CPUC Workshop - 2021-02-04
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
California Public Utilities Commission
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Oh, yeah. Of course. We still have about seven minutes. So I'm just gonna go ahead and close the poll. Or that's fine if anybody wants to put in their results here.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Why don't we give everyone just a few more seconds to enter your your organization if you'd like to?
Speaker 2
Alright. I we have a 127 participants, so I feel comfortable closing closing the pole now.
Speaker 2
Okay. So the results of our survey, we have a lot of CPUC staff, a good number of community based organizations and policy and advocacy organizations, a fair number of utility representatives, and then some others from state and local government. Okay. Great. So we have a really good cross section of folks at the session.
So I again, we want this to be as interactive as possible and and really to hear, you know, your your thoughts and your input for us. So I'm just gonna start off by giving a a pretty high level overview of the, action plan and and particularly the energy, components of it. So, you know, over the the last two years, we've done, a number of energy programs and policies that are covered under this plan. There are about 65 energy specific action items within the plan. And I I actually think what's really nice about that is that, you know, there are different goals within the plan.
There are nine different goals, and one was really focused on energy, and there are lot of energy topics in there. But there are also a lot of energy related items in goal four, which is climate resilience, and goal five, which is about public participation and, safety enforcement and workforce development and monitoring and evaluation. So Mhmm. Mhmm. You know, we're we have been, pretty cross cutting so far, and we're looking to continue to do even more of that going forward, to really, be cross cutting in our ESJ efforts as we as we move forward and and get to the next step of this.
So I just wanted to give maybe one or two examples of some things that my team work on that are covered in the plan. So one of the the first things is the disadvantaged communities advisory group, and this is an external advisory group of 11 members that advises the CPUC and the California Energy Commission about some of our clean energy programs. And as I was sort of reflecting on what to highlight, I was I was thinking about how they were actually really instrumental as we were developing the original environmental and social justice action plan. They gave us a lot of feedback. One particular area that they were really interested in was workforce development.
And at the time, a few years ago, you know, the CPUC was was really interested in that feedback, and we were kind of thinking, well, this isn't really our area of expertise, but there's another state agency, who really has this expertise. And so, our inclusion of their feedback in the environmental and social justice action plan then led to, the CPUC executing, a memorandum of understanding with the California Workforce Development Board so we can, get that expertise, and we can figure out, how we can bring that into our program. So I think that's something that was pretty exciting. You you may have heard about that today, and that that effort will continue going forward. And then one other thing I just wanted to mention quickly is the EPIC electricity research and development program.
This fall, we had a series of public meetings that were really focused discussions around how to better incorporate equity into research and development projects and ensure that community engagement is an early step in the process rather than an afterthought. So just a plug, I'll I'll put something in the chat, but we're gonna have a workshop on February 18 where we're gonna share some of the key lessons learned about improving equity and improving community engagement in in this r and d program. So with those two examples, just to to kind of get us level set. As I was saying, a lot of the actions in the first iteration of the action plan were pretty program specific. You know, there was one about the epic program I just mentioned.
But something that we're trying to do in this next phase of developing the action plan is to be a little bit more cross cutting and thinking a little bit more broadly across programs, what what some of our challenges are and what some of the things are that we really wanna to strive to go through. So Allison and I are gonna go through two or three prompts to to kind of help guide and frame our discussion so we can get your feedback about how we should all do that. And then before turning it over to Allison, I just wanted to check, Nora, was there anything from the chat we should address now?
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you so much. I'm Allison Levante, and I'm a supervisor in energy division on energy efficiency and procurement, and that includes I also cover the low income energy savings assistance and California Alternate Rates for Energy. So some of the lens that I come from is overseeing those programs. The first question or prompt that I have is just to share that, you know, in ensuring that we're reaching our environmental and social justice communities, we often may have a proceeding.
