![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.360416666666667in" height="2.875in"}

# Table of Contents

[I. Introduction 1]{.smallcaps}

[II. Project Rankings 3]{.smallcaps}

[III. Evaluation of the Green Power Program 4]{.smallcaps}

[IV. Project Evaluations 6]{.smallcaps}

[Appendix A: Agenda 25]{.smallcaps}

[Appendix B: Participants 26]{.smallcaps}

# Introduction

This document presents the results of an independent peer review panel's
evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Green Power Program, which was
held on May 26, 2005 in Washington, DC.

The mission of DOE's green power analysis activity is to identify and
articulate issues and advance solutions to the most important challenges
facing the expansion of green power markets. DOE supports this mission
by sponsoring the development of credible data, information, and
analysis of the green power industry and by tracking industry progress
and verifying market outcomes. DOE also provides technical assistance to
policy makers and the industry at large to disseminate accumulated
knowledge that will lead to increased customer access to green power
products and build greater public awareness of green power options and
their benefits.

The purpose of the peer review was to assess the value of investing in
green power activity for DOE and EERE with attention to mission, goals,
objectives, strategy, program balance, leadership and productivity of
the Green Power Program. Within the program, six projects were
evaluated: Green Power Network Web Site, Status Report of the Green
Power Market, Analysis Reports, National Green Power Marketing
Conference, Technical Assistance, and the Green Power Leadership Awards.
The event not only allowed for an independent, objective assessment of
the program's activities, but also offered an opportunity to showcase
green power information and analysis to the public. The agenda is
available in Appendix A and the participant list is in Appendix B.

The peer review panel consisted of four distinguished experts
representing associations, the private sector and government.

## Peer Review Panel

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  Name                      Affiliation

  Matt Clouse               Environmental Protection Agency

  Rob Harmon                Bonneville Environmental Foundation

  Tom Rawls\*               THR Associates

  Roger Clark               The Reinvestment Fund
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

\* Peer review chairperson

The peer reviewers provided quantitative scores for the program and
projects using the following rating scale:

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Excellent**                                   **9-10**

  Very Good                                       7-8

  Good                                            5-6

  Fair                                            3-4

  Not Adequate                                    1-2
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Each individual project was scored on the following criteria:

-   Quality, management, relevance

-   Effectiveness

-   Goals, objectives, potential impact

-   Overall impressions

This document reflects the individual comments from the reviewers; only
minor grammatical edits have been made without altering the meaning.

# 

# Project Rankings

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.845833333333333in"
height="8.581944444444444in"}

# Evaluation of the Green Power Program

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.8                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**1. Program Quality**

Evaluate the composition and quality of the resources engaged, including
people and facilities. Considered are the team members\' honors and
awards, their relevant experience, and the balance of appropriate skills
(including collaborators). How well is the program balancing its
funding?

-   This is an excellent program that provides essential data, analysis,
    and services to the Green Power market.

-   This is a stellar team with very high output of work product. The
    program has completed first rate analysis of issues with limited
    amount of funding.

-   The program is very good to excellent. Data collection and analysis
    are very high quality. Dissemination of the data is good, but
    outreach could improve. The Green Power conference is well-run and
    always informative. Awards are increasingly professional and have
    helped raise the professionalism of industry.

**2.** **Management**

How well is the program managed? Management may be judged as: expert and
innovative approach with exceptional execution, logical approach and
effective execution, reasonable approach and appropriate execution with
room for improvement, or an approach with key shortcomings and poor
execution.

-   The program is effectively managed. However, it could be stronger in
    presenting key findings and ensuring that key information and
    analysis gets in the hands of the right people.

-   It is unclear how much input is taken into the topics for analysis
    reports and technical assistance, but this team is unbiased.

-   The program is managed very well with excellent staff. They do very
    well with inadequate funds.

-   DOE headquarters management needs to embrace the opportunities the
    Green Power market offers most renewable power technologies and to
    determine how the program could have more of an impact with modest
    increases in funds!

**3. Effectiveness**

Does the program accomplish what it has set out to do?

-   The program has accomplished what it has set out to do and has
    become the authoritative source of information.

-   A neutral, trustworthy judge of activities. Provides an important
    service to the market.

-   The program is very effective, but it does need better outreach
    support. It may be best to have DOE "market" the program rather than
    having the analytical folks doing that.

**4. What are the program's strengths?**

-   Well-regarded staff and contractors. Comprehensive reliable data.
    Clear presentation of information. Intelligent analysis and
    assessment of market and issues. Extremely low-cost program
    providing high quality information.

