Survey poll was conducted by Jim Moore,
Moore Methods. Carl explained the Transportation Poll results which have +/- 3.5% which were
taken May 23-31, 2015 from 750 November 2016 likely voters. Polled based on increasing the county
taxes by one-half cent vs. one-quarter cent showed 60-65% would “generally support” the
proposed sales tax increase and 36-30%, respectively, opposed the increase. They were in support
of the improvements to finish the BART extension to San Jose and Santa Clara, repair/fix potholes
and maintain streets in 15 cities, relieve traffic on all eight expressways and improving transit for
seniors, low income and disabled riders, improve bike and pedestrian safety near schools, and
improve Caltrain service from Gilroy to Palo Alto. The poll showed support of a 30 year sales tax at
68% ½ cent at 68% and 27% oppose with support of 71% for ¼ cent approved and 24% oppposed.
Ron Gonzales, Presencia, made the motion on behalf of the Transportation committee. Motion
passed by voice vote, 0 no votes, 0 abstention votes.
Metrics for Santa Clara County Transportation Measure – Ron Gonzales and Zoe Mullendore
reported on the Silicon Valley process to develop goals, call for projects due by August 31 and
project evaluation due by September 2015. SVLG has led with private groups but VTA has led with
public groups. Projects include road and transit projects, bike/pedestrian projects, other/innovative
programs. Motion made by Ron Gonzales on behalf of the Transportation committee. Motion
passed by voice vote, 0 no votes, 0 abstentions.
Leadership Group’s Sustainable Work Plan 2016-2018 – A Path Forward -- Events Criteria & Major
Events Review – The ROI, Event Specific Criteria, and Leadership Group Signature Programs were
reviewed and discussed. Based on the criteria if add a major event then need to take off a major
event. There should be a clear policy or relationship objective to the event. Three events were
selected to be deleted from the matrix. The events that were determined to be deleted were
Cybersecurity, Driving Charged and the Workplace Wellness events. Foundation Events will be
reviewed by a foundation committee in September. Ron Gonzales made the motion, Diane
Matulich, AMD seconded the motion. Motion passed voice vote, 0 no votes, 0 abstention votes.
Action Items
Homelessness 2015-2017 Housing & Land Use Work plan – Amanda Montez reported on behalf of the
Housing Committee because the chair was out due to a family emergency. The housing grant that
was applied for was denied so there are not funds to work on the homelessness box which includes
the homelessness employment initiative to open up 150 jobs over three years at the Leadership
Group member companies. Target 50 jobs in the first year. Amanda stated the box needed to be
removed based on the committee’s recommendation. Some suggestions were made to modify
the wording in the box and add it to another box. Jeff Rangel added that homelessness should be a
priority. There was a lot of discussion about removing the homelessness box from the ROI since it has
been discussed so much in prior working council meetings and board meetings. Motion was made
by the Housing committee to remove the box completely off of the three year work plan. Diane
Matulich changed the motion to table the action and resume discussion at the next working council
meeting on August 3 with the committee chairs present. Diane Matulich made the motion and
Lorin Alusic seconded the motion. Motion passed 21yes votes, 1 no vote and 3 abstention votes.
SB 359 (Mitchell) – Math Misplacement – The bill requires school districts to have mathematics course
placement guidelines, so that students do not repeat courses that they have already completed.
Fiscal Impact: Potentially poses significant costs for districts that do not currently have a math
placement policy. Recommendation was made by the Education committee to support the bill.
Motion made by Ron Gonzales to support 359. Passed by voice vote, 0 no votes, 0 abstentions.
SB 4 (Lara) - Health for All – Sherri Sager reported this bill is for health care for children 19 and under.
This program is done county by county and moving forward statewide. Financially more expensive if
young people get medical care after extremely ill and go to the ER. Sherri stated the
recommendation from the health committee to support bill. Motion passed by voice vote, 0 no
votes, 1 abstention vote.
Consent Items
All of the consent items were approved.
