Subject: Please Review: Proposed Framework on Process, Timelines, parameters for Committee consideration
From: "Villatoro, Ranfis" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Horst, Megan" <[email-masked]>, "Baraso, Sam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:11:13 -0800

Hi PCEF Committee Members,

I hope each of you are doing well and enjoying warmer weather after our winter storm. Megan and I wanted to reach out to share an initial framework on process, review, timelines, and recommendation to council as a follow up from our small group meetings where we received updates on the PCEF surplus and proposals from the City for uses of the funds. I want to to note, the initial framework we're sharing is a proposal, subject to feedback from the committee and ultimately we're looking for an approval from committee.

With this framework we aim to: 1)maintain our role via code to make a funding recommendation to council, 2) maintain a review process based on our past precedent, 3) Include and uplift PCEF values and principles as well as the views of the public, and 4) Be responsive to City Council, who ultimately make final decisions on PCEF funding per city code.

Below you will find 1)Proposed Framework, Timelines, and Questions, 2)Possible parameter considerations, 3) Email to Commissioner Rubio, Sam, and BPS Director Donnie Oliviera.

Please feel free to reach out if you have questions or concerns, I'm happy to jump on a call and chat.

Proposed Framework for our Recommendation, Process, and timeline:
Here is what we identify as North stars for our process over the next few months:
   *   Provide certainty on process and timeline for all parties, the PCEF Committee, and for Commissioner Rubio and the Mayor
   *   Good Communication- we want to ensure good communication at each step of the process and not create any surprises for any party on process and outcomes.
   *   Create an inclusive and robust review process (using clear criteria)
   *   Attention to key PCEF values and priorities (see below)

Below we propose a working timeline for our next few months of Committee meetings. We intend to consider fully developed proposals as follows:

      January- February: Evaluate the 1st tranche of projects from city bureaus
   *   1/25/24 Committee meeting: The committee will hear overview on projects from bureau directors and will request additional information as relevant.
   *   1/31/24 Committee meeting: Public comment, further Committee discussion on process, further discussion on 1st tranche.
   *   2/15/24:  Aspirational decision on 1st tranche; Committee discussion on 2nd tranche, discuss process for unallocated funds. Note: In our meeting on Thursday, I'll be raising the need to potentially move this aspiration decision for Saturday, February 3rd due to updates on City budget timelines.

      February-March: Evaluate the 2nd tranche of projects
   *   2/21/24: Deadline for detailed information on second tranche, similar to request for information for 1st tranche.
   *   2/28/24 Committee meeting: Initial review of 2nd tranche and continued discussion on process for unallocated funds.
   *   By 3/15/24: Final decisions on our recommendations and clear next steps for any unallocated funds.

Framework for Review (Questions):
Mission and Principles- How does the funding request meet the mission and principles of the Portland Clean Community Energy fund? (Specifically, &quot; to invest in climate action projects that support environmental justice and social, economic, and environmental benefits for all Portlanders, including the development of a diverse and well-trained workforce and contractor pool to perform work that reduces or sequesters greenhouse gasses.&quot; https://www.portland.gov/code/7/07#toc--7-07-020-policy-and-purpose-)

Community-Identified Priority and Collaboration-  How does the proposal aim to engage or promote collaboration with community and community organizations? Is there evidence of past community engagement/input that establishes this as a priority for PCEF spending? Can community collaboration be improved, especially with PCEF priority communities?

Workforce and Contractor initiatives- How does the proposal promote the creation of clean energy jobs and registered apprenticeship programs? Does the proposal promote workforce equity that exceeds current city or agency standards? What are the diverse business opportunities and do they meet or exceed current city goals and standards? How can this support minority contractors and smaller contractors who aren't already “in the game&quot;?

Federal (and state, other) leverage- Will the proposal aim to deliver or leverage federal funds, such as federal direct payment and reimbursement (an initiative championed by Senator Wyden)? What will the city or bureau/agency do with the direct reimbursement received at the end of the year? ( I don't know that the Committee will have enough knowledge about this to evaluate it, though seems worth asking if bureaus have considered. I would add how does this play nicely with state and any other sources of funding).