-   Strong team -- unbiased, well respected, trustworthy. Quality
    output.

-   This program has done an excellent job in providing a source for
    informed, intelligent, unbiased information. The people are
    extraordinary.

-   Analysis: Government plays a very important role in information
    collection and analysis (this includes market status report and
    other analysis). Dissemination: Getting that data to key audiences
    is very important for quality improvements and growth (Green Power
    Network, technical assistance and GP conferences). Forum/Feedback:
    Lastly, it is important for EERE analysts to get feedback on
    industry and analysis (GP conference and technical assistance).

**5. What are the program's weaknesses?**

-   "Marketing" of information. Excellent website. Is additional
    outreach adequate? Is DOE fully recognizing the program's
    possibilities?

-   Need to clone Blair, Ryan, Lori and others. Need to preserve and
    increase budget for long term security. Need to distribute work
    products beyond the usual characters.

-   We need to provide continued funding so the program is predictable.

-   Need to more clearly identify and reach out to target audiences with
    website, conference attendance, mailing lists, announcements,
    further distilled report findings. Have the research and reports
    provide clearer direction for state PUCs, for instance, on how
    green-power products and program designs under their jurisdiction
    could be improved.

**6. Any final thoughts on the overall program?**

-   Data collection, status reports, technical assistance and analysis
    are top priority. Conference and awards are important. It *may* not
    be essential for this activity to be responsible for those.

-   The reviewer sees two tiers for the projects, with tier 1 being the
    top priority activities. Tier 1: Green Power Network -- website,
    Green Power Marketing Status Report, Analysis Reports, Technical
    Assistance. Tier 2: Green Power Conference, Green Power Leadership
    Awards.

-   This is a critically important program for this growing, but still
    young industry. This program is a bargain for DOE and the taxpayers.
    The most important elements are: Green Power network (website),
    Green Power Marketing Status Report (data collection), Analysis
    reports, Technical Assistance. Secondary are: the Green Power
    Leadership Awards and Green Power Conference.

-   This is a bargain program! Weaknesses are more accurately described
    areas where there could be slight improvement. Wish these programs
    could receive more funds because the renewable market as a whole
    would benefit with increased familiarity with renewables and would
    help bridge the gap until renewables are on solid footing/level
    playing ground with other power technologies.

# 

# Project Evaluations

######## **Performer:** [National Renewable Energy Laboratory]{.smallcaps}

######## **Project Title:** [Green Power Network]{.smallcaps}

**Presenter: [Blair Swezey]{.smallcaps}**

**1. Quality, Management, and Relevance**

Please assess the overall quality, management, and relevance of the
program. For quality, management, and relevance, this includes
assessment of:

a\) ***Quality*** \-- the composition and quality of the resources
engaged, including people and facilities. Considered are the team
members\' honors and awards, their relevant experience relevant, and the
balance of appropriate skills (including collaborators).

b\) ***Management*** -- how well the project is managed. Management and
the project team may be judged as: expert and innovative approach with
exceptional execution, logical approach and effective execution,
reasonable approach and appropriate execution with room for improvement,
or an approach with key shortcomings and poor execution.

c\) ***Relevance*** - the importance of achieving the project\'s
objectives in terms of actual or potential contribution to the broader
program's goals and to society. In many cases relevance also means that
the set of activities addresses known technical or market barriers and
that tasks being performed are able to demonstrate actual or potential
contributions to lowering one or more of those barriers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 9.0 {#rating-1-10-9                                 |
| .0 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Quality:**

-   The project's analysis is excellent and highly relevant. The data is
    good and it was clearly presented.

-   There is a very strong analytical team. The website is very useful
    and well organized; it serves an important purpose. There is an
    extensive library of documents.

-   The quality of the website is very high.

-   The Green Power market as a whole benefits from this clear,
    well-designed website.

**Management:**

-   Easy to find through Google. Buried in DOE site, is this a
    reflection of DOE priorities?

-   Strong product for \$50k of labor. Cannot find site from EERE
    homepage; need a direct link.

-   There is not a link on the EERE main website and it cannot be easily
    found on the sub-pages. This needs correction.

-   This website continuously is updated with market developments and
    EERE analysis. One major downside is that the EERE homepage (#1
    website for EERE) does not provide a clear link to the Green Power
    Network (#14 most popular site). This site is the first site to be
    listed on Google when "green power" is entered.

**Relevance:**

-   Highly relevant to current and potential market participants,
    including suppliers, marketers, utilities, sophisticated consumers.