June 4, 2105 Working Council Meeting minutes
SB 321 (Beall) - Gas Tax Revenue Smoothing – Updates process that CA Board of Equalization (BOE)
uses to determine gas/diesel fuel excise taxes and Requires BOE to use more expansive gas price
data (5 years) to determine tax rates for upcoming FY. Recommendation from committee: Support.
Motion by Jessy Borges, PG&E, seconded by Judy Castro, JFK University. Passed by voice vote, 0 no
votes, 0 abstention votes.
Guest Speaker
Eleanor Clement Glass, Special Advisor to the President for Public Policy Initiatives, Silicon Valley
Community Foundation, spoke on “Math Misplacement: A Leak in the STEM Pipeline.” Eleanor
described the problem when a 9th grade student is held back from advancing to the next math
course, despite having successfully achieved a “B” or better in the previous 8th grade math course
or having met or exceeded California standardized assessments. In the Pathways Study, they found
that children of color were more likely to experience math misplacement. Math placement is
essential for students to prepare for their college track for careers in STEM. Education Committee
recommends support of bill SB 359 (Mitchell). Ron Gonzales motioned support of SB 359. Motion
passed by voice vote, 0 no votes, 0 abstention votes.
Next Working Council Meeting Thursday, August 3, 2015 @ San Jose Giants Municipal Stadium, 588 E.
Alma Ave, San Jose, 95112.
Time of adjournment: 10:15 am
Date: July 23, 2015
To: Working Council
From: Sarah Qureshi, Associate; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director
RE: SB 350 (de Leon) Overall Position
Issue
Should Silicon Valley Leadership Group Support SB 350 if amended to be in line with our recommendations?
Position Recommendation
Working Council voted to Support in Concept in April; Energy Committee put forward multiple recommendations
regarding language in the bill.
Summary
SB 350 sets large goals for 2030 in petroleum reduction, energy efficiency, and powering the grid with renewables.
The path to achieving those goals recently fleshed out further in recent versions of the bill. The legislature will take
one last round of amendments in late August, then vote up or down on the bill at the end of session.
Background
The items on which the Energy Committee recommended we engage are as follows:
1) Support inclusion of Distributed Generation as “Bucket One” for Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance
with the system owner retaining renewable energy credits and with the recommendation that accounting for
the RPS and for greenhouse gas goals be harmonized.
2) Support there should be additional objectives for clean DG and energy storage resources, but not solely for
technologies with zero onsite emissions.
3) Oppose IOUs being able to count electricity generated or saved by energy efficiency, electric vehicles,
demand management, and storage all as distributed resources that would all count toward a revamped RPS;
4) Oppose the CPUC be required to approved the IOUs’ applications regarding electric vehicle charging
infrastructure.
5) Support including Demand Management as a component of achieving the energy efficiency goals of the
bill.
6) Oppose requiring the CPUC design and implement a “responsible contractor policy” for all ratepayer-
funded building energy efficiency programs.
The author’s office has indicated a willingness to work with us on these items.
Analysis
The bill started with generic targets and little detail for how to achieve those targets. It has evolved, taking on
several amendments in the past three weeks.
If designed correctly, the bill could pave the path for clean economic growth for years to come. If designed poorly,
it could stunt markets and prove counterproductive to the clean technology sector.
Very few public policy trade associations have endorsed the bill to date. If we do support, we would be the
prominent business group in favor. We have played this role in the past on bills like AB 32. If the amendments
align with our interests, it would put us in good stead with the author of the bill, the Senate Speaker Pro Tempore,
who has taken considerable heat from other business groups for carrying the bill.
Status
The bill has passed through the Senate and through two policy committees in the Assembly. It sits in Assembly
Appropriations at present.