And for energy, there's new programs that are provided budgets in those proceedings. And those programs are funded by our surcharge or public purpose, a surcharge out of the ratepayers bills. And we don't want to have that we're collecting from ratepayers and not reaching all community members. And so in the proceedings, I think a standard approach is that a to ensure that the environmental and social justice communities are reached and participants do tap into that opportunity that their ratepayer funds are paying for to receive these energy programs. There's a specific direction or specific budget in those proceedings for those programs that they are to reach a segment of the customer that is either all inclusive of environmental and social justice or a subset of that.
I want to ask, you know, as far as is that what do you see as the assumptions we're making in that approach? What opportunities, do you see we could take looking forward if we change that assumption or that that default? Please go ahead and raise your hand since we don't have a lot of folks raising your hand, you can also just speak up, take yourself off mute.
Speaker 4
Yeah. What assumptions is the commission making if we're saying, you know, our current if our if a default method for ensuring that we're reaching, and the ratepayer funded programs have a focused way of ensuring that environmental and social justice communities are tapping into the opportunities of energy programs. In our default or if we go about it with the approach of just making a budget carve out or a direction that this this program must be set aside for these these customers. Do we see is maybe the the pros and cons or some false assumptions in that and how we could do what what's a different way of looking at it, to to better reach in better ways our environmental and social justice communities with energy programs.
Speaker 6
Sure. I'm happy to offer, just my high level thoughts on this, which is, you know, I I think that communities of color and low income communities will require a greater amount of funds in order to reach them. I think that could be probably agreed upon in this group and a concerted effort. And so if, you know, I work with incentive programs, for example, under energy efficiency. If those programs are just put out on a platter and say, okay, you know, first come first serve, we know that it's kind of folks who are more motivated and perhaps early adopters who tend to be more wealthy, more educated, you know, paying attention to their energy bills, etcetera.
Those are the folks who are gonna take first advantage of those opportunities. And so if we if we say, oh, it's equally available, that's not equitable because we need to promote programs to folks who really need the funds to actually make those changes more than those who might be otherwise inclined with their own funds or have that disposable income. It's a very general and broad statement, but I think that's really important.
Speaker 7
Hi. This is Leslie Martinez with leadership council for just in accountability. I definitely agree with any everything that the last speaker just said. I also think, though, there need there needs to be a very specific targeted outreach to those really hard to reach communities. I think that there at this point, I think that the CPUC and IOUs have become very com very comfortable with the organizations that they continuously contract to, you know, to do outreach for these programs.
And when you do that, you kind of you're buying into that same culture of the same communities being outreach, while the more the ones that you've never reached continue to not be contacted at all. The other thing, like, I think that there needs to be more smaller CBOs that are able to get these contracts because they have the real personal connections, and they have the staff in time and relationships to go through and explain the programs to them, whether it be at a community meeting, whether it be sending something home with the school. I there there needs to be the the outreach model that the CPUC uses needs to be expanded because there are so many people who are ready to access those dollars. But, a, it's so difficult. Like, there needs to be more support for CBOs so that they can access that access them and also that they they actually have a chance of getting them compared to these giant kind of direct service organizations or nonprofits that tend to, you know, get those contracts.
And then the other thing I I would say is some of the programs that are the rate payers are buying into have had zero to no community input in in developing them. And some of them, I will be very frank with you, residents do not feel like it is worth their time to dig through and get all the information that is needed only for them to be told, oh, actually, because you're you live in a mobile home, so, like, you can't you can't do this, this, and this. You can only get light bulbs. And that really deters more folks from, like, being part of more programs. And smaller communities, word runs fast.
So with the second you deny one person, everybody else is going to give up because they don't feel like it is worth their time. And because it's a lot of time. It's time that somebody for example, all these all of these companies that implement these programs are nine to five. So somebody can't go to work, somebody has to stay home to make sure that they're there, and to and to get nothing really in return is really, really disheartening. And that's what and though and because of these systems, because of the lack of wanting to connect with residents and hear what they want exactly out of these programs is why so many people just give up on government in general.
