Westerbeke Ranch, Sonoma

Westerbeke Ranch, Sonoma

August 14, 2002

Dear MAESTRO Members and interested parties,

The pages that follow summarize select presentations and brainstorming sessions that took place during the July 29 and 30 MAESTRO meeting at Westerbeke Ranch in Sonoma.

The meeting agenda can be found on pages 3 and 4. The far right column of the agenda, highlighted in bold, serves as a table of contents for corresponding discussion notes and action items.

As we want to make sure that your inputs made during the meeting are captured properly, please read the entire document carefully and send clarifications and corrections to Leora Vestel (broydo@attbi.com) by Friday, August 23. This will allow that the appropriate individuals and/or committees can follow-up as necessary.

Please note this is a draft document of meeting notes andit may contain factual errors – the information within is not for publication. These notes are intented to reflect the nature of the discussions and are not intended to be interpreted as exact quotes. Please only provide substantive comments/changes.

Once we get you comments, the document will be sent back to you within the week. Thanks to all who attended the workshop and made it so productive.

Sincerely,

Kenneth James

MAESTRO Members Meeting

July 29-30, 2002

2300 Grove Street, Sonoma, CA 95476

AGENDA

July 29

July 30

Action Items – Commercial Potential Study

(These comments were made on the final study report. Changes will not be made to the final report. These comments will be considered in all subsequent reports and actions pertaining to the final report).

• 
  For table that addresses Types of Potential (see report, section 1-5), need to note: “Does not include emerging technologies.” (Mike M.)
  
• 
  Areas of report mention 5-year time frame (see report, section 1-2) – mistake, should be 10-year. (Valerie)
  
• 
  “Key Findings” results should be translated into percentages as well – people think in percentages. For example, the numbers estimated from 3 to 10 percent… (Rafi)
  
• 
  Based on Rafi’s recommendation about (bullet 3) Mike Rufo agreed to calculate the exact numbers. (Rufo)
  

Revamped Website Discussion

Suggestions

• 
  Old Web addresses need to link to new home page.
  
• 
  Compile reports on number of unique user hits.
  
• 
  Keep graphics to a minimum for low-tech users.
  
• 
  Should be easy way to print browser pop-up pages – perhaps have “printer-friendly version” button on each page – ensure that full page gets printed.
  
• 
  Put qualifier next to “What’s New” section – noting the time frame (i.e. “News from the last six months…”)
  
• 
  A pop-up message or “warning sign” that tells you how long download will take.
  
• 
  Put “study number” in study listings.
  
• 
  List volumes of studies together, not separately.
  
• 
  Separate button for executive summaries – in case that’s all someone wants to read.
  
• 
  CALMAC button should be changed to say “CALMAC Website”
  
• 
  Spell out acronyms within parallel pop-up button.
  
• 
  Alphabetize contact list by organization.
  
• 
  Put titles under names on contacts page
  
• 
  Put password for members only sections – some prefer that everyone have the same password, some want to set their own.
  
• 
  Home pages should note funding source (PGC) and member organizations.
  
• 
  First and second paragraphs (on the homepage) do not describe site contents – need something more terse (i.e. “You can find x, y and z on this site.”). Needs to be punched-up and provide an easy description of what’s on site.
  
• 
  Need to put words “energy efficiency” on home page.
  
• 
  First button should say “about CALMAC.”
  
• 
  Need list of “upcoming events.”
  
• 
  Large scanned files should be available through special request only. They should be cited on site, but can’t be downloaded from site – requests made through e-mail to Dennis.
  
• 
  Study author and affiliation should be listed.
  
• 
  “Standard Practice Manual” page should be moved to ”protocols” page.
  
• 
  On “Project Info” page put “Quarterly Report” as title.
  
• 
  Where are the draft guidelines for MAESTRO?
  
• 
  Get SDG&E for CADMAC/Information filings page
  
• 
  On “Links” page, NWEEA should be changed to NEEA.
  
• 
  Delete “Org. Charts” page and put information under individual organizations.
  
• 
  Better contrast for text layered on graphics (left side of page).
  

• 
  Topic: If meeting is not open to public, should we list agenda and minutes?
  
• 
  Topic: Do we want personal info up there?
  
• 
  Topic: Do we want meeting minutes posted? Is this public info?
  
• 
  Topic: The site should be a central repository so all info can be accessed by everyone in group.
  
• 
  Topic: How long should agendas be listed – when do they expire?
  