Support
SVLG Members: SunEdison, SunPower, Dignity Health
Natural Resources Defense Council
Large-Scale Solar Association
The Utility Reform Network
Oppose
SVLG Member: ChargePoint (unless amended)
Western States Petroleum Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Date: July 23, 2015
To: Working Council
From: Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director; Sarah Qureshi, Energy and Environment Associate
RE: SB 350 - Distributed Generation and the Renewable Portfolio Standard
Issues
1) Should SB 350 reclassify customer-sited renewable distributed generation as Portfolio Content Category 1
(PCC1) for renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance with the system owner retaining renewable
energy credits (RECs) and with the recommendation that accounting for RPS and GHG goals be
harmonized?
2) Should SB 350 add objectives for clean distributed generation and energy storage resources separate from
the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)?
3) Should additional distributed energy goals we suggest above apply to POUs as well?
4) Should investor-owned electrical or gas utilities (IOUs) be able to count electricity generated or saved by
distributed resources in their territory towards Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations?
Position Recommendation
The Energy Committee recommends supporting distributing generation’s inclusion in the RPS if the system owner
retains the RECs and accounting issues regarding the RPS and Greenhouse Gas goals are harmonized. In addition,
the Energy Committee recommends adding additional goals for clean distributed generation and energy storage to
the bill, and that those goals should also apply to Publicly-Owned Utilities. Finally, the Committee recommended
the utilities should not be able to count all distributed resources – including energy efficiency, demand response,
electric vehicles, and storage – toward a revamped Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Summary
State policy currently divides the compliance instruments with which the utilities can meet their RPS goals into three
“Portfolio Content Categories” (PCCs):
PCC 1 includes renewable energy generation systems that are directly interconnected to a California
Balancing Authority, directly connected to a distribution network that serves California end-use customers,
or renewable resources that are scheduled directly into a California Balancing Authority
PCC 2 includes incremental deliveries of “firmed and shaped” renewable energy scheduled into a
California Balancing Authority
PCC 3 includes all other renewable energy electricity products that do not qualify as PCC 1 or PCC 2,
including unbundled RECs.
Pursuant to statute, PCC 2 and PCC 3 resources can be used to meet only a portion of a utility’s RPS compliance
obligations, with PCC 3 being subject to the most stringent limitations. As a result, PCC 3 resources are not valued
as highly as PCC 1 resources in the RPS compliance market.
The RECs associated with customer side of the meter distributed generation facilities, like rooftop solar, have been
deemed PCC 3 resources under the regulations adopted by the CPUC and CEC. Because of this, they are accorded
reduced value in the RPS market, and are currently uneconomic to bring to market owing to the low market price as
well as high metering and transaction costs.
The Energy Committee notes that the bill does not address goals for clean distributed generation and energy storage,
and that additional language in this area would assist these important markets.
Some have suggested the RPS be revamped to figure out what the total GreenHouse Gas emissions are associated
with the regulation, and then allow utilities to count all distributed resources in their territory toward that new GHG
goal. This expanded definition of distributed resources would include energy efficiency, demand response, electric
vehicles displacing petroleum-fueled cars, and storage.
Background
The Leadership has a legacy position on the first question; we agreed early in 2015 that distributed generation
should be a part of PCC1 (or “Bucket One”) for purposes of RPS compliance. The committee discussed three
concerns regarding this issue in July. They are:
1) The system owner should have the option to sell the RECs associated with the system to the utility but not
be required to do so.
2) Accounting issues within the RPS and Greenhouse Gas accounting should be harmonized. To calculate the
RPS, one takes total retail sales of renewable energy divided by total sales of energy. Renewable DG on
the customer side of the meter currently reduces the utilities’ retail sales, so it already provides an RPS
benefit. Accordingly, the calculation would have to be adjusted to avoid a double benefit of counting DG.
Also, the Air Resources Board has already accounted for the GHG reduction contribution of DG systems
by deducting their contribution “off the top” of the state’s GHG emissions budget. It would be counted
again if added to the RPS. The committee directed to support the legislation if it harmonized these
calculations with achieving the state’s overall RPS and GHG goals. 3) CEQA. The California Building Industry Association raised the possibility of developers having a harder
time mitigating greenhouse gas impacts of new development if DG counts towards a utility’s RPS
obligation. A CEQA attorney we consulted says that it is not likely that big of a problem – most
developments have to mitigate traffic impacts, and rooftop solar is slight compared to the impact of traffic.