They give up. They don't feel like you're listening. They don't feel like you care about what the issues are in their communities. So I really oh, go ahead.
Speaker 4
Yeah. No. Thank you, Leslie. And I think that's actually one of the third prompts after we get a prompt from Amy that we'll touch back to that. I did see lots of thumbs up and claps from others here.
We have two more folks that have their hands uh-oh, three more folks that have their hands raised. So we're going to do, Abigail or I think it was Martha first, then Abigail and then Julia. And then we're going to have to move on, I think, to the next prompt area. Martha, please. Martha, you're on we can't hear you.
Speaker 8
Okay. Hello. Martha Armas Catholic Charities, San Isles County in Modesto. I I totally agree with Leslie. There's so many opportunities that people engage with.
You finally get them to the bat, and then we drop the ball. You know? And and it and it goes all the way around. You know? And and, yes, when you're just gonna get a pair of light bulbs or just a token visit, it doesn't really add to too much for folks.
And it's especially when the information that we're asking sometimes is way above the register of some of our our participants. They're they're trying to figure out what papers are you talking about. When we had I worked as a covered California enrollment counselor when we launched the Obamacare. And and I I was working at a different nonprofit, and I actually worked enrolling, the clients into the program. And that worked really well because we were directly linked to the state.
We as we were entering the information, the state was getting the information, and the processing was mainstream. I think in these applications, we should have some type of training as well and and work with the CBOs in increasing the amounts that we're giving to the CBOs or the small community groups, you know, the FRCs and things that that are are willing to bring in, you know, abudsman programs. Anything that, you know, we're reaching community grassroots efforts, they should be supported with the information. And transparency is very important. We should have a a moniker saying, if you have this, this is what you qualify.
If you don't have this, this is you will not qualify so that we don't waste people's time because they they their time is precious. Like she said, when you have to make arrangements for someone to be home so that someone can come in and provide these services and you don't get anything, that was money lost. So we're we're injuring folks twice. As if they're not already marginalized, we're going back and giving them one final blow. And that in in, the eyes of equity, all of us that are working with grassroots and community, residents, it's hard.
It's hard for us to maintain integrity when we we put our name out there and say, hey. We'd like you to get involved. You know, it's a great program. And then we can't even answer when when it's a question of what we're going to deliver. So it's important that we provide adequate training for the people that are going to be providing these services and working at these grassroot levels and and be, transparent.
Have have ethics behind this and the thought process as far as what we are going to give to these, recipients because it's it's very hard to to maintain or even go into these environments and create trust, you know, and then we drop the ball on them. That's just not fair.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Martha. Again, I saw a lot of maybe not less claps and thumbs ups, but, in the chat box, lots of praises for what you've just shared. And Abigail, and then, Julia took her hand down, but
Speaker 4
missed, Sanit. I'm not sure how to pronounce your name, but, you can share us your thoughts after Abigail. Abigail, please.
Speaker 9
Hi. Thanks. This is Abigail Solis with Self Help Enterprises. And just to kind of follow-up on what Leslie and Martha have already said, you know, when it comes to examples of successful projects or just current projects that CPUC and the CEC is, is facilitating on the ground, you know, often, I hear ESAP and ESAP being referred to as like an ideal project. And, you know, for those of us that are on the ground, we know the truth and the reality of these of these projects and, of these programs.
We we know that customers are not as satisfied as others think that they are with these programs. And we also have been learning that the ILUs are very number driven. They care about bottom line, they care about high numbers. And when another organization like a grassroot organization goes out and does outreach, they often compare and say, well, ESA, those folks, they reach hundreds of people a day, thousands of people a day. Again, they're just knocking on doors, dropping literature.
I think the only way that we are going to reach the state's climate change goals and our clean energy goals, we need to accept a transformation in the way that we outreach to people. We need to make a total and complete shift to educating and not just dropping literature. Because the reality is you can give people light bulbs, you can help them insulate their home, but if we don't teach them how to make behavioral changes, what are the long term effects? The next month, their utility bill is gonna be much higher because they didn't actually learn how to conserve energy. In order to really do this work right, it takes time.
