Retrofit Working Group
5-13-10 Meeting

Attendees:

Mark McDermott
Paul Ettore
Nicole Stika
Julie Lindstrom
Paul Houlihan
Ian Fischer
Jeff Anderle
Robert Stutzman
Joel Solow
Kelly Kupcak
Bob Verhoff
Loree Soggs
Mandy Metcalf
Will Skora
Casey Ehrlich
Kelli Rose Pearson
Linda Warren
Liz Hernandez
Andrew Watterson
Shanelle Smith

I. New Business

a. Introductions

b. Updates from Nicole Stika (COSE)

i. Senate Bill 221
1. Mandates Ohio electric utilities mandate energy consumption and use renewable sources
a. Electric utilities are doing this via the DSE-2 rider on bill around $1.45/month
2. COSE has been involved with helping FirstEnergy meet this statute via rebates and incentives
3. Small businesses can join programs can also be joined by smaller businesses which
a. GreenPLUS program
b. Energy Efficiency Program
ii. Energy Efficiency Loan product for small businesses modeled after Energy Efficiency Mortgage

c. Goal Committee Update - Questions from last meeting for Working Group - MM

1. GHG emission reductions as framework for goals?
a. GHG emissions are too intangible – LH
b. Doing both – LW
c. Focusing on one standard (e.g., household savings) and translating other goals (e.g., emissions)
d. Internal vs. External Goal – BV

2. Minimum standards of retrofit for any property receiving any form of publicly subsidized assistance?
a. Dictated by Scope of Work or Budget?
b. Good to have standard but need several levels – LH
c. Similarity to HOMESTAR Gold and Silver Labels - LH
d. Small group of interested individuals to come back with pragmatic proposal? – LW
e. Using this moment to draw a line in the sand – MM
i. Initial pilot is setting the bar high

3. Aligning our goals with existing goals from other partners/resources
a. SB 221
b. HOMESTAR

4. Jobs and labor standards (TABLED)
a. Chicago Workforce Investment Council meeting: With current level of funding for retrofit, only 149 jobs would be created within a 3 year period. With a more aggressive approach towards funding that number would be more like 3000. - KK
d. Plan Outline

i. Basic overview of outline
ii. Status of outline (i.e. capable of change)? - LH
1. Comprehensive Implementation Committee created the outline through RS but it of course subject to input by all members.
e. Clean Energy Solutions, Inc.

i. Introduction/Firm Background
1. Cambridge Energy Alliance
a. Set up to meet ambitious energy reduction goals
b. Multi-sector
2. Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance
a. City staff was tasked to manage and oversee Working Groups from Cincinnati’s own version of a sustainability summit
b. Focus of work has been on residential and nonprofit sector
c. Alliance was awarded $17 million from EECBG funds
d. Job creation has been low in Cincinnati as well
ii. Cleveland Energy$aver Pilot
1. Measures/Capital Costs/Savings Potential/Amortization
2. Financing Mechanisms for Pilot
a. Loan Programs don’t work as well in municipalities or regions, but state-wide programs have been more successful. So, it’s their advice
b. Subsidy needs to be on the table, but price points need to be tweaked (in the pilot) to determine what people are willing to pay. NPI has data to determine this.
i. City-financed subsidies for pilot project is averaging around $4500 per home
3. Marketing
a. Marketing needs to be intensive, competitive and multi-faceted (door knocking, canvassing, Community Development Entities, churches, etc.) You need to market to 1000-1500 people to get 100 homes for the pilot. - PH
4. Management and organization of pilot by Cleveland Housing Network
a. CHN has utility data and connections which make this a supported decision
iii. Projected Pilot Timeline
1. Pilot (i.e. phase 1) announcement in January with six-month execution plan. It focuses on single family owner occupied homes but it designed to be applicable to other types of properties. - AW
f. Discussion of single entity approach
i. Representative of Working Group should go to G5 conference – AW
ii. Economic Transformations Group (ETG) is consultant’s doing strategic plan for Sept.’s Sustainable Cleveland 2019 meeting
iii. Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance is a nonprofit with a public governmental advisory committee. Is this something that we should be considering? - PE
1. Should be broader than City to bring to scale – AW
2. Deliberate connection with Cincinnati? – PE 3. Cleveland has same capacity, program interest, and diversity of organizations as
Cincinnati, but not necessarily the same multi-sector, multi-jurisdiction, politically supported regional support base and platform. – PH
4. Break into subgroups to determine:
a. What it takes to organize group
i. Emerald Cities is already dedicated to this – SS
ii. Political climate is right but it needs to be community focused so that when political climate changes it will still continue - BV
b. What are components/sectors and working with individuals to determine approach?
c. Putting together strategy for approaching funding sources
g. Proposals for Future Discussion
i. Getting our heads around single entity idea and what it would costs, and then seeking funding. - PE
ii. Is group looking for council resolution or mayor’s resolution? –AW
iii. Inclusion of LED lighting project (see handout)- AW

II. Next meeting: June 10, 2010