Having DG in the RPS to achieve statewide GHG goals may not be viewed any differently than energy
efficiency measures that also help meet statewide GHG goals. Still, the case would be new for a court to
consider, and an aggressive municipality could use this as one of many possible hooks within CEQA to
make a development more expensive.
Analysis
Proponents adding DG to Bucket One argue that adding an additional goal for renewable/clean distributed
generation will help to meet RPS targets and create more business for smaller scale clean energy companies.
Opponents say this would come at the cost of developing more utility-scale renewable generation.
Proponents of the addition of distributed generation and storage goals outside the RPS note that it would solve some
of the competition problems inherent in including DG in the RPS. Opponents note the bill already sets a number of
ambitious goals, and this would pile on top of those.
Proponents of counting all distributed resources in the RPS argue that if the ultimate goal is greenhouse gas
emission reduction, it should apply across all sectors. Opponents of the provision argue that promoting renewable
has benefit outside of greenhouse gas reductions, and that there would not be as large a reduction of GHG emissions
because many of these solutions save GHGs now. So, the IOUs would be able to reach its RPS goals by simply
claiming more of the distributed resources already in its portfolio.
Status
The current version of SB 350 has a placeholder for the DG discussion to unfold, allowing an unspecified amount of
onsite generation to meet energy resource goals.
Date: July 23, 2015
To: Working Council
From: Sarah Qureshi, Associate; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director
RE: SB 350 and EV charging infrastructure
Issue
Should the CPUC be required to approve IOUs’ applications regarding electric vehicle charging
infrastructure?
Recommendation
The Energy Committee recommends opposing the principle.
Summary
Language pertaining to this issue has been added to SB 350.
Background
SB 350 seeks to reduce petroleum emissions by 50% by 2030. Many, including Governor Brown, view electric
vehicles as a key component of reaching this goal.
Currently, the electric vehicle charging infrastructure in California is procured by individuals and businesses via the
open market. PG&E has submitted a plan to the CPUC, which if approved, would allow it to install charging
infrastructure throughout the state, funded via the ratepayers.
Language has recently been inserted into SB 350 that can be interpreted as mandating the CPUC approve this plan,
subject to open market/competitiveness and anti-trust regulations.
Analysis
Opponents of this principle are concerned that such a mandate will give PG&E and unfair advantage in the market
place and hinder their ability to compete due to the fact that PG&E will install these free of charge. Moreover, there
are concerns that this will create stranded assets throughout the state as the electrical vehicle technology continues to
change and current charging technologies become outdated. Ratepayer groups are opposed to this concept because
PG&E’s application would raise electricity rates to pay for widespread adoption of charging infrastructure.
Proponents of the IOUs’ proposal argue that mandating the approval of such a large scale install will go a long way
in helping to increase the use of electric vehicles, and thus meet petroleum reductions. Proponents also argue that
market competitive will not be significantly impacted as PG&E will to contract with electric vehicle charging
companies to build and install these charging structures. Proponents also argue that any increase to electricity bills
will be minimal.
Status
Currently included in SB 350.
Support
SVLG Member: PG&E
Oppose
SVLG Member: ChargePoint
Date: July 24, 2015
To: Working Council
From: Sarah Qureshi, Associate; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director
RE: SB 350 and Energy Efficiency Contractors
Issue
Should SB 350 require CPUC design and implement a “responsible contractor policy” for all ratepayer-
funded building energy efficiency programs?
Recommendation
The Energy Committee recommends Oppose.
Summary
This would create CPUC oversight of contractor work on ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs.
Background
Currently such contract work is reviewed via an industry standard and non-governmental body, the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. There have been questions raised as to the quality of energy efficiency work,
so it has been argued that the CPUC should step-in to regulate this work. The CPUC currently lacks the expertise to
evaluate energy efficiency contractors.