-   Very relevant information. GPN is a credible source/neutral referee.

-   This website is a "must have" for the industry.

-   An incredibly important platform for the Green Power industry,
    federal agencies, state policy makers and even the purchasers of
    Green Power.

**2. Effectiveness**

Please assess the overall effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the
project or activity. For effectiveness, this includes assessment of:

Effectiveness \-- the level of effectiveness assessed by looking at
accomplishments and achievement of planned goals and objectives,
technical targets, awards, or other success measures typical for the
type of activity (such as publications, citations, patents, licenses,
prototypes passing requirements tests).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.8 {#rating-1-10-8.8                               |
| -1 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Effectiveness:**

-   East to navigate.

-   Well organized and clear.

-   Very easy to use.

-   Very good at presenting the data and analysis EERE does.

**Specific Program Strengths:**

-   Analytical work.

-   Well thought out and designed website.

-   Straightforward information collection.

-   Richness of information.

-   Non-EERE reports included.

-   Data quality is very high.

-   3,500 person mailing list for monthly newsletter directing people to
    the site. Good depth of information with links for those who seek
    more information and data. The site could have a page for recent
    reports that hits the highlights of the report in HTML format. The
    platform for reports and information from other market stakeholder.

**Specific Program Weaknesses:**

-   Is the email list managed?

-   Email update signup page does not describe the updates -- frequency,
    etc.

-   Links from EERE website.

-   The link to sign up for email does not adequately describe what one
    gets.

-   The difficulty of getting to the site from EERE homepage.

-   Could use the mailing list to announce new report and provide a
    highlight or summary. They could even offer to do a one hour web
    conference/conference call to run through the highlights of the
    report and answer questions.

-   A potential subscriber to the newsletter doesn't know from the
    website what they will receive.

**3. Goals, Objectives and Potential Impact**

Please assess the goals, objectives and potential impact of the project
on the green power market both nationally and internationally including
use of outreach and communications materials. Are goals and objectives
well formulated? Will goals and objectives lead to desired results?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 7.0 {#rating-1-10-7                                 |
| .0 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

-   Goals not fully articulated, but is #1 site on Google.

-   Could be clearer in targeting the audience for the site and
    information.

-   It could be clearer about goals for information dissemination.

-   The project does a good job providing data and information, but the
    goal does not address how the data and information are to be used
    (targeting of audience).

-   It is unclear to the review team if the program goals include
    increasing the number of people who are aware of, and using, the
    website.

-   This site could be targeting audiences even better and establish
    better links (even reciprocal) with other sites to raise the profile
    in web searches.

**4. Overall Impressions**

Please provide your general overall rating of the project, followed by
comments.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.8 {#rating-1-10-8.8                               |
| -2 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

> Areas of comment may include (a) areas of research or analysis that
> should continued, (b) areas of research or analysis that should be
> deleted (c) new areas or directions that could be added, and (d)
> changes that have occurred (e.g., markets, policy, competing
> technologies) that might alter the planned targets or goals.

-   Excellent information on clear well-organized website.

-   Is there a plan to actively push information to key audience (i.e.,
    NARUC) how is data disseminated to others? How current is the email
    list? Are they adding the right targets (e.g., PUC commissioners,
    Consumer Advocates, etc.).

-   A very good site backed up with great research and data.

######## **Performer:** [National Renewable Energy Laboratory]{.smallcaps}

######## **Project Title:** [Status Report of Green Power Market]{.smallcaps}

######## **Presenter:** [Blair Swezey]{.smallcaps}

**1. Quality, Management, and Relevance**

Please assess the overall quality, management, and relevance of the
program. For quality, management, and relevance, this includes
assessment of:

a\) ***Quality*** \-- the composition and quality of the resources
engaged, including people and facilities. Considered are the team
members\' honors and awards, their relevant experience relevant, and the
balance of appropriate skills (including collaborators).

b\) ***Management*** -- how well the project is managed. Management and
the project team may be judged as: expert and innovative approach with
exceptional execution, logical approach and effective execution,
reasonable approach and appropriate execution with room for improvement,
or an approach with key shortcomings and poor execution.

c\) ***Relevance*** - the importance of achieving the project\'s
objectives in terms of actual or potential contribution to the broader
program's goals and to society. In many cases relevance also means that
the set of activities addresses known technical or market barriers and
that tasks being performed are able to demonstrate actual or potential
contributions to lowering one or more of those barriers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.0 {#rating-1-10-8                                 |
| .0 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Quality:**

-   The report is very broad ranging; covers every program.

