MET Organization and Operations
Proposals for MET Organization and Operation, for consideration by the Steering Committee. A Word document.
Filename: MET_Organization_and_Operations.doc ( download )
Size: 64.5 KB
Document type: application/msword ( Replace description with document text )
Thoughts on MET Organization and Operation
for consideration by the Steering Committee
Organization
Until Now
A Team of Teams has been the default approach.
MET “R1”: The first set of 12 teams, formed in March 2007; appear to have been formed to cover all identifiable energy-related focus area. A few became effectively independent and continue to exist, or produced programs that continue to exist. Others disbanded after one project or none.
MET “R2”: The recently-formed set of 5 teams were created around a set of projects presented or brainstormed at the “MET re-convene” meeting held on November 12, 2009.
Going Forward...Potential Organizing Principles
MET continues as a team of teams
MET is organized around the “80% Proposal”.
MET is organized around the “Energy Efficiency Deli”
e.g., builds over time the information and services comprising it.
MET’s work revolves around producing Montpelier’s Energy Plan.
MET as research/admin extension of City Depts.
MET organizes in anticipation of the City hiring a paid Energy Coordinator (becomes the “long arm of City energy planner.”
Operating Principles/Priorities
Project- rather than focus-area-based
Charging a volunteer with leading a focus-area, and team, puts them in a position of managing volunteers. And in a management role with little or no real managerial authority, defined relationships, or resources. Volunteers cannot normally be expected to have the staying power to persevere through this.
Project-based is more sustainable, and clarifies the Coordinator position:
defined scopes, timelines, and objectives
defined beginning and end, so volunteers see down time on the horizon
easier to link to City efforts
Coordinator and Team leads hand out assignments rather than carrying out vaguely-defined duties between/among teams.
My experience as Chair of the Open Space Advisory Committee, co-founder of Capitol Area Land Trust, time on the Burlington Conservation Board, as well as the fate of MET R1, support this.
To see specific projects: http://met.vagrant.katipo.co.nz/montpelier_energy_team/topics/show/81-the-montpelier-energy-teams-project-groups
MET might be considered as playing a “research”, “assistant,” or “special projects” role, connected to City Planning & other Dept initiatives.
e.g. the ‘Estimating Montpelier’s current energy use’ project (http://met.vagrant.katipo.co.nz/energy_use_assessment/topics/show/72-energy-use-assessment-project-listing)
e.g. the Anti-idling ordinance
e.g. the HFUC service
e.g. the regularly published/aired--press/publicity on the energy programs/projects/incentives out there
Efficiency should initially take priority over fuel-switching
Efficiency before Fuel-switching—because a leaky building wastes energy regardless of its source--as one guiding principle
Does not require coordination with other towns (though beneficial alliances may be identified)
Consequently, a City-wide effort to weatherize (“seal the envelope”) all its structures is the
Energy Efficiency savings can be tracked and therefore become the central sales pitch to bring others around.
When possible/appropriate, apply this to a project.
Initial de-emphasis of focus areas regional in nature
“Initially” means until we “make our bones”, via municipal-scale project successes, and feel relatively certain we are stable.
Generally, regional projects would extend timelines and require more ambitious coordination
Projects requiring active engagement in a regional coalition, e.g. regional transportation projects, should generally wait until the above is established.
Exceptions would be allowed if the project naturally extended across town borders and needed no official municipal “sign-off”.
Stability will require a paid Coordinator
Whether within an independent MET or via an official City “Energy Co-ordinator/Planner” position.
Personal experience shows that, on a volunteer basis...
the time to create and develop plans/programs on paper is possible,
but as long as income must be sought elsewhere, the time & investment required for full and lasting implementation will not consistently be there.
Use of volunteers for some grant money—e.g. Fed Stim—might be forbidden.
Programs around which a group of projects might be organized:
Projects comprising elements of the “80% Proposal “(http://met.vagrant.katipo.co.nz/montpelier_energy_team/documents/show/11-met-80-proposal)
Projects comprising elements of the “Energy Efficiency Deli” (http://met.vagrant.katipo.co.nz/montpelier_energy_team/topics/show/92-the-energy-efficiency-deli-program-proposal)
A group of Projects aiding work toward District Energy plant
e.g. weatherization of all buildings along the pipeline (http://met.vagrant.katipo.co.nz/homes_weatherization/documents/show/34-district-energy-audit-weatherization)
Standard procedure for projects:
Before work begins:
Initial Statement of Work (SOW): a narrative description of products or services supplied by the project. Length: one ¶ to one page.
Initial scope statement: the definition of the project—what needs to be accomplished (often specifies what *won’t* be done).
during the first month – check in with the Planning Dept, and if necessary other City departments, for overlap &/or cooperation
Identify & meet with stakeholders. A stakeholder is a group or individual who will be positively or negatively affected by the project.
During early stages of the project: revise the SOW and scope statment
Throughout the project: team member(s) report progress to the team at its monthly meeting.
Final stage of project: normally will involve publicization, broadcast and/or distribution of the project’s completion and/or product. E.g.:
MET website
CAN mail-lists
local print, broadcast media (e.g Bridge, ORCA, WDEV, WGDR)
Normal project expectations should include consistent—i.e. regularly published/aired--publicity and outreach of product or result.
MET public website
City website
Local media: Bridge; WDEV; etc.
Generating/accompanied by a grassroots component: CAN mail-lists
MET’s role could be to:
for smaller, single-digestible-subject postings/communications, distribute to CAN leaders
for more comprehensive information (e.g. as organized by the “energy Efficiency Deli”), train CAN leaders—or identify one or several leaders—in training residents
# # #