Project Soundness (Challenges/Implementation)- What challenges do you foresee in implementation? How do you aim to address these challenges?

Beyond City Government-Were there thoughts to collaborate with other non-city public agencies? Why or why not?

Implementation/Oversight- What is the proposal oversight for spending, planning, and implementation? What are the metrics for success? How will the public be aware of the benefits delivered by PCEF?

Scoring For Review (2-step):
   *   Step 1: Individual Committee Member Scoring, 1-5 in areas of:
        *   PCEF Mission/Principles
        *   Community Collaboration
        *   Workforce and Contractor initiative
        *   Project Soundness
        *   Implementation/Oversight
   *   Step 2: Full Committee review (feedback to applicants)
        *   Green- Proposal seems well polished
        *   Yellow-Few outstanding questions
        *   Red- Not a fit, or pose a few flags for implementation
        *   Note: Scoring in Step 1 helps guide step 2 review

Decision Making for Recommendation:
   *   Note: No threshold scoring
   *   Committee member can make a motion (line-item, slate, or in aggregate) for funding recommendation

Possible Parameters:
   *   Projects must meet PCEF mission, principles, and funding criteria  &quot;to invest in climate action projects that support environmental justice and social, economic, and environmental benefits for all Portlanders, including the development of a diverse and well-trained workforce and contractor pool to perform work that reduces or sequesters greenhouse gases.&quot; https://www.portland.gov/code/7/07#toc--7-07-020-policy-and-purpose-)
   *   Project and adjacent infrastructure - must have a good neighbor agreement and/or a community benefit agreement to ensure project harmony. (and/or have evidence of recent community engagement on the issue/project, demonstrating community need and interest esp from PCEF priority pops)
   *   Workforce and Contracting Standards and Agreement- Workforce training, workforce equity, and contractor equity goals must meet or exceed PCEF standards, promote BOLI registered apprenticeship programs, and must be reviewed by HRAC and must include Workforce/Contractor agreement. Exceptions to the standard could include a community benefit agreement negotiated between agency, labor, and community organizations.
   *   Clawback and regrant provisions for unspent funds- last recourse, allows for unspent funds to come back to the program to be regranted. All attempts
   *   PCEF Acknowledgement on all materials, public postings, etc.

In the event funds are not fully expended (“unaccounted funds”):
   *   However, the committee believes it should reserve the judgment to recommend more time for a portion of PCEF funding if the Committee deems it is in the public’s interest.
   *   Proposed timeline: June-September

Key elements informing process:
  1.  Mayor will release proposed budget in May, CBO and bureaus need allocations so that they may be part of the Mayor’s proposed budget. This timeline is particularly critical for projects that will directly alleviate service cuts, staffing cuts, and/or indirectly alleviate pressure on the General Fund.
  2.  Please let us know whether there are any other time-critical dependencies we should be aware of related to projects in either the 1st or 2nd tranche.

Email to Commissioner Rubio Donnie, and Sam (1/22/24):

Dear Commissioner Rubio, Donnie Oliveira, Sam Baraso,

I hope each of you are doing well and hopefully have stayed warm and safe during this winter storm this past week. We’re reaching out to share our initial framework for both process and decision-making in response to available PCEF funds and requests for funding city bureau programs. The initial framework, which we’ll describe below, is based on initial feedback from the committee and based on our interpretation from PCEF’s city code and our standing precedent on process. We’re open to feedback by Wednesday, January 24th, which may inform us in advance of our PCEF committee meeting on Thursday, January 25th.

Before we share the framework, we first want to acknowledge last week’s winter storm event, caused by a polar vortex. It was a difficult week for our communities who have faced pipe breaks, downed trees and powerlines, school closures, and challenges in access to heated shelter. We additionally want to share appreciation for the role of frontline workers– line workers, postal workers, city/county employees, tree trimmers and arborists, transit workers, and many others-- who worked around the clock protecting and maintaining our city and energy infrastructure during events like these, and know it has been an all hands on deck approach.

We understand that as climate change accelerates, events like a polar vortex will become more frequent, and it will become even more difficult and important to invest in the resilience and general welfare of Portland’s infrastructure–an important key stone for a city’s climate action.