Analysis
Opponents of this bill argue that the current industry standard is stringent enough and that new regulatory oversight
would be overly burdensome.
Status
This provision is currently in SB 350.
Date: July 23, 2015 To: Working Council From: Sophia Young, Energy Coordinator; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director RE: AB 793 (Quirk); Energy Management Technology Issue Should energy efficiency program administrators advance energy efficiency goals through promotion and use of energy management technology. Position Recommendation Energy Committee recommends support. Summary AB 793 would require energy efficiency program administrators to:
1) Implement educational plans and incentive programs by June 30, 2016, for residential, and small & medium business customers to control their electricity usage via energy management technologies in conjunction with advanced (“smart”) meters.
2) Implement a rebate/incentive program by January 1, 2017 for residential, and small & medium business customers, who elect to purchase additional energy management technologies, beyond smart meters, to reimburse customers for their purchases.
3) Modify existing weatherization programs to provide discounts for low-income customers to purchase home energy management technologies.
Background The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates IOUs. Under the existing Advanced Metering Incentive (AMI), the PUC has been authorized to install advanced metering systems. Currently, millions of smart meters have already been installed throughout California, and these smart meters provide customers with detailed energy usage data. However, in order for customers to see their usage data in real-time/near real-time, they must purchase additional energy management technologies, such as an energy-monitoring device. Customers without these in-home or in-business monitors are only able to see their energy usage from the previous day through the utility’s website.
Analysis AB 793 incentivizes the adoption of energy management technologies. Customers will be able to gain a better understanding of their energy use through energy management technologies, which provide customers with real-time/near real-time energy usage data. Doing so offers the potential of reducing their energy bills and better management of their energy use. Customers would be partially compensated for their purchases through rebates, and low-income customers can also have them installed at a discounted rate. Supporters argue that due to lack of outreach and education regarding these new technologies, customers have not been able to fully utilize the benefits of smart meter technologies. Supporters additionally argue that due to this lack of outreach, the market for energy management technologies is small, thus creating discouragingly high prices. The language ensures that this program will be done within the PUC’s currently authorized demand-side management funds (of which there are more than being used), so there will not be an additional charge to ratepayers to fund this new program. Energy efficiency is a top priority of the Energy Committee because it drives energy savings and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. As this bill advances energy efficiency, the Energy Committee recommends supporting AB 793.
Currently, PG&E has an “Oppose Unless Amended” position on the bill because AB 793 designates an independent administrator run the program and not the electrical corporation or public utility (ie, in PG&E service territory, PG&E). It is expected that the bill’s author and PG&E will be able to reach an accommodation on this issue.
Status Bill passed through the Assembly. Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee hearing was held on June 30, 2015 and the bill passed (6-1). Re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. Support California Energy Efficiency Industry Council Clean Power Campaign Environmental Defense Fund Marin Clean Energy Mission:data TechNet The Office of Ratepayer Advocates Sierra Club of California
Opposition PG & E (Oppose Unless Amended)
Date: July 23, 2015
To: Working Council
From: Sarah Qureshi, Associate; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director
RE: AB 1330 – to establish an annual energy efficiency resource standard
Issue
Should the California legislature establish an annual energy efficiency resource standard?
Position Recommendation
The Energy Committee voted to SUPPORT AB 1330.
Summary
AB 1330, the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard Act, would establish an annual Energy Efficiency Resource Standard
(EERS) in California. Specifically it would:
Require energy efficiency administrators (public and investor-owned utilities electric utilities and community
choice aggregators) to increase their energy efficiency resources to increase their energy savings by no less than
1.5% of their total retail electricity sales each year by 2020 and no less than 2% by 2025. The amount of
incremental energy savings cannot count the sales of electricity associated with electric vehicle charging and net,
round-trip electricity losses associated with electricity consumer-sited energy storage.
Require gas utilities to increase their energy efficiency resources to increase their energy savings by no less than
0.75% of the total system natural gas consumption each year by 2020 and no less than 1% by 2025. The amount of
incremental energy savings cannot count sales of natural gas associated with natural gas vehicle fueling during the
preceding three years.
