1. APRIL 17, 2013 JIM WEST, SNOHOMISH BRUCE FOLSOM, AVISTA LAUREN GAGE, BPA RTF PAC: Qualitative Survey

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 outputs from the RTF;  PAC #2: Securing the resources necessary to perform the technical work required by 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.