It cannot be a numbers driven program. You need to understand that it takes time to sit down with people and teach them and show them. And it would be awesome if the CPUC was one of the first organizations to accept that cultural transformation or that shift where it does take these small, intimate relationships where people are actually going into the homes or on the phone, however whatever it takes to make these changes. Because the way that we've been doing it so far, it's just like, it's putting a Band Aid on, you know, on a knife cut. Like, it's it's not enough.
So I hope that we will consider how we can do that moving forward in all programs.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Abigail. Again, lots of support from others on the sentiments you shared. And, Sunet, maybe share with me how to pronounce your name as well.
Speaker 10
All right. Hello. Thank you. This is really a very exciting discussion and a space with a lot of like minded people. And I I couldn't have said it better.
I I think everything everybody else said before me is so true, and I hope it's sinking in and being registered with the CPUC. And without really repeating what everybody else said, you know, change happens, I think, from the ground up from the ground up, not from the top down. A lot of big agencies that have learned the ropes are able to get all the funding, you know, out the door and trying to trickle it down to local community based organizations. I'm part of a small organization called or OC Go Solar. We're a local community based organization helping on the ground homeowners understand technology, such as solar charging stations, electric car charging, and battery storage.
And it's it's it's as it is, technology is confusing, but then, you know, the trade makes it even more complicated because there isn't any uniform instructions or understanding of technology. So the community has completely lost trust in in learning from the trade. So the community based organizations that are on the ground that know their community and that are trusted by their community need all the resources they need to educate the communities, the community members, and also themselves. I I think we're running into also a lot of other organizations who are willing to help the community, but also lack the education when it comes to technology. So I would really highly recommend the CPUC, you know, helping these local small community based organization to get the funding to do outreach, education of their own internal staff, and that will translate into educating the community.
As the previous person said that you can give a person whatever you want. You can give them light bulbs and solar panels. But if they don't really understand the technology, they wouldn't be talking to the next door neighbor or share it at their church to convince other people. So we have to do those. And also, one more thing I would like to add is when it comes to solar, you know, there are the DAC programs.
There is about 80 so many people that qualify for this program in DAC, but then about 70%, 80% of them disqualify just because they have bad roof. Now we have a weatherization program that is fixing doors and windows but does not cover roofs. So how are we, you know, helping these homeowners, you know, meet their energy goals when you cannot even help them repair their roofs? The roof repair could cost maybe $2,000, but the the solar panels are already costing $12,000 The state is willing to pay that, but not the roof repair. So there is a lot of policy gap that are very fixable and doable that needs to be addressed.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
Okay. Great. I'm gonna turn it over to Amy. Before I do, I just I wanted to try and I think there were a few different categories those the sentiments, fell in as larger themes. You can let me know if I missed a major category as I try to, wrap it up.
You know, I think that one of the main things was input from the community on how and what these programs do to have a benefit or impact, and that we're falling short. That currently the programs and success of those programs is looked at from a purely numbers basis, and we're not getting the pervasive knowledge that's necessary out to the members tapping into programs to have that they're really benefiting from the program, like education. So dropping things doesn't work, to check a box and count a number. And then it's really not free for, you know, we talk about, oh, the customers should be interested to participate and we should be able to get these high participation numbers. It's a free program.
But when you consider the time and effort and scheduling and the energy that it takes to understand what the program is about and provide the necessary forms. That is not a free thing. So we had to try harder with that focused outreach education to these community members that don't have that time. So, I'm going to turn it over to Amy for the next prompt.
Speaker 2
Okay. Thank you, everyone, for that great discussion. Kind of picking up where I think some of the comments were going is, as we're trying to develop programs and policies that are specifically geared towards, helping environmental and social justice communities. How do we make sure when we're doing that, we don't have unintended adverse impact? So how do we make sure that when we're going in and having, you know, an an emphasis on you know, we're we're kind of thinking, oh, we really wanna get these programs into the communities.