-   The report is an excellent compilation with first-rate introductory
    material.

-   The report is very comprehensive.

-   The overview of the report is thoughtful, but could be longer since
    most of report is the data.

-   A well-written report.

**Management:**

-   Good handling of data collection.

-   It is written every year for the Green Power conference in a timely
    fashion.

**Relevance:**

-   Excellent annual compilation of essential information.

-   Perhaps could be improved by featuring an executive summary and key
    analysis and charts.

-   Critical background data.

-   A very important compilation of yearly market data and analysis that
    helps provide policy makers and industry representatives a sense of
    the markets impact and promise and shortcomings.

**2. Effectiveness**

Please assess the overall effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the
project or activity. For effectiveness, this includes assessment of:

Effectiveness \-- the level of effectiveness assessed by looking at
accomplishments and achievement of planned goals and objectives,
technical targets, awards, or other success measures typical for the
type of activity (such as publications, citations, patents, licenses,
prototypes passing requirements tests).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.0 {#rating-1-10-8.0                               |
| -1 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Effectiveness:**

-   If you want essential fundamental information, this is the source.

-   The effectiveness of the report is good.

-   Concise and well-supported by data updates on states, marketers,
    utilities and leading purchasers, these reports help make a clearer
    picture for the health of the larger market.

**Specific Program Strengths:**

-   Comprehensive list of key program players.

-   Concise and well-supported by data updates on states, marketers,
    utilities and leading purchasers; these reports help make a clearer
    picture for the health of the larger market.

**Specific Program Weaknesses:**

-   Web links would be helpful to include in the report. Presentation
    could be strengthened by distinguishing overview and analysis from
    the "compilation" Section.

-   Web links to each listed program are missing and would be helpful.
    Program information could be appendices on the website. The key
    section of report is the Overview.

-   Links to program websites in the document.

-   Make the Executive Summary a separate document. Give the Executive
    Summary a different look.

**3. Goals, Objectives and Potential Impact**

Please assess the goals, objectives and potential impact of the project
on the green power market both nationally and internationally including
use of outreach and communications materials. Are goals and objectives
well formulated? Will goals and objectives lead to desired results?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.8 {#rating-1-10-8.8                               |
| -3 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

-   Good match of goals and execution.

-   This is a well done report to provide overview of Green Power
    marketing activity in U.S.

-   The only source of this type of data on an annual basis.

**4. Overall Impressions**

Please provide your general overall rating of the project, followed by
comments.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.5 {#rating-1-10-8                                 |
| .5 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

Areas of comment may include (a) areas of research or analysis that
should continued, (b) areas of research or analysis that should be
deleted (c) new areas or directions that could be added, and (d) changes
that have occurred (e.g., markets, policy, competing technologies) that
might alter the planned targets or goals.

-   This is basic information. The green power market activities are
    largely built upon this foundation.

-   This report takes the pulse of market activity.

-   A well-written, concise, and comprehensive report that annually
    offers stakeholders an excellent reference on the states and health
    of the market.

######## **Performer:** [National Renewable Energy Laboratory]{.smallcaps}

######## **Project Title:** [Analysis Reports]{.smallcaps}

**Presenter: [Blair Swezey]{.smallcaps}**

**1. Quality, Management, and Relevance**

Please assess the overall quality, management, and relevance of the
program. For quality, management, and relevance, this includes
assessment of:

a\) ***Quality*** \-- the composition and quality of the resources
engaged, including people and facilities. Considered are the team
members\' honors and awards, their relevant experience relevant, and the
balance of appropriate skills (including collaborators).

b\) ***Management*** -- how well the project is managed. Management and
the project team may be judged as: expert and innovative approach with
exceptional execution, logical approach and effective execution,
reasonable approach and appropriate execution with room for improvement,
or an approach with key shortcomings and poor execution.

c\) ***Relevance*** - the importance of achieving the project\'s
objectives in terms of actual or potential contribution to the broader
program's goals and to society. In many cases relevance also means that
the set of activities addresses known technical or market barriers and
that tasks being performed are able to demonstrate actual or potential
contributions to lowering one or more of those barriers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 9.0 {#rating-1-10-9.0                               |
| -1 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Quality:**

-   Reports are timely and of excellent quality

-   The reports contain very good analysis.

-   Very high quality. A very strong analytical team.

-   Excellent.

-   Well-written reports on timely issues for the Green Power market.