In this moment, we recognize the challenges the City and employees face with upcoming budget challenges which may hinder its ability to advance climate action and resilience work in addition to general city operations. Despite these challenges, we find ourselves fortunate to have a voter-approved program such as the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) that is generating revenue in a great time of need to fund important climate action work to benefit and advance opportunities for our communities most in need!  As PCEF co-chairs, we urge Commissioners, Bureau leaders, and City staff to join us in appreciating the foresight and hard work of Portlanders who imagined and fought for PCEF, and the wisdom of Portland voters who approved the initiative. Without them, PCEF would not exist.

As PCEF co-chairs, we believe it is important for the PCEF program to rise to the occasion to the challenges we face, but we additionally remain committed to the purpose and mission of PCEF laid out in city code and that honors the historical precedents we’ve made in process, public input, review, and funding recommendations. To date, for each round of investment, the committee in tandem with PCEF staff have provided a robust review process of community-led projects, and we intend to do a similar review process with an adaptive timeline that meets the urgency of the moment and matches the public’s expectation for due diligence and robust review. Additionally, we intend that any formal recommendation from the committee to council continues to be aligned with PCEF’s mission, values, and principles. In the event that there are not enough competitive applications, or believe applications could use more time to strengthen their proposal, we recommend the committee should also reserve its judgment to recommend to council to reserve a contingency fund for another round of investment later in the year.

Lastly, we at the committee continue to be steadfast in creating a collaboration with the City Council as the program and our government evolves. In order to do this effectively, we request that:
  3.  Have 1-2 dedicated PCEF committee members appointed as representatives for more frequent  and timely revenue projection and budget updates.
  4.  Have 1-2 dedicated PCEF committee members be present in possible strategic intra- and inter-agency strategic planning and investment for PCEF funds.
  5.  Ensure the inclusion of the PCEF committee, High Road Advisory Committee (HRAC) in strategic thinking on the future of workforce, training, and contracting in the clean energy transition. This could include the additional invitation to state/federal government, labor agencies, utilities, industry, community, and labor
  6.  Ensure PCEF Committee is informed, advised, and included on any PCEF-related city code changes, now and into the future. We believe a good hallmark of policy improvement and engagement for a program such as PCEF should include involving its committee members and community partners.

Proposed Framework for our Recommendation, Process, and timeline:
Here is what we identify as North stars for our process over the next few months:
   *   Provide certainty on process and timeline for all parties, the PCEF Committee, and for Commissioner Rubio and the Mayor
   *   Good Communication- we want to ensure good communication at each step of the process and not create any surprises for any party on process and outcomes.
   *   Create an inclusive and robust review process (using clear criteria)
   *   Attention to key PCEF values and priorities (see below)

Below we propose a working timeline for our next few months of Committee meetings. We intend to consider fully developed proposals as follows:

      January- February: Evaluate the 1st tranche of projects from city bureaus
   *   1/25/24 Committee meeting: The committee will hear overview on projects from bureau directors and will request additional information as relevant.
   *   1/31/24 Committee meeting: Public comment, further Committee discussion on process, further discussion on 1st tranche.
   *   2/15/24:  Aspirational decision on 1st tranche; Committee discussion on 2nd tranche, discuss process for unallocated funds.

      February-March: Evaluate the 2nd tranche of projects
   *   2/21/24: Deadline for detailed information on second tranche, similar to request for information for 1st tranche.
   *   2/28/24 Committee meeting: Initial review of 2nd tranche and continued discussion on process for unallocated funds.
   *   By 3/15/24: Final decisions on our recommendations and clear next steps for any unallocated funds.

Framework for Review (Questions):
Mission and Principles- How does the funding request meet the mission and principles of the Portland Clean Community Energy fund? (Specifically, &quot; to invest in climate action projects that support environmental justice and social, economic, and environmental benefits for all Portlanders, including the development of a diverse and well-trained workforce and contractor pool to perform work that reduces or sequesters greenhouse gasses.&quot; https://www.portland.gov/code/7/07#toc--7-07-020-policy-and-purpose-)

Community-Identified Priority and Collaboration-  How does the proposal aim to engage or promote collaboration with community and community organizations? Is there evidence of past community engagement/input that establishes this as a priority for PCEF spending? Can community collaboration be improved, especially with PCEF priority communities?