Require the California Energy Commission (CEC), in consultation with the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC), to adopt a cost limitation for each energy efficiency administrator for meeting the EERS.
An energy efficiency administrators is exempt from the EERS requirements if its average annual retail sales of
electricity were less than or equal to 1,000 GWh. A gas utility is exempt from the EERS requirements if its average
annual retail sales of natural gas were less than or equal to 50 million therms.
Require the CEC, in consultation with the CPUC to establish annual percentage of peak demand reductions that
shall be achieved by each energy efficiency administrator through event-based demand response with consideration
of the role of electricity consumer-sited energy storage, electric vehicle charging, and distributed generation
resources, with a timetable for achieving those peak demand reductions.
Require that benefits, including energy savings achieved, within disadvantaged communities, shall be given the
highest priority for energy efficiency activities undertaken by energy efficiency administrators and gas utilities.
Require energy efficiency administrators and gas utilities to file annual reports on their energy savings with the
CEC.
Background
An EERS is a policy that requires utilities or other entities to achieve a specified amount of energy savings through energy
efficiency programs within a specified timeframe. These standards can require electricity savings, natural gas savings, or
both. AB 1330 would require both.
Currently, the CPUC regulates ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs applied to IOUs. POUs also administer similar
programs to the CPUC regulations, which are ratepayer-funded as well. The 2013-2014 energy efficiency program budgets
were more than $2 billion. This program is used to incentivize and encourage energy efficiency improvements beyond
current state regulations.
At this time, there are also several interrelated but incongruous regulations pertaining to energy efficiency in California. For
example:
the CPUC must establish targets for all potentially achievable cost-effective electricity/gas efficiency savings;
local POUs must first acquire all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost
effective, reliable and feasible;
the CEC must develop a statewide estimate of all potentially achievable cost-effective electricity/gas savings, and
establish targets for statewide annual efficiency savings and demand reduction for the next 10 years;
the CEC must develop and implement a program to achieve greater energy savings in California’s existing
residential and nonresidential building stock.
Though broad targets have been set via the above efforts, there currently are no specific requirements that would drive and
ensure the adoption of demand side energy resources, such as energy efficiency and demand response, at a level that would
provide certainty for energy resource planning and achievement of AB 32 and potential future clean energy goals (such as
Governor Brown’s so called “50/50/50 plan”). AB 1330 seeks to provide such certainty through an EERS.
Analysis
An EERS would make progress toward achieving overall energy efficiency goals and Governor Brown’s goal of increasing
building efficiency by 50%.
While the CPUC currently oversees many programs that mandate energy efficiency programs, the hodge-podge nature of
this system lacks the certainty and clear goals that an EERS would provide.
Some POUs oppose AB 1330 because energy savings are customer-driven, load is not growing consistent with improving
efficiency, and concerns regarding over-generation of electricity during peak periods of the day. The Independent Energy
Producers oppose establishing a carve-out for demand response. Furthermore, opponents state that this bill does not
recognize that energy efficiency programs are voluntary to customers, and utilities cannot force customers to take advantage
of programs. Moreover, customer participation can be significantly impacted by personal macroeconomic circumstances
beyond the utility’s control.
The Energy Committee advocates for policies and programs that reflect reliable, high-quality, environmentally-responsible,
and competitively-priced energy and power in an open and transparent market-based system. Energy efficiency is a top
priority in driving energy savings and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Committee generally supports
efforts to increase energy efficiency. For these reasons, the Leadership Group recommends supporting AB 1330, and the
establishment of an EERS.
Status
AB 1330 passed by the Assembly on June 4, 2015. It was recently reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy,
Utilities and Communications (7 ayes, 3 noes).