We're gonna have a special emphasis, on getting dollars or resources into those communities. But how do we make sure when when we're doing that, we're not overburdening the community? We're not coming in, as I think some people were saying with, with multiple messages. I you know, there's there's a comment here about kind of a one stop shop, and the California Air Air Resources Board is is working on something similar, for programs geared towards, kind of low income and disadvantaged communities so people can more comprehensively see, all the different things they're eligible for. But how do we avoid some of the you know, what are the adverse impacts of some of our early attempts to focus on these communities, and how do we work to avoid those in the future?
Martha, do you have your hand up?
Speaker 8
So going back to what we've what we've been saying is making sure that we're transparent. You know? We don't, you know, we don't write checks we can't cash. You know? I mean, be be real with folks.
You know? And and if we can't, then take in account what we we have noticed. Like you said, if we if we wanna put solar panels and the roof is leaking and it's just not gonna even be a a fix for these families, let's let's be real. Let's work for from, like, where where they need it most. Let's come with a perspective of really evaluating, you know, what goes into making these, programs, lucrative for the families that we're trying to reach.
If they don't have, you know, you know, the foundation that you need to utilize the services, then we need to look at the foundation of where we're coming from. Another thing that concerns me, I my mother's 87. She's monolingual. And, you know, when I come over to view her male, it's a travesty of how many different people are out there supposedly providing these services for disadvantaged or low income families, and they're not really standardized. They're not regulated.
They're, you know, fly by night quick schemes, you know, scammers. And I've gotta go through the mail and look at all this stuff, and I wish that we would be more proactive in in, I guess, making making if they're going to participate in any kind of, you know, program through through you, through the CPUC that they they be regulated, that they have to, register with some type of entity that a person could pick up the phone just like the Better Business and call and find out if they're valid or they're even, you know, people that that can be accountable or or are gonna deliver. You know? Because if you're going to put your seal of approval, then that that gives, I guess, more a a safety measure for folks to be able to engage with. You know?
Some way of being able to screen that they know that these are the standards that you expect, that they're not gonna take your information and give it to someone else, that they're not going to be coming in the middle of the night, you know, things that that folks can feel secure about because my mom I mean, just looking at her mail and at some of the numbers I've called, I've got get hung up on, and and it tells you. It tells you what it what what is happening out there. And folks that are disabled, you know, they they need to have some security measures for when we engage with them so that we don't we don't injure them as well. I mean, it goes straight across the board. I we could we could sit here and talk about all the different lines that we've rolled out and we put people in, but the reality is we just need to come at folks with respect and dignity.
And and I think that we miss that, and that that is important. That's very important.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I see several comments in the chat about cost effectiveness and the challenge or, you know, the problems that that creates. Does anyone wanna weigh in on that?
Speaker 11
Okay. Yes. Hi. Thank you, CPUC committee and and everyone for being, part of this. This is really informative, for me.
This is my first, meeting. I know there's been a series of these happening. One of the things that, California Council of the Blind works on, we're, of course, we're a statewide, blind and, low vision advocacy group, and we're trying to figure out when and if, residents, members at large, or etcetera, are willing to adopt, some of, the sustainable practices, who to contact. And so I was wondering if, CPUC or this group had, resources, say, if you lived in, like, Sonoma County versus, Alameda County or, you know, San Bernardino County if there were organizations that we could get our folks in contact with to make all of what we're talking about these resources available and readily to them. So with that, I'll I'll yield.
Speaker 9
I'd like to nominate Mad to this is Abigail, to talk about cost effectiveness since you asked about that, Amy. If you're willing, Mad.
Speaker 12
Thank you. That's very kind of you. And hey, everyone. I offered a comment in the chat around cost effectiveness test. These tests are used across energy division programs at the regulatory decision making level around what types of investments where and throughout the implementation and evaluation stages of a lot of distributed energy, resource programs, energy efficiency programs, and they often very few include any benefits.
