Retrofit Working Group
6-10-10 Meeting

Attendees:
Mark McDermott
Paul Ettore
Liz Hernandez
Will Skora
Loree Soggs
Michele Kilroy
Laura Steinbrink
Robert Stutzman
Josh Angelini
Joel Solow
Courtney DeOreo
Kelly Kupcak
Steve Kiel
Lisa Hong
Shanelle Smith
Tim Kreuger
Julie Lindstrom
Calley Mersmann
Tanya Xu
Anand Natarajan

I. Old Business

a. Report from Loree Soggs/Paul Ettore as Group representatives to Climate Leadership Academy

i. The conference was attended by the Vice-Mayors, Sustainability Directors, etc. from a large number of major American cities

ii. From their perspective, Cleveland is behind the curve at getting retrofit programs up and running.

iii. Andrew Watterson made a number of good contacts for us to potentially benefit from, if there is a particular municipal retrofit program we’d like to learn more about.

b. Updates on Goals from Robert Stutzman

i. Presented following figures on residential housing for use in conjunction with plan goals
1. 142,000 building footprints in the city of Cleveland
2. 165,916 households
3. 214,003 housing units
4. Median Income (AMI) is $27,956
5. Average Household Size is 2.33
6. For average household to meet HWAP standard, its income must be less then $31,608.40
7. 59% of the Households in Cleveland currently qualify under that number
8. The Cleveland Energy$aver program is, for now, intended to cover all those households not covered under HWAP (i.e. 41%).

ii. Kelly Kupcak asked about the numbers for industrial, institutional, etc, markets. Robert stated that those will be rolled in with the above numbers and made available to the Working Group as a single document.

c. Updates on standards from Liz Hernandez
i. The idea of aligning the standard of retrofit work to be called for in the Plan with that of the up and coming HOMESTAR program was discussed by Liz Hernandez. HOMESTAR has two levels, Gold and Silver. Silver gives rebates for basic upgrades like insulation, windows, appliances, etc. Gold gives a larger rebate provided consumer gets energy audit which produces plan to save consumer at least 20% on utility usage.
ii. Group agreed that 20% wasn’t high enough of a standard
iii. Lisa Hong brought up the idea of using an energy saved per square foot standard, since utility costs fluctuate.
iv. Group agreed to send the standards question back to the committee for final decisions

II. New Business
a. Senate Bill 232
i. Senate Bill 232, which incorporated a previous bill detailing Solar Improvement Districts, was enacted by the Ohio Legislature on 6-4-10.
ii. The Provisions dealing with SID specifically allow PACE financing for the district for energy efficiency, along with solar and other renewable technologies.
iii. The City will be handling the first round of PACE bonding, totaling $5 million.
b. Selection of representatives for 2010 Summit
i. Michele Kilroy informed the group that the organizer’s of the next Summit is limiting the participants, from around 500 to 350. As a result of this, the organizers are seeking to have 40% returning participants and 60% new.
ii. As a result of the limitation on participants, each working group will be selecting 4 individuals who will get automatic invites to the Summit, and then other members can apply in July to be invited.
iii. Mark McDermott presented the questions to those in attendance who were at the last Summit with
c. Report from Kelly Kupcak and Courtney DeOreo on workforce development
i. Kelly and Courtney presented the draft version of the workforce development section of the Plan.
ii. Robert will send out the document to the Working Group’s entire distribution list and solicit comments (which will be directed toward Kelly and Courtney).
d. Presentation regarding the Greater Cleveland Energy Alliance Corp. (GCEAC)
i. Paul Ettore presented the framework for the previously discussed single entity, designed as the “Convention and Visitors Bureau” for energy efficiency retrofits in the area.
ii. In order to figure out how such an organization might realistically be formed from the diverse groups represented within the larger Working Group, a charrette was proposed by Paul. He also contacted Clean Energy Solutions, the Boston-based consulting company in charge of the on-bill financing portion of the City’s Energy$aver program, to craft a proposal for this charrette.
iii. The proposal entailed a three-step process for the charrette. First, the consultants would conduct meetings with all of the individuals and organizations participating, in order to determine what common ground exists and what each party brings to the table (in terms of quantifiable resources and intangibles like policy opinions, etc.) This would be the bulk of the work. Then, the charrette would be held over a two day period, with at least one of the consultants there to moderate and facilitate discussion. During the meeting, the details of the GCEAC would be finalized. Third, the consultants would craft a set of “next steps” for the organization to take as well as a general work plan with timeframes, tasks and goals.
iv. Laura Steinbrink suggested bidding this out to local consultants. She stated that even though we have some previous experience interacting with this firm, that local consultants also have experience doing this and could offer the service at a lower rate.

III. Next meeting: July 8, 2010