• 
  Topic: Studies from non-member organizations – submittable/posted to site?
  

Deliverables

• 
  Website committee will schedule meeting – will inform rest of group of date/time so people can join in.
  

July 30, 2002

List of Brainstorming Ideas*

• 
  How to handle adoption and cost.
  
• 
  How to determine cost including design.
  
• 
  Interaction with d. savings database.
  
• 
  Integration of 2001.
  
• 
  Looking at gaps in the study.
  
• 
  Who is audience(s) for commercial potential studies.
  
• 
  How should results be delivered to meet their needs.
  
• 
  When should we update the measure list?
  
• 
  Timing of potential studies vs. timing of program planning process.
  
• 
  Incorporation of new energy management systems into future potential studies.
  
• 
  Integration with other areas outside of energy efficiency (self gen, renewables).
  
• 
  Addressing cost/benefits for hard to reach.
  
• 
  Integration of market potential information with cost/benefits tests.
  
• 
  Broaden integration to include customer needs and wants.
  
• 
  Using empirical data to come up with predictive models.
  
• 
  Broadening to include emerging technologies.
  
• 
  Overall discussion of marketing and outreach.
  
• 
  Input to PUC strategic planning.
  
• 
  How can we better integrate participation data statewide.
  

Discussion: How to Market/Disseminate Study Results

Suggestions

• 
  Decision makers should be given short summary, maybe 3 or 4 pages – not entire study – with specific, targeted information so data can have effect. (Mike M.)
  
• 
  *Mike M. provided the following table:
  

*Target Audience	Use of Conservation Potential Study
Policy Makers-CPUC or Legislators	Determine appropriate portfolio funding level; resource planning input; verification of cost effectiveness.
Portfolio Managers – Utilities, Energy Division?	Identify market segments with program potential; optimize mix of peak savings vs. annual conservation programs; targeting or definition of hard to reach market segments.
Program Managers-Design and Delivery Agents – Local Program Contractors?	Use measure saturation trends as proxies for potential need to change strategy or program design; map effects of successful programs, identify end uses in need of new programs; identify promising measures.
Program Evaluators-Forecasters?	Cross check of past program or market evaluations, identification of market segments for future evaluations, use market saturation trends as proxy for need for different types of evaluation.

• 
  One-page summary sheets is good approach. Whole study could go to CEC, glossy handouts to others – maybe 4-pagers like market share tracking survey. Press releases should be sent to general and industry press. (Chris Ann)
  
• 
  Someone should come de-brief people at Energy Commission re: study results. (Tim)
  
• 
  We need face time with policy makers – that’s what closes the deal. (Fred C.)
  
• 
  Integration of various studies for presentation to decision makers. (Rafi)
  
• 
  We need one-sentence descriptions of why these studies are done. To address info overload we need simplified road map; why are these studies done and who is impacted. (Doug)
  
• 
  Results should be put in bigger context – a meta analysis of potential studies with a link to previous studies. (Sylvia)
  

• 
  MAESTRO/Chris Ann will come up with a list of discussion questions, potential action steps and next steps.
  

Discussion: Input for PUC Strategic Planning?

Suggestions

• 
  We need integration. PUC holds the purse strings. (Pierre)
  
• 
  We need clarification to see who’s handling these things (Mike M.):
  

(This table provided by Mike M.)

Action	Who’s doing it
Set Policy Goals	CPUC
Manage Portfolios	CPUC, Energy Divisions, IOUs
Design and Carry-out Programs	IOUs, Local Govt.
Evaluate Programs in Market Context	IOUS manage independent evaluation
Evaluate Process and Roles	No One!

• 
  CPUC should hire third party to evaluate who’s doing what and how it’s working. (Mike M.)
  
• 
  If primacy of need is taken back to PUC perhaps there can be some focus. (Pierre)
  
• 
  Maybe PUC can be more specific on what they want from CALMAC and how we can help them manage data. (Valerie)
  
• 
  2002 is going to see lowest levels of energy savings in 10 years – we need to give feedback on what’s happening in the field. CALMAC can inform on 2003 planning to policy makers. (Mike M.)
  
• 
  Long-range administration needs to be collaborative. (Mike M.)
  
• 
  Some person or organization needs to get action item list to discuss further. (Mike M.)
  

• 
  CALMAC committee will take lead on getting list of action items together for further discussion – will make list of recommendations.
  
• 
  Eli says he will go back and present CALMAC recommendations.