And when they do include benefits, it's one or two, and we're missing the community interest that a lot of the folks throughout the last few days have been raising about quality of service, about pollution reduction, around the actual person oriented impacts of these programs and decisions, and some of which are are quite literally life and death, and there's no way to reflect that. We are focused on total system costs. We're focused on the investor owned utilities bottom line. And while the PUC has responsibilities around just and reasonable rates and sometimes there are statutory or regulatory direction that encourages looking at certain data points versus others where we're missing, the environmental justice and social justice impacts when we exclusively rely on these cost effectiveness tests and refuse to incorporate. So other agencies like CARB have been working toward figuring out how to measure these things.
A lot of folks in the the data breakout earlier this morning offered a lot of really strong suggestions about how to measure. But if we don't value community interest, we won't achieve them. And if we don't value them enough in the actual decision making at the high level at the PUC, we also won't achieve them. And part of that is reforming the tests, and part of them, is allowing the collection of data and evaluation led by the experts in the communities themselves as folks have raised throughout the conversation.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mad. Okay. I think, Allison, I'll turn it over to you to kind of quickly talk about engagement to close us out.
Speaker 4
Yeah. I'm trying to figure out a good segue from all that's just been shared. I think that in the first prompt, we did start to hear about, the need to hear input from the community as we're designing these programs. And especially that the ramification, if we don't, is that, you know, a community member may participate, may find that it's really not what they expected. We didn't weren't real upfront or we, you know, the few number of benefits that the program offered weren't really worth the time of that community member, and they may then talk to their other community, neighbors and, and then participation is kind of gonna be challenged from the get go.
And so, obviously, what that shares with me is that doing a better job soliciting community input and designing these programs with that thinking from the community from the get go. And, you know, I think my main question here is, like, absolutely, I couldn't agree more. And what are the, possible models that you might have seen? You know, there's new things like human centered design or new new things that are being tried out to really ensure that that input is accepted and built in. And and have you seen for, say, in another state or for another sector Anything that you could say as an idea of what we could try to model and really design these programs with that input from day one of even conceiving of a program.
See Julia, your hand is up. I don't know if it's remaining up from prior, but I'll pass it to you.
Speaker 13
All right. Thanks, Todd. This is Julia with Rising Sun Center for Opportunity. I'll just say that there are programs that do this already, and I'm sure on the engagements piece, in terms of best practice models, there are lots of folks on this call who can speak to that. I'll just say that Rising Sun was running a program that did all of the things that are being talked about on this call for underserved communities, providing free energy efficiency services, employing low income local youth to do that work, serving thousands of customers each year, across the nine county Bay Area and San Joaquin County.
We've been doing it since 2006, and PG and E stopped funding it. So even though PG and E had an RFA and RFP process that prioritized supposedly prioritized hard to reach and disadvantaged communities in the residential sector. And even though we we went through that whole process, I still don't know who is provide who won that contract and who is providing residential services to these communities or residential communities, period. And I know that it what it the real result was a $1,500,000 divestment specifically in San Joaquin County as a result of not funding Rising Sun's work in this space. So rather than thinking about what are these models that we could try or start or pilot, there are already programs out there that are working.
We're we're already doing this work. We're just not getting funded to do it. And in fact, our funding is being taken away.
Speaker 4
Thanks, Julia. I think I guess as the others have things to share, I'd want to also, flag the question again related to before programs are designed, or, you know, I think there's a lot of stuff that's shared about the existing programs or revisions to programs already underway. But I think if we think about what programs could be upcoming or, that it's not an after the fact thought to, like, design the program for everyone and then say, oh, and we'll make it the same program, but give extra budget or give extra marketing education and outreach, for for disadvantaged community or environmental and social justice communities.