**Management:**

-   Is there a clear process for selecting topics? How does program
    invite market participants to offer topics?

-   How are topics decided for the analysis? Email list of possible
    topics to interested folks and ask them to rank.

-   You are selecting good projects for review. It would be good to ask
    stakeholders what the next set might be. Give them some sections and
    a place to comment.

**Relevance:**

-   Analysis has been relevant. Does the program have a way to measure
    relevance?

-   Excellent.

-   The program is regularly (several times a year) producing reports
    that are very timely and relevant. It is not clear how these reports
    are selected. It would be very useful if the EERE Green Power
    Network (GPN) stakeholders knew what issues are being considered for
    subsequent reports, so that the GPN could get feedback on what was
    needed.

**2. Effectiveness**

Please assess the overall effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the
project or activity. For effectiveness, this includes assessment of:

Effectiveness \-- the level of effectiveness assessed by looking at
accomplishments and achievement of planned goals and objectives,
technical targets, awards, or other success measures typical for the
type of activity (such as publications, citations, patents, licenses,
prototypes passing requirements tests).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.3 {#rating-1-10-8                                 |
| .3 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Effectiveness:**

-   How do we know whether analysis is reaching desired audience? Should
    report distribution forms be first in "Executive Summary" to ensure
    materials get in front of key readers?

-   Are reports getting to all the people who need to read them? How are
    reports distributed?

-   Consider publishing the Executive Summary separately. Is the data
    getting to everyone it needs to (every PUC commissioner). Who else
    should get it? Is the email list periodically checked for old
    addresses and targeted new audiences?

-   Is this information getting to the necessary stakeholders and being
    read? I don't know.

**Specific Program Strengths:**

-   Excellent analysis! This is the most important point to make. Should
    distribution focus on email notice of publication? Is the monthly
    email accomplishing distribution objectives?

-   Strong reports.

-   Good presentation of data.

**Specific Program Weaknesses:**

-   The distillation could be improved to reach their target audiences
    better.

**3. Goals, Objectives and Potential Impact**

Please assess the goals, objectives and potential impact of the project
on the green power market both nationally and internationally including
use of outreach and communications materials. Are goals and objectives
well formulated? Will goals and objectives lead to desired results?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.3 {#rating-1-10-8.3                               |
| -1 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

-   What is the process for selecting topics? What are the goals?

-   Essential information for the growth of the market.

**4. Overall Impressions**

Please provide your general overall rating of the project, followed by
comments.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.8 {#rating-1-10-8.8                               |
| -4 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

Areas of comment may include (a) areas of research or analysis that
should continued, (b) areas of research or analysis that should be
deleted (c) new areas or directions that could be added, and (d) changes
that have occurred (e.g., markets, policy, competing technologies) that
might alter the planned targets or goals.

-   The analysts themselves are highly regarded because of the quality
    of their work. They are held in high respect by the industry.

-   Email stakeholders to get input for next set of topics and then rank
    the top ones.

-   Crucial information. Could be even more effective with better
    distillation and dissemination.

######## **Performer:** [National Renewable Energy Laboratory]{.smallcaps}

######## **Project Title:** [National Green Power Marketing Conference]{.smallcaps}

**Presenter: [Blair Swezey]{.smallcaps}**

**1. Quality, Management, and Relevance**

Please assess the overall quality, management, and relevance of the
program. For quality, management, and relevance, this includes
assessment of:

a\) ***Quality*** \-- the composition and quality of the resources
engaged, including people and facilities. Considered are the team
members\' honors and awards, their relevant experience relevant, and the
balance of appropriate skills (including collaborators).

b\) ***Management*** -- how well the project is managed. Management and
the project team may be judged as: expert and innovative approach with
exceptional execution, logical approach and effective execution,
reasonable approach and appropriate execution with room for improvement,
or an approach with key shortcomings and poor execution.

c\) ***Relevance*** - the importance of achieving the project\'s
objectives in terms of actual or potential contribution to the broader
program's goals and to society. In many cases relevance also means that
the set of activities addresses known technical or market barriers and
that tasks being performed are able to demonstrate actual or potential
contributions to lowering one or more of those barriers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.5 {#rating-1-10-8.5                               |
| -1 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Quality:**

-   The conference has the same excellent topics with the same mediocre
    presentations.

-   An excellent source of information on the industry and best
    practices.

-   Good response to attendee feedback.

-   The conference has matured and evolved at good rate. This has
    definitely helped to mature and increase the professionalism of the
    industry.

**Management:**

-   Very good. Very good response to participant feedback.

