Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Energy Committee - 05/15/2014 1 South Burlington Energy Committee (SBEC) May 15, 2014, Special Meeting • Minutes Committee members present: Don Cummings, Keith Epstein, Marc Companion, Marcy Murray, Peter Tousley (Chair), Sam Swanson (three members absent) Member of the public present: Linda McGinnis Staff present: None 1. Approval of May 1st minutes: This item was added to the agenda. Five members voted to approve; Marcy abstained. 2. Discussion about the Committee on Committees’ Recommendation to dissolve the Energy Committee and encourage its members to create a community-based nonprofit organization: Concerns • By dissolving the committee, the city would be sending a negative message to our community, GUEP judges, and our GUEP partners about the city’s level of understanding of and commitment to important energy issues. • Restructuring SBEC into a nonprofit—even with the city’s offer to fund and file all necessary 501(c)(3) documentation and to provide thousands of dollars to us per year—would take a tremendous amount of time, effort, and peoplepower. Consequently, we may need to withdraw from the Energy Prize competition.  We would need to find meeting space, create bylaws, determine how to manage and communicate the transition, work with the city to ensure that we and the forward-thinking issues we represent wouldn’t be marginalized, and access city and other funding (e.g., for the $750 501(c)(3) application fee, photocopying, project work, the hiring of experts as needed). Without a standing energy committee, the city will no longer be guaranteed of access to energy experts whenever needed. • Without an energy committee, city policy could cater to short-term commercial interests over what is in the best long-term interests of the whole community. Note: The importance of SBEC’s recommendations sometimes appears to be misunderstood within city government—especially when people with short-term commercial interests or too-heavy workloads are leading. It can appear that the city doesn’t want to be bothered by the “trouble” we make. If we become a community-based organization, it might be even more likely that city decision-makers will discount our input. If the latter occurs and we don’t feel we can affect the city’s future policies and wellbeing, would our group have a reason to remain cohesive? Is there a more effective way for us to communicate? 2 Our Motivation • We are not a club, nor do we have interest in becoming one. We have standing before the city, are vetted by the City Council, and there is work to be done to: o Maximize the energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy used in the city’s municipal operations and included in its Comprehensive Plan Other Support for Retaining the Energy Committee • A city committee can attract a higher caliber of people if they—as we did— believe they will have impact. • Our agendas have impact, so it makes sense that we are subject to the Open Meeting Law despite its effect on our efficiency. • Unlike many task forces, we have ownership of projects and, consequently, we care about related outcomes. Response to our Being a Drain on Staff Time • Our projects benefit the taxpayer and are, thus, worthy of staff time. • We come up with projects and often offer to implement them to save staff time, but such offers are usually declined. For example, because of his contacts, Don offered to lead the implementation of the LED street light project but was declined. Consequently, because of the demands on staff time, the project took much longer than necessary to be completed, so taxpayer savings were delayed. As another example, Peter has made multiple offers (also declined) to a staff member to do meaningful work for the city at no charge—work for which he would have charged his own customers. • The committee has brought significant funds and grants to the city (we need to quantify this), e.g., $5,000 from the CFL campaign and over $80,000 in energy-related ARRA funding. • We donate significant hours to projects that benefit taxpayers, e.g., the hours Peter and his staff have spent on Portfolio Manager data for the Energy Prize—Peter has stopped this work given the uncertainty of our competing. • We attract talented professionals who donate work-hours that benefit the city, e.g., marketing expert Ara Hagan. • Even if we were to become a community-based organization, our City- Council-approved projects would still require staff time for exploration and implementation. • We could perhaps take over the meeting-preparation-related tasks for Ilona. Potential Alternatives to the Committee on Committees’ Recommendation • SBEC remains with the city during the Energy Prize competition and explores post-Prize committee structure options—connected to and separated from the city—as time allows. The latter could include considering how we might become a viable, effective, freestanding organization (a separate group could set up the latter). 