Speaker 7
Yeah. I just really quickly when you know, I think when a lot of these programs are being developed, the biggest thing is that just the complete disconnect about the folks that are going to, like who are they're created to serve. I think that often there is really good intention behind it of solving one issue for a community or for a household without considering the fact that it is a broader like, their their life consists of more than just the one single issue. So, I hear like, when I hear some some of these projects being developed, they the assumptions that they are based off are are just not the reality of what we see in communities. I don't think that, like, dilapidated housing, what that does to, being able to be part of these programs.
Perhaps, if the house is up to code, do they have, you know, I I I think we often think of these programs in a way that really often excludes the most vulnerable people. And I think that at the root of it, while we create these projects, it's because we don't actually know what the communities that need it the most actually look like. And I and and and with that said, the only the only other thing I have to add is I really do think that there needs to be cross collaboration with a with agencies when these type of programs are being developed. Why? I don't under there's something that if you know you're gonna be making upgrades to a home, then you should be talking to HCD to figure out what funds you have that we can leverage so that at least one family can be able to access all of these programs.
Because the amount of folks that cannot access these programs because they can't afford to, like, get a new mobile home is really it it's awful, a. And, b, it continues to exclude the same folks over and over again. And we're not in at that rate, we're just not really addressing inequity. So thank you.
Speaker 4
Great. Thanks, Leslie. And I I feel like you were close to sharing also if you've seen, some models that we should look to that have done a good job designing from a ground up from the get go. We've got James, and then Doug, and then Darshan.
Speaker 11
Yes. Hi again. Thank you, Allison, and and community again. I just I wanted to know, because we are a statewide organization, does CPUC have, like, a model of of of how these fundings will be implemented throughout the regions in California.
Speaker 2
So for the environmental and social justice action plan, is that what you're meaning, James?
Speaker 11
Yes. Yeah. Just just to kinda give us a landscape of of of what as a nonprofit that's working with other CBOs, NGOs, would look like, in the next, coming, fiscal quarters.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I mean, I I guess I would just say, the environmental and social justice action plan is just it's a little bit broader than that. It's sort of at an agency level across all of our different divisions. This is what we're striving towards, as we try to better incorporate, principles of equity into our own processes and into the programs that we design, and implement. So so I think maybe what you're suggesting could be one particular aspect of the plan.
So so maybe you're suggesting kind of an action that would be related to better community outreach and providing communities with a more transparent way to understand and access programs? It's it's
Speaker 11
Yeah. Yeah. No. That's that's that's that's exactly 100% correct. And and the reason why I mentioned this is because, you know, we have so many folks that are from the ADA community that, would like to to know, like, for a fact, like, what could be happening at at Mhmm.
You know, and and how we can get those resources to them quicker rather than to to to, you know, watch everything, you know, from retrospect. And so that's all I thinking, in in terms of, everyone that's on this call or at least this breakout side of group, how we could be able Mhmm. To just have more real time, you know, effect.
Speaker 4
And we have to wrap up to do the get to summary by one fifty five. So Doug and then Dashan, and that's, we'll close it and turn it over closer at that point.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Thanks so much. I'll keep it super quick. Yeah. The so Doug Carpa, and I'm with Peninsula Clean Energy.
So we are a community choice aggregator in San Mateo County. And for those of you who don't know CCAs, we're basically like a local government body in charge of both providing energy, but we also run CCAs run an awful lot of programs. And I think we are this is still this is, like, an issue that we are also struggling with with our own programs in terms of how to build in community input from the get go. But I think one of the advantages that we do have is that we do have a lot of standing relationships with CDOs in our communities, and our boards are also elected officials. And so they have sort of political connections with the communities that we're working with.
And I think that hesitate a little bit to hold ourselves out as, like, a successful model because there's so much that we're still figuring out. But I do think that other things on our end that have worked really well, part of the magic ingredient is are those standing relationships with those organizations. And I know the CPUC has some local government liaisons, and I'm just wondering whether building that infrastructure to have, like, standing relationships with people kind of, like, brain trust that you can go to, to bring them in when you're, like, considering a new program, probably something you're already doing. But I do think that that, and even working with CCAs to the extent that we have those relationships and can think about design issues, you know, happy, I think, do that. But that that I think is, you know, from our perspective, would be the one little flag I would wave to maintain those standing relationships.