Support
SVLG Members: Bloom Energy, ENERNOC
California Energy Efficiency Industry Council
Center for Sustainable Energy
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
TURN
Energy Storage Alliance
ENERNOC
La Cooperative Campesina de California
Proteus
Sierra Club
Small Business California
TELACU
Opposition
SVLG Members: PG&E, unless amended
California Municipal Utilities Association
City of Burbank Water and Power
City of Pasadena Water and Power
City of Riverside Public Utilities Department
Imperial Irrigation District
Northern California Power Agency
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
San Diego Gas and Electric
Sempra Energy Utilities
Southern California Gas
Southern California Edison
Southern California Public Power Authority
DATE: August 3, 2015
TO: Working Council
FROM: Housing and Land Use Committee
SUBJECT: Modification of Homelessness in Work Plan- 2016-2017
Issue: The Leadership Group did not receive the grant from the National Center on Employment
and Homelessness that had been applied for with our partners Destination: Home and
Work2Future. This directly impacts the ability to develop the programmatic work and
accomplish outcomes identified in the Work Plan on Homelessness: establish homeless
employment initiative to open up 150 jobs over three years at Leadership Group member
companies with a target of 50 jobs in the first year.
Committee Recommendation: Modify Work Plan
Background: The Leadership Group first applied for these funds with partner organizations in
January of 2015. While our application was selected as a finalist and staff was invited to attend a
workshop in Washington, DC in March, the application was not selected as one of the five
national winners. There were no grant applications selected from California. This grant would
have funded work that aligned with Santa Clara County’s Community Plan to End
Homelessness, which was endorsed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the City
of San Jose in early 2015.
Analysis: While this officially removes the Leadership Group from active participation in the
Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness, we are still invited to participate in
their broader efforts as a participant in regional stakeholder meetings. Other opportunities may
arise in the future where a partnership would be appropriate. Leadership Group staff will
continue to serve on the boards of the Housing Trust and the new organization SV@Home,
where they will have opportunities to continue supporting work to prevent and end
homelessness.
**As a result of the July 9th Working Council request to table this item until the August 3rd
meeting, the Housing and Land Use Committee again reviewed how to engage on homelessness
at their July 14th
meeting. While the Committee still recommends that the issue be removed from
the work plan in its current form, the committee also recommended that direct advocacy for the
development of housing for the homeless within Silicon Valley cities should be prioritized by the
Leadership Group. This expands current work without overburdening staff and will be
particularly important in the next year as the City of San Jose moves forward with proposals for
motel conversions and other unique solutions to end homelessness. This advocacy will be
important in representing the business community’s commitment to supporting Housing First
solutions, proven to end homelessness. The change will be reflected in the 2016 Work Plan. If
another opportunity to engage at a higher level comes before the committee, it will be seriously
considered.**
Date: July 23, 2015
To: Working Council
From: Sarah Qureshi, Associate; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director
RE: AB 802 – Energy efficiency savings
Issue
Should investor-owned electrical or gas utilities (IOUs) be able to recover in rates the cost of programs to bring a
building up to legal code and to count all energy savings achieved toward the corporation’s energy efficiency
targets?
Position Recommendation
The Energy Committee recommends Support.
Summary
This bill is intended to enable greater amounts of energy savings to help achieve the energy efficiency goals outlined
in the Governor’s 50/50/50 plan.
Specifically, AB 802:
Requires the CPUC to authorize electrical and gas IOUs to recover the cost of energy efficiency programs
from ratepayers, based on all estimated energy savings, including energy savings from bringing existing
buildings into compliance with mandatory CEC energy efficiency codes for existing buildings.
Allows the CPUC to adjust the energy efficiency procurement targets to reflect energy efficiency savings
achieved in meeting or exceeding mandatory energy efficiency codes for existing buildings.
Background
Consistent with the loading order, statute requires both electrical and gas IOUs to meet unmet resource needs with
all available energy efficiency and demand reduction that is cost-effective, reliable and feasible. The CPUC uses
these criteria to establish energy efficiency targets for the IOUs. To achieve these targets, the IOUs administer
energy efficiency programs with ratepayer funds. Currently funded at about $1 billion per year, the programs
include a portfolio of financial incentives, loans, and rebates for installing energy efficient appliances, lighting,
windows, HVAC systems, whole-house retrofits, and sector-specific efforts.