-   Past conferences have not publicized next conference location and
    date far enough in advance.

**Relevance:**

-   Essential. The one time that the industry gets together annually.

-   Sole place for industry to come together.

-   Could not be higher.

-   Incredibly important to industry and market.

**2. Effectiveness**

Please assess the overall effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the
project or activity. For effectiveness, this includes assessment of:

Effectiveness \-- the level of effectiveness assessed by looking at
accomplishments and achievement of planned goals and objectives,
technical targets, awards, or other success measures typical for the
type of activity (such as publications, citations, patents, licenses,
prototypes passing requirements tests).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 7.3 {#rating-1-10-7                                 |
| .3 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Effectiveness:**

-   Conference appears to be responsive to participants and their needs
    and interests.

**Specific Program Strengths:**

-   Marketing track/policy track was a strong change.

-   Webcast/presentations on website -- to allow folks to access
    information who cannot attend.

-   Webcasting is great.

-   Great forum for information sharing and networking.

**Specific Program Weaknesses:**

-   It has not been as effective as it could be in attracting utility
    participants. Need earlier decision regarding dates, etc.

-   Improve outreach to utilities. Need to increase audience.

-   Better outreach to utilities. Announce the conference earlier.

-   Outreach to utilities could be improved. Needs to attract more
    participants.

**3. Goals, Objectives and Potential Impact**

Please assess the goals, objectives and potential impact of the project
on the green power market both nationally and internationally including
use of outreach and communications materials. Are goals and objectives
well formulated? Will goals and objectives lead to desired results?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.5 {#rating-1-10-8.5                               |
| -2 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

-   This has been and remains an important element in the green power
    industry's development -- consistent in what a conference should be.

-   Need to get more people there.

-   The goals and objectives are correct. The potential impact is very
    high as a vehicle for disseminating the EERE data and analysis.

**4. Overall Impressions**

Please provide your general overall rating of the project, followed by
comments.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 7.6 {#rating-1-10-7                                 |
| .6 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

Areas of comment may include (a) areas of research or analysis that
should continued, (b) areas of research or analysis that should be
deleted (c) new areas or directions that could be added, and (d) changes
that have occurred (e.g., markets, policy, competing technologies) that
might alter the planned targets or goals.

-   While the conference is an important forum for the industry, it does
    not need to be the key focus of this activity.

-   Need to schedule conference in advance. Conference could be
    self-supporting.

######## **Performer:** [National Renewable Energy Laboratory]{.smallcaps}

######## **Project Title:** [Technical Assistance]{.smallcaps} 

######## **Presenter:** [Blair Swezey]{.smallcaps}

**1. Quality, Management, and Relevance**

Please assess the overall quality, management, and relevance of the
program. For quality, management, and relevance, this includes
assessment of:

a\) ***Quality*** \-- the composition and quality of the resources
engaged, including people and facilities. Considered are the team
members\' honors and awards, their relevant experience relevant, and the
balance of appropriate skills (including collaborators).

b\) ***Management*** -- how well the project is managed. Management and
the project team may be judged as: expert and innovative approach with
exceptional execution, logical approach and effective execution,
reasonable approach and appropriate execution with room for improvement,
or an approach with key shortcomings and poor execution.

c\) ***Relevance*** - the importance of achieving the project\'s
objectives in terms of actual or potential contribution to the broader
program's goals and to society. In many cases relevance also means that
the set of activities addresses known technical or market barriers and
that tasks being performed are able to demonstrate actual or potential
contributions to lowering one or more of those barriers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.0 {#rating-1-10-8.0                               |
| -2 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Quality:**

-   Exactly what or how much is being done is not clear in this
    activity, although there is a sense that Green Power Program is
    handling requests for information.

-   Quality work by quality people.

-   Presentations are frequent and at the correct locations.

-   Presentations of very high quality. Discussions of issues are almost
    always very clear and help clarify issues for others.

**Management:**

-   This offers opportunity to disseminate Green Power Program
    information, but it is not clear how effectively or systematically
    opportunity is being exploited.

-   How does the team manage their time?

-   Could be clearer about what is involved.

-   Difficult to manage many phone calls requesting assistance, but GPN
    team does a good job at being responsive and helpful.

**Relevance:**

-   How much does this mean answering phone and dealing with the
    questions that come their way? That is very important work.

-   Hard to say because I don't know full extent of requests and
    services, but I am confident they do relevant work.

-   Distills key EERE reports and findings. Key feedback loop for
    research.