Speaker 14
Hey, everybody. I'm at Arizona State University, and I work on your issues of energy and social justice. I think it's important that there is clarity on the kinds of things that community is valuable for and the kinds of things that community input is not sufficient for. And so oftentimes, you can solicit community input, and then program managers as a CPUC decide something, take it to a higher level, and those ideas that the community provided can die in those spaces. And so one thing that could be helpful is essentially creating some kind of institutional and process map to make it much clearer within the CPUC and to the broader community itself where and when community input actually can make a difference and where it actually might not be sufficient to make the kind of difference that the community actually wants it to make.
So that that could be just be one internal exercise that's done to make it much clearer internally and externally the effectiveness of community engagement.
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you, Darshan. And sort of like the being real, also from the perspective of when when tapping into community and asking them for the time, to inform our program design about what it is that they actually will have influence on upfront. Thank you for that. Okay.
So, Amy, do we are we turning closing out? Do you want to take it away from here?
Speaker 3
Great. Well, thanks, everyone, for all this input. I think it's given us a lot of food for thought, and it's really wonderful to be hearing from all of you. We appreciate everyone's time in coming to this forum and sharing your thoughts with us. I think some of what we heard today is a real need to change our outreach models, sort of rethink it from the ground up.
I think there's a concern that CPUC and the utilities often use a sort of standard list of CBOs that we reach out to, and we need to make sure that we're focusing on small and local CBOs, valuing the benefit that CBOs really bring in helping connect our programs to the communities they're intended to serve, which really means making sure that we're paying CBOs and compensating them for the work they're doing. Even the playing field with large NGOs and for profit implementers, making sure that small CBOs can participate in request for proposal processes so that they can access these contracts. So a lot of thoughts there on leveling the playing field for smaller groups and new entrants to this space. We also heard about transforming our outreach process, focusing on educating people on behavioral change. So rather than just providing technologies, helping people understand how to use those technologies to their benefit.
A lot of concern about cost effectiveness, that that can be a major issue. When we're just focusing on the cost effectiveness of our measure, we need to make sure we're including non energy benefits, which I know some of our CPUC tools do, but we need to make sure that that's always front of mind, that we're accounting for access and affordability issues when we're evaluating our programs. We also heard about needing to include CBO participation in our program evaluation processes, which I thought was a really great point that when we're evaluating the program, we should be looking holistically and making sure our outreach is reaching all the groups that it should be reaching. And finally, we heard a little bit about aligning eligibility criteria across programs, need for a one stop shop, and making sure that we are not making assumptions coming into a program, so addressing things like the need for home repairs and roof repairs before we finalize these programs. With that, I'll pass it back to you, Amy and Allison, and thanks, everyone, for your great input.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Thank you so much, everyone. Just to close out, if you have we'll save the chat. And, again, we're recording the session as well, so we've we've captured your comments. If you have any additional comments, please feel free to, email them in.
I just put the link in the in the chat. It's esjactionplan@cpc.ca.gov. But, yeah, thank you everyone so much for your valuable input, and looking forward to continuing these conversations going forward. Do you have a question, Dar Dushan, or were you just waving?
Speaker 2
See you soon. Oh, and then I guess I guess a reminder to make sure to join rejoin the other Webex for the rest of the day.
Speaker 11
Yeah. Absolutely. So do we just join back to the to the main conversation?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Hi, Amy and Allison. Yeah. I'm gonna go ahead and save the chat save the poll results. And would you guys like me to send this to you guys, or is it fine if I send it to Monica?
Speaker 1
Alright. Sounds good. Yeah. Alright. So I'm gonna go ahead and Thank so much.
I'm gonna go
Speaker 1
end the meeting. Okay, guys? Perfect. Alright, guys. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Alright.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.