WHPA – WE&T “Comparable training” Working Group Includes Changes Submitted by Members and Notes from the Comparable Training Working Group Meeting on June 17, 2016 Note Pepper’s instructions on pages 6 and 7. Please return your comments and feedback by July 5 to pepperhunziker@gmail.com If you have questions, call Pepper at 503-927-1510.

Attendees

Our Goal To define what is meant by “comparable training” as referenced in the Don Vial Center Report: Workforce Issues and Energy Efficiency Programs: A Plan for California’s Utilities released May 2014. As stated in this report, “HVAC Quality Installation and Quality Maintenance: Require graduation from a state-certified apprenticeship program, a 2-year degree in HVAC, or proof of comparable training and experience for jobsite HVAC technicians.”

Captured during Meeting The report does not provide the objective criteria used to determine which requirements qualify. The term “comparable” is subjective without understanding the defined objective criteria used for qualification. The examples used in the report are incomparable.  The examples used should be represented within a spectrum. The report recommendation fails to include the industry-recognized credentials listed in the WHPA Work Product. Requiring a particular credential(s) can be a barrier to participation due to a variety of factors. Industry credential criteria aren’t intended to align directly with the IOU program(s) performance criteria.

Captured during Meeting The language - Recommendation is requirement for participation in IOU RATE-PAYER EE SUBSIDIZED PROGRAMS Demonstrated competency through a performance assessment with set objective criteria and output validation is the only verifiable way to show "proof" an individual's capacity and capability. Getting to this point can come from an array of learning and development experiences Classroom OTJ Lab Mentoring Field training The outcome (performance) provides the “proof” for ability – This should be conducted by the SME Training Organization, WE&T side of the house. With regard to program participation – each program will have its unique set of performance metrics and performance criteria (training and assessment should be specific). The performance metrics will inform the technical performance criteria. The performance criteria will inform the technical training. The technical training should include a knowledge assessment. The technical training should include a performance assessment specific to program.

For Your Meeting Note Additions – please add comments then save as _your initials Some comments here share the same sentiment although drafted in a different way (they sure are important!) – we’ll categorize them and clean up the draft in our next iteration. As you add comments, please keep the end goal in mind – the ask with regard to the specific recommendation B3 on page 4 (slide 2 of “Capture). Save as WHPA Comparable Training Working Group_with your initials and date. Please send me your comments by July 5th, 5pmPDT, so I can compile them before our next meeting on July 7 or 8. Huge thanks to you for your time, energy, and effort on this! The group’s comments are directly in response to the recommendation in the DVC report. Within this “spectrum”, there are layers within layers. Variation from school to school as well as apprenticeship to apprenticeship, let alone one to the other. The issue, as with what DOL does, would be to look for comparable outcomes. However, the work to tease apart each layer and compare outcomes still wouldn’t address the core issue, which is knowing that a person is capable of performing the work as intended. There is no “one size fits all” for the industry. The diversity of the industry is significant. We have to be inclusive if anything is going to work. Most people “specialize” in a particular area, not become specialists in all areas, which needs to be recognized. The right person for the job may be ineligible if the participation criteria is non-specific and relies only on a titled credential. Having one or more credential does not mean that you are equipped to perform all varieties of tasks. Training isn’t the “end all”. The critical piece for proving capacity and capability is to demonstrate the performance competencies. There is tremendous value in meeting the industry where they are and providing an array of training opportunities to up-level their KSAs. The defined performance competencies objectively, and uniquely, should determine program participation eligibility. Eligibility should not be determined by a specific titled credential and/or credentialing body.

For Your Meeting Note Additions – please add comments then save as _your initials It takes a village. There are a lot of important entities, and they can engage as they choose. Credential requirement(s) for participation are not directly aligned with any given program’s specifications therefore they cannot assume successful implementation. Credential requirement(s) for program participation is often seen a barrier to entry. Objective performance criteria for program participation may be best identified during the design process and should be crafted in a way that affords opportunity to all stakeholders. Businesses are most successful when their workforce can be appropriately utilized for the KSAs they possess. It is not cost-effective for businesses to send all of their experienced technicians to jobs that don’t require that level of KSAs. It is more appropriate to have an entry level technician performing basic tasks alongside experienced technicians performing others. (also a mentoring/coaching opportunity) To determine appropriate and applicable credentials that may support a utility program, the utilities can reference the WHPA Industry Recognized Credentials List Crosswalk KSAs needed to meet program specifications with the KSAs of listed credentials