Workforce and Contractor initiatives- How does the proposal promote the creation of clean energy jobs and registered apprenticeship programs? Does the proposal promote workforce equity that exceeds current city or agency standards? What are the diverse business opportunities and do they meet or exceed current city goals and standards? How can this support minority contractors and smaller contractors who aren't already “in the game&quot;?

Federal (and state, other) leverage- Will the proposal aim to deliver or leverage federal funds, such as federal direct payment and reimbursement (an initiative championed by Senator Wyden)? What will the city or bureau/agency do with the direct reimbursement received at the end of the year? ( I don't know that the Committee will have enough knowledge about this to evaluate it, though seems worth asking if bureaus have considered. I would add how does this play nicely with state and any other sources of funding).

Project Soundness (Challenges/Implementation)- What challenges do you foresee in implementation? How do you aim to address these challenges?

Beyond City Government-Were there thoughts to collaborate with other non-city public agencies? Why or why not?

Implementation/Oversight- What is the proposal oversight for spending, planning, and implementation? What are the metrics for success? How will the public be aware of the benefits delivered by PCEF?

Scoring For Review (2-step):
   *   Step 1: Individual Committee Member Scoring, 1-5 in areas of:
        *   PCEF Mission/Principles
        *   Community Collaboration
        *   Workforce and Contractor initiative
        *   Project Soundness
        *   Implementation/Oversight
   *   Step 2: Full Committee review (feedback to applicants)
        *   Green- Proposal seems well polished
        *   Yellow-Few outstanding questions
        *   Red- Not a fit, or pose a few flags for implementation
        *   Note: Scoring in Step 1 helps guide step 2 review

Decision Making for Recommendation:
   *   Note: No threshold scoring
   *   Committee member can make a motion (line-item, slate, or in aggregate) for funding recommendation

Possible Parameters:
   *   Projects must meet PCEF mission, principles, and funding criteria  &quot;to invest in climate action projects that support environmental justice and social, economic, and environmental benefits for all Portlanders, including the development of a diverse and well-trained workforce and contractor pool to perform work that reduces or sequesters greenhouse gases.&quot; https://www.portland.gov/code/7/07#toc--7-07-020-policy-and-purpose-)
   *   Project and adjacent infrastructure - must have a good neighbor agreement and/or a community benefit agreement to ensure project harmony. (and/or have evidence of recent community engagement on the issue/project, demonstrating community need and interest esp from PCEF priority pops)
   *   Workforce and Contracting Standards and Agreement- Workforce training, workforce equity, and contractor equity goals must meet or exceed PCEF standards, promote BOLI registered apprenticeship programs, and must be reviewed by HRAC and must include Workforce/Contractor agreement. Exceptions to the standard could include a community benefit agreement negotiated between agency, labor, and community organizations.
   *   Clawback and regrant provisions for unspent funds- last recourse, allows for unspent funds to come back to the program to be regranted. All attempts
   *   PCEF Acknowledgement on all materials, public postings, etc.

In the event funds are not fully expended (“unaccounted funds”):
   *   However, the committee believes it should reserve the judgment to recommend more time for a portion of PCEF funding if the Committee deems it is in the public’s interest.
   *   Proposed timeline: June-September

Key elements informing process:
  1.  Mayor will release proposed budget in May, CBO and bureaus need allocations so that they may be part of the Mayor’s proposed budget. This timeline is particularly critical for projects that will directly alleviate service cuts, staffing cuts, and/or indirectly alleviate pressure on the General Fund.
  2.  Please let us know whether there are any other time-critical dependencies we should be aware of related to projects in either the 1st or 2nd tranche.

Thank you again, and please don hesitate to reach out to me or Megan Horst.

Respectfully,

Ranfis Giannettino Villatoro
--
Ranfis Giannettino Villatoro (he/him)
City of Portland | Portland Clean Energy Fund
810 SW 5th Ave. Suite 710  Portland, OR 97201
W: www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/<http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/>

The City of Portland is committed to providing meaningful access. For accommodations, modifications, translation, interpretation or other services, please contact 503-823-7700 or use City TTY 503-823-6868.