RTF PAC: Qualitative Survey

1. RTF PAC:Qualitative Survey April 17, 2013 Jim West, Snohomish Bruce Folsom, Avista Lauren gage, BPA

2. Update • Last RTF PAC meeting • Discussed options for survey design and implementation. PAC requested subcommittee meet and discuss recommended approach. • Subcommittee update • Jim West, Bruce Folsom, Lisa Hunnewell and Lauren Gage met twice • Group discussed that PAC must decide on survey • i.e., we are not strongly advocating a survey is done – looking to PAC for this direction • Given this direction, we developed a recommended approach

3. Purpose • Stakeholder Perceptions Survey • Recommendation: Conduct a survey similar to NEEA stakeholder perceptions (but shorter). Purpose is to gauge region’s perspective on the RTF. • Survey would be diagnostic/pulse-taking/baseline survey. Allows for more effort to be expended in future if/where needs are found in the survey. • Alternative: Large undertaking similar to NEET process with in-person interviewing, etc. • This large of an effort does not seem necessary at this time, but is a possibility in future if needed.

4. Survey Sample • RTF Inner Circle • Recommend: Survey sample includes all RTF PAC and RTF voting members and corresponding members. • This would include ~80 informed stakeholders with wide perspective on RTF activities (utilities, consultants, regulators, public members). • Alternative: Wide distribution to all identified stakeholders (e.g., EE staff, more policy/public input) • Development of a representative list is problematic; knowledge of recent RTF changes may be limited. Could be a possible expansion effort in the future.

5. Implementation • Internal implementation • Recommend: Developing, programming and analyzing survey with “voluntold” staff at various organizations • Instrument development: research staff from regional organizations (e.g., Snohomish, BPA, Avista, ETO, NEEA, RTF staff) . Instrument review: West and Folsom. • Need a strong instrument developed by group that balances representative input, skilled survey designers and number of people providing input. Recommend leveraging the NEEA stakeholder survey. • Survey programming and implementation - Snohomish • Communication – Recommend RTF staff (e.g., Aggar) with signature from Karier and West • Analysis – Snohomish to run basic reports; bring researchers back together to develop simple presentation for PAC. Review: West and Folsom. • Alternative: Hire consultants to conduct the research project • Seems appropriate for a larger effort.

6. Timing • Fall 2013 • Recommend: Implementing survey September or later • Stakeholders: time to review RTF annual report; avoids NEEA strategic planning process • Implementers: time for calm development of survey • Alternative: wait until 2014 • May be too late for baseline survey • Post-survey efforts • Presentation to PAC • Decide as committee what action, if any, should be taken based on the results. • Presentation to Council

7. Questions for PAC • Does the PAC want to direct staff to conduct this survey? • If so, does the PAC agree with the recommended approach • Purpose? • Sample? • Implementation? • Recommendations for process and staff involved • Timing?

8. Appendix

9. Refresher: RTF Metrics (Subjective in blue) • PAC Metrics and the subjective • PAC #1: Engaging stakeholders to identify regional priorities to recommend to the Council and foster the appropriate use and acceptance of data and outputsfrom the RTF; • PAC #2: Securing the resources necessary to perform the technical work requiredby the region; • PAC #3: Reviewing the progress of the RTF toward fulfilling those priorities recommended by stakeholders and the RTF Advisory Committee that have been established by the Council; and, • PAC #4: Providing consensus recommendations to the Council on policy-related matters on how best to meet the mutual needs of the RTF’s stakeholders.