3 o Given the recent publicity about the city entering the Energy Prize competition, dissolving the committee now could lead to the public perception that the city doesn’t value energy efficiency efforts. • Given that energy issues are such an important part of planning, the Energy Committee would become a standing task force that reports to each of the three quarterly umbrella committees. This would allow the Energy Prize momentum to continue and would—more importantly—maintain a level of committee expertise that has already demonstrated its ability to save money for the city. • Given our narrow energy-related focus of saving taxpayers money, SBEC would remain with the city as one of its “narrow-focus” committees. • Instead of disbanding a committee that saves taxpayers money—and could help save commercial tenants money if developers were incentivized to lower a new building’s future operating costs—the city would enhance collaboration within the existing structure (a goal of SBEC this year). • To help alleviate staff burden, continue to offer to do things for the city as volunteers—perhaps the city could hire one of us for $1 per year (as a way to officially subsidize a staff person and make it easier for the city to accept our implementation help). • Create a hybrid structure with SBEC remaining with the city while affiliates are created to spread information throughout the city. One such affiliate could focus on the Energy Prize—it could be separate and free of city government, but would report to SBEC which would then report to the City Council. Waterbury LEAP • A significant advantage is LEAP’s nimbleness, e.g., open communication when, where & how they want it. • LEAP seems to be a source of pride in the seemingly strong community of Waterbury. In fact, LEAP’s annual energy fair seems like a town party. In contrast, there is little sense of community in South Burlington—without a Waterbury-like sense of community, we might not be as successful as they at raising money and attracting participants. • Marcy read the following from LEAP’s Chairperson, Duncan McDougall: Regarding your questions.... • Waterbury LEAP had the opportunity to be a formal committee under the auspices of the town of Waterbury. • We decided to NOT do that because:  Town officials might not have the same priorities as LEAP  We wanted to move as far and as fast as possible on issues we cared about without having to ask permission from anyone  We knew that bureaucracy often moves slowly and requires votes, formal meetings, and waiting for official go-aheads.
 • We also knew that town officials were so swamped with work that even though they wanted to move ahead on energy-related issues, they didn't have the time to do the research, find the experts, and get the info needed to make a decision. Whenever possible, we because the energy-research arm of the town. By doing so, we built a lot of positive trust and support from the Selectboard, Planning Commission, and town staff. 4 • We also try to find opportunities for the town to save money for the taxpayers (something everyone is behind, regardless of their views on climate change) and we give presentations to the appropriate body (Selectboard, Planning Commission, School Board, etc.) saying "Here's what we think you should do. Let us know if we can help." Over time they have commonly said "We trust you. That sounds good. Bring us the experts and data we need to make sure everything is OK. If so, let's go ahead and do it."
 • As we grew we realized that 1) we needed some funds to complete some projects, and 2) we were adding measurable value to our town. In our 3rd year we asked the Selectboard to include an annual appropriation of $2,500 for LEAP. Every year I satnd up at Town Meeting, report our activities, and ask for the funds. Every year the vote has been unanimous. • LEAP also undertakes projects that might be too aggressive for town authorities, but since we are an all-volunteer group we don't have to ask permission. • We codified LEAP's philosophy. It's on our website: http://www.waterburyleap.org/philosophy.php • Four years ago we became a 501(c)(3). We did so because our goal is to turn Waterbury into the greenest town in Vermont by 2020. To do so will require major projects that, in turn, will require measurable funds. • Don't become a 501(c)(3) unless you have a solid group of active members who can keep things going for years to come. Running a nonprofit takes care and feeding. But if you guys want to step up your impact, that's a good way to go. FYI, it costs $750 simply to submit an application to the IRS. Conference Call with Waterbury LEAP’s Duncan McDougall • Duncan guesses that the sense of community in Waterbury likely contributes to LEAP’s success but probably is not a major factor. • He likes being separate from the town because he doesn’t want to have to wait for the selectboard to get on board with LEAP’s ideas. The town wants to save money, so LEAP can get the selectboard’s ear when it has something to propose. Duncan is not interested in being a politician. Project examples: o Set a goal to double local solar installations o Held a solar fest which led people to put solar on their houses o Pursued a grant for LED streetlights • It’s very important to have at least one person in the group to keep momentum; like sharks, if a nonprofit stops moving, it dies. Duncan and Jamie share this role and are supported by other board members—together, they all make up the core group. A core group of dedicated individuals is crucial for success. • LEAP works to build awareness. It paid a graphic designer to create professional-looking banners and a logo—they improved its image in the community. Also wrote articles for the newspaper, was visible at public gatherings, distributed CFLs, and built trust within the community. LEAP began approaching the town with grant opportunities and ideas, thus building political capital. After successful small projects, LEAP started proposing larger projects to the town. Its professional image helped. • Members cycle in and out so there’s no burnout. • LEAP picks projects that can be celebrated with the community and that are not so big that folks will burn out. 