**2. Effectiveness**

Please assess the overall effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the
project or activity. For effectiveness, this includes assessment of:

Effectiveness \-- the level of effectiveness assessed by looking at
accomplishments and achievement of planned goals and objectives,
technical targets, awards, or other success measures typical for the
type of activity (such as publications, citations, patents, licenses,
prototypes passing requirements tests).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 7.2 {#rating-1-10-7                                 |
| .2 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Effectiveness:**

-   Does program use technical assistance effectively to address
    emerging issues?

-   Gets team to the right events.

**Specific Program Strengths:**

-   Enables these resources to respond to folks.

-   We need this to be a place where this data lives and the phone gets
    answered.

-   Excellent presentations and clearly stated information on key
    issues.

**Specific Program Weaknesses:**

-   Could reach out to PUCs so those organizations better understand
    best practices and can then better evaluate the programs they
    regulate.

-   Clearly defining target audiences and reaching them.

**3. Goals, Objectives and Potential Impact**

Please assess the goals, objectives and potential impact of the project
on the green power market both nationally and internationally including
use of outreach and communications materials. Are goals and objectives
well formulated? Will goals and objectives lead to desired results?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 7.5 {#rating-1-10-7                                 |
| .5 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

-   Needs to have clearer statement of objectives in this area.

-   Incredibly important to market's development.

**4. Overall Impressions**

Please provide your general overall rating of the project, followed by
comments.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 7.8 {#rating-1-10-7                                 |
| .8 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

Areas of comment may include (a) areas of research or analysis that
should continued, (b) areas of research or analysis that should be
deleted (c) new areas or directions that could be added, and (d) changes
that have occurred (e.g., markets, policy, competing technologies) that
might alter the planned targets or goals.

-   The peer review panel had a very productive conversation about this
    area. The reviewer believes the program is doing good to excellent
    job in this area, but they are not explaining it as well as they
    could. Opportunity: Outreach to utility commissions regarding best
    practices for programs, enrollment and penetration levels that can
    be achieved with effective Green Power programs.

-   Too little information about what they are doing -- need to know
    more about what \$130k budget is for. Do people know about these
    services? How many and what requests do they get for services? How
    do they decide between competing topics?

-   The dissemination of EERE data and analysis is very important and
    could be reaching more audiences. The impact of that could be
    improved.

######## **Performer:** [Department of Energy, Central Regional Office]{.smallcaps}

######## **Project Title:** [Green Power Leadership Awards]{.smallcaps}

######## **Presenter:** [Jerry Kotas]{.smallcaps}

**1. Quality, Management, and Relevance**

Please assess the overall quality, management, and relevance of the
program. For quality, management, and relevance, this includes
assessment of:

a\) ***Quality*** \-- the composition and quality of the resources
engaged, including people and facilities. Considered are the team
members\' honors and awards, their relevant experience relevant, and the
balance of appropriate skills (including collaborators).

b\) ***Management*** -- how well the project is managed. Management and
the project team may be judged as: expert and innovative approach with
exceptional execution, logical approach and effective execution,
reasonable approach and appropriate execution with room for improvement,
or an approach with key shortcomings and poor execution.

c\) ***Relevance*** - the importance of achieving the project\'s
objectives in terms of actual or potential contribution to the broader
program's goals and to society. In many cases relevance also means that
the set of activities addresses known technical or market barriers and
that tasks being performed are able to demonstrate actual or potential
contributions to lowering one or more of those barriers.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.0 {#rating-1-10-8.0                               |
| -3 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Quality:**

-   Effective program to publicize the program and stimulate Green Power
    market activity.

-   Is dilution an issue if the number of awards increases year after
    year?

-   Helps set standards for strong programs or efforts.

-   Very well conceived and executed awards ceremony and selection last
    year.

**Management:**

-   The effort is completed with minimal funds required to announce over
    nine awards, collect nominations, judge innovations, communicate
    with awardees, develop a ceremony with dinner, materials,
    presentations and video that informs the industry out outstanding
    practices and success stories.

**Relevance:**

-   Helps set standards.

-   Incredibly important.

**2. Effectiveness**

Please assess the overall effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the
project or activity. For effectiveness, this includes assessment of:

Effectiveness \-- the level of effectiveness assessed by looking at
accomplishments and achievement of planned goals and objectives,
technical targets, awards, or other success measures typical for the
type of activity (such as publications, citations, patents, licenses,
prototypes passing requirements tests).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.0 {#rating-1-10-8.0                               |
| -4 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Effectiveness:**

-   The awards send a clear message into market regarding what people
    should be doing.