The CPUC measures claimed savings against a baseline, which the CPUC generally defines as being comprised of
three factors: (1) “naturally occurring savings,” (2) standard industry practice and (3) the CEC’s Title 24 energy
efficiency standards for existing buildings. The CPUC sets the baseline at this level to avoid “free ridership,” that is,
credit for energy savings that would have occurred absent the IOUs’ energy efficiency programs.
Currently, the CPUC assumes that measures to bring an existing building into compliance with the CEC’s energy
efficiency standard would have occurred absent the IOUs’ energy efficiency programs. Recently, some parties have
complained that the CPUC-established baseline of energy efficiency measures prevents realization of additional,
cost-effective energy savings. This is because the baseline prevents the IOUs from receiving ratepayer monies for
encouraging energy-saving building measures that fall below CEC’s energy efficiency building standards. In fact,
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), this bill’s sponsor, reports the results of its own studies that show that most
potential cost-effective energy efficiency savings are represented by projects that are below the CEC’s building code
standards. PG&E, and others, contend that the state will not be able to attain the ambitious energy efficiency goals
currently contemplated by the Legislature unless the CPUC credits the IOUs with the energy savings that result from
below-code projects. Proponents additionally contend that the most cost-effective energy efficiency projects are
those below the energy efficiency building standards.
Analysis
According to the author and sponsor, this bill is to enable greater amounts of energy savings than would occur
absent this bill to help achieve the energy efficiency goals outlined in the Governor’s 50/50/50 plan. Indeed, the
sponsor anticipates the CPUC will significantly increase energy efficiency targets in light of the programmatic
changes required by this bill. Allowing IOUs credit for below-code energy efficiency building upgrades may indeed
lead to additional energy savings, and a more cost-effective energy efficiency portfolio.
However, it is conceivable that the state may realize fewer energy savings than it otherwise would. For example,
energy efficiency program money may go towards a significant number of below code projects that would have
happened without IOU incentive. Absent additional funding, such free-rider projects could displace above-code
projects that would have provided truly additional energy savings.
In recognition of both the potential for additional energy savings and for unanticipated consequences, the CPUC
recently ordered the IOUs to implement pilot projects in which the IOUs may receive rate recovery and credit for
energy savings resulting from below-code energy efficiency building upgrades (analysis of results will not be
complete until 2018).
In addition to the pilot projects, the CPUC is conducting a proceeding on energy efficiency. The hearing entails
consideration of CPUC’s setting of the energy use baseline against which the energy savings of the IOUs’ energy
efficiency programs are measured. Inherent to that consideration is evaluation of the specific proposal advanced by
this bill, namely, allowing the IOUs to receive credit for energy savings resulting from below-code energy efficiency
building upgrades.
This bill also requires the CPUC to authorize an IOU to count all energy savings achieved toward overall energy
efficiency goals or targets established by the commission. This requirement departs from existing practice, by which
an IOU claims energy savings from energy efficiency measures and the CPUC assesses and adjusts those claims.
This bill requires CPUC to adjust the baseline against which it measures energy savings.
The SB 350 Taskforce took a position of support on this concept and the Energy Committee generally supports
efforts to increase energy efficiency. For these reasons, the SB 350 Taskforce recommends supporting AB 802.
Status
AB 802 was passed by the Assembly on June 02, 2015, and is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Support
SVLG member: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Bay Area Regional Energy Network
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipeline Trades Council
Coalition of California Utility Employees
Environmental Defense Fund
Local Government Sustainable Energy Coalition
Marin Clean Energy
National Association of Energy Service Companies
Natural Resources Defense Council
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
Sempra Energy utilities
Sierra Club California
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Company
The Energy Coalition
Union of Concerned Scientists
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Opposition
California Energy Efficiency Industry Council, unless
amended
Office of Ratepayer Advocates