Signature Redacted--" Author De T of U Ban S Tudi S and P F~Ing Ma 1, 014

Solarize America How Policy Networks Adopt and Adapt Good Ideas

By MASSACHUSETS iNST1TUTE Ryan Cook OF TECHNOLOGY

BA in Sociology JUN19 201i Reed College Portland, Oregon (2009) 'JR-ARI ES

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master in City Planning

at the

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

June 2014

The author hereby grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted--" Author De t of U ban S tudi s and P f~ing Ma 1, 014

Certified by Signature redacted Professor Lawrence Susskind Department of Urban Studies and Planning n/, / ., Thesis Supervisor Signature redacted_ Accepted by Assodca rofesskr]P. Christopher Zegras hair, MCP Committee Department of Urban Studies and Planning

Solarize America How Policy Networks Adopt and Adapt Good Ideas

Ryan Cook Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 21, 2014 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning

Abstract

To address the need for massive change in the adopt new ideas, they take differences in resource electric power industry, state and local actors are availability and institutional capacity into account experimenting with creative policy approaches in both by adapting policies to suit local needs and the clean energy space. I investigate the facilitating by redefining their relationships with each other role that networks play in the production and to better support implementation. Policymakers implementation of these policy ideas. I look at can improve their network's ability to support policy networks through the case of Solarize, a innovation by establishing strong cross-sectoral community-based solar energy group-purchasing ties, by encouraging public agencies to be flexible program that has grown rapidly since its emergence in their relationships with private and civic actors, in 2009. I compare and contrast the strategies of and by consciously learning from and adapting private, public, and civic policy actors that have policy successes elsewhere in ways that reflect local implemented Solarize campaigns in the Pacific constraints. Northwest and in New England. In the Pacific Northwest, a robust set of community organizations has spearheaded a decentralized, grassroots-based approach to Solarize. In New England, where state agencies offer strong and consistent leadership has been primarily a on clean energy, Solarize Thesis Supervisor: Lawrence Susskind government-led program. My central finding Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning is that network attributes guide the efforts of policy entrepreneurs. Networks vary greatly across contexts, as do the pathways they offer for policy development. Ideas that are successful in one state or local network may not be successful in another without modification. When networks of actors

3 4 Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank Professor Larry Susskind, who has been incredibly generous with his guidance and wisdom both in the process of writing this thesis and throughout my time at DUSP. I am also thankful for the help of my reader, Alex Aylett, who has shown an uncanny ability to understand and propose solutions to my difficulties in the research process, and for the support that Steve Hammer and my other mentors both at MIT and elsewhere have provided over the years.

I am also immensely grateful for the large number of professionals and advocates that took the time to share their thoughts and experiences with me in the course of my research. I aspire to the success that these committed and capable individuals have had in guiding a transition in the energy field.

It has been a pleasure to share the past two years with a wonderfully talented group of students and academics in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning and in MIT's broader energy community. I have learned more from you than from any class and your company has made this experience a pleasure. And finally, I would like to thank my family, for everything.

5 6 Table of Contents

Clean Energy Policy Experimentation in the United States ...... 9

M ethods ...... 13

Introduction to Networked Policy Transfer ...... 17

Background on Solar and Solarize ...... 23

The Pacific Northwest: Where the Grassroots are Greener ...... 33

New England: Learning from Above ...... 43

D iscussion and Findings ...... 