-   Video in presentation ceremony is a good idea.

-   Very effective at getting outstanding efforts highlighted,
    encouraging leaders to do more and educating market.

**Specific Program Strengths:**

-   Becomes effective for educational tool for market.

-   Commissioning missionaries for Green Power.

-   Video is great. Humor is great.

-   Video is excellent.

**Specific Program Weaknesses:**

-   Is dilution a problem?

-   It would be good to leverage the "leaders" to speak with others at
    the conference.

**3. Goals, Objectives and Potential Impact**

Please assess the goals, objectives and potential impact of the project
on the green power market both nationally and internationally including
use of outreach and communications materials. Are goals and objectives
well formulated? Will goals and objectives lead to desired results?

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.5 {#rating-1-10-8.5                               |
| -3 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

-   Key goal is public awareness and leadership by example. Provides
    effective lesson. Breadth of awards -- inclusiveness is effective
    motivator.

-   To recognize leaders and leading initiatives.

-   Awards are very important motivator for the market as well as an
    educational effort.

**4. Overall Impressions**

Please provide your general overall rating of the project, followed by
comments.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## Rating (1-10): 8.8 {#rating-1-10-8.8                               |
| -5 .Style-Heading-2-+-Not-(Latin)-Bold-Auto-Before:--0\" .unnumbered} |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Supporting Comments:**

Areas of comment may include (a) areas of research or analysis that
should continued, (b) areas of research or analysis that should be
deleted (c) new areas or directions that could be added, and (d) changes
that have occurred (e.g., markets, policy, competing technologies) that
might alter the planned targets or goals.

-   Need to get the substance of the activities out to the market -- the
    paragraph in the website could be strengthened.

-   If this program is cut, it is essential for DOE to provide bridge
    funding to allow another organization to pick up the conference.

-   A very important element to the Green Power conference.

# APPENDIX A. Agenda

**Agenda**

U.S. Department of Energy

Green Power Program Peer Review

May 26, 2005

Washington, DC

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 8:00 am  | Peer Reviewer Breakfast                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 9:00     | Welcome and Introductions                                 |
|          |                                                           |
|          | *Linda Silverman, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)*        |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 9:05     | Program Background                                        |
|          |                                                           |
|          | *Linda Silverman and David McAndrew, DOE*                 |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 9:30     | Project Presentations                                     |
|          |                                                           |
|          | *Blair Swezey, National Renewable Energy Laboratory       |
|          | (NREL)*                                                   |
|          |                                                           |
|          | -   *Green Power Network*                                 |
|          |                                                           |
|          | -   *Data Compilations*                                   |
|          |                                                           |
|          | -   *Green Power Marketing Status Report*                 |
|          |                                                           |
|          | -   *Other Analysis Reports*                              |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 10:30    | Break                                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 11:00    | Project Presentations (continued)                         |
|          |                                                           |
|          | *Blair Swezey, NREL*                                      |
|          |                                                           |
|          | -   N*ational Green Power Marketing Conference*           |
|          |                                                           |
|          | -   *Technical Assistance Activities*                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 12:15 pm | Project Presentations (continued)                         |
|          |                                                           |
|          | *Jerry Kotas, DOE, Central Regional Office*               |
|          |                                                           |
|          | -   *2005 Green Power Leadership Awards*                  |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 12:30    | Adjourn General Session                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 12:30    | Reviewer Lunch                                            |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 1:30     | Peer Reviewer Meeting                                     |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 4:00     | Adjourn                                                   |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

# APPENDIX B. Participants

  ------------ ----------------- -----------------------------------------
  **First      **Last Name**     **Affiliation**
  Name**                         

  Dan          Becky             Department of Energy

  Roger        Clark             The Reinvestment Fund

  Matt         Clouse            Environmental Protection Agency

  Ray          Fortuna           Department of Energy

  Rob          Harmon            Bonneville Environmental Foundation

  Steve        Hortin            Department of Energy

  Jerry        Kotas\*           Department of Energy, Central Regional
                                 Office

  Brian        Marchionini       Energetics, Inc.

  David        McAndrew          Department of Energy

  Pam          Mendelson\*       Department of Energy, Central Regional
                                 Office

  Laura        Miner-Nordstrom   Department of Energy

  Tom          Rawls             THR Associates

  Marion       Rawson            Energetics, Inc.

  Linda        Silverman         Department of Energy

  Blair        Swezey            National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  ------------ ----------------- -----------------------------------------

\* by phone