5 • LEAP does a lot of the work on its projects. However, for projects where town staff members need to do significant amounts of work, that’s not a problem because the town will end up benefiting from those projects. o For the 500kw solar project, LEAP did lots of legwork: it explored various financing options, identified land options, and did sketch-ups of the various potential sites. Then, it explained to the town why it should do the project, what its assumptions were, what sites it recommended, what the sites would look like post-installation, and what organizations the town could contact for more information. It also provided RFP samples. LEAP acted like an official body during the 10- to 12-month process. • LEAP does not have a formal planning role in town, but when a Planning Commission member asked LEAP to draft the energy plan, members looked at a dozen energy plans all across the state, took the best ideas, and restructured the town’s energy plan (currently in process). • To become a nonprofit, we’d need to complete the application (Duncan could share LEAP’s), pay the $750 fee, keep minutes of meetings, create a board of directors, raise money, and apply for grants. o LEAP uses a flexible model: Duncan, Jamie and the other board members run everything. However, if they decide to pursue a huge project, they look for someone to take it on—they pay the person for a certain number of hours, e.g., $1000 over 3 months (they’ve found that hiring someone for a specific set of tasks yields better results than hiring one person to do multiple projects). Duncan writes all of the grants. All of the core members have fulltime jobs. LEAP raises approximately $10,000 annually through grants, etc. o LEAP has flexibility in scheduling meetings without having to warn the public. For example, it can quickly schedule a 7 a.m. conference call to talk about an issue. o In a given month, Duncan and Jamie probably each spend about one day per week on LEAP work, while the workload for the four other active members varies. LEAP is currently looking for more active members. • Regarding the commercial sector, one of LEAP’s board members is a building contractor, and LEAP members have friends in the commercial sector to whom they can go with opportunities and questions about options, potential financial implications, etc. LEAP always uses a soft-sell approach. • “Sales” approach: LEAP talks about how a given project will save money (it doesn’t mention that it can also help save the planet), improve energy efficiency, increase renewable energy use, etc. • Local Waterbury leaders tend to be open to listening to LEAP. SBEC may need to continue to be part of the city government structure to be heard. • Effective chairperson/leader characteristics: keep the organization moving forward and run meetings well (start/end on time, meet for a maximum of 2 ½ hours, create an agenda with specific start/end times for each item and include the name of the person leading that discussion, summarize next steps for each person at the end of each meeting, and within a day send an email summarizing each person’s tasks). 6 • After polling those who attended LEAP’s latest energy fair, LEAP found that 70% of attendees had never attended it before—in fact, some were from Montreal and Rutland. • 90% of what’s needed to be a successful nonprofit is having a core group that meets and can move things forward. o From Duncan’s follow-up note:  As long as you have an organized, motivated core group of folks to keep things moving forward you'll do fine no matter how you proceed. The MOST important factor is the motivated, organized people who have a shared vision and are willing to roll up their sleeves and get things done. Once you have that (and it sounds as if you do) the formal organizational structure is somewhat secondary. Let me know if there is anything I or Waterbury LEAP can do to help. Draft a Response to the City Council about the Proposed SBEC Structural Change Based on tonight’s discussion, Marcy will create the initial draft and email it to all committee members who can then forward any comments to Ilona (consistent with the Open Meeting Law). Ilona will then compile all the comments into one document and distribute it in the pre-meeting packet, thus enabling us to review the input as efficiently as possible at our June 5th meeting. 3. Georgetown University Energy Prize Keith is working on the application and made a motion to spend $2,300 on Energy Prize branding, logo development, and the energyprize.org website. Don seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. The Suncommon net-metering project will launch in June so that folks without solar- friendly roofs can participate in this CSA-like opportunity while reducing their energy costs by 10 percent. Suncommon is willing to work with SBEC, but the key is finding less than an acre of land to lease—ideally it would be in the community so folks can see the project. The successful implementation of such a project would contribute to the Energy Prize results by showing forward thinking. Volunteer opportunity: An SBEC member is needed to help guide the project from scope to plan to full implementation. (Don can help with project management). As with the Suncommon project above, each of the other Energy Prize projects will require an owner to help guide the project from scope to plan to full implementation. (Don can help with project management). Examples of projects include: Opower dashboard creation, Planning Commission relationship, acquisition of Vermont Gas data for Opower. Next meeting: June 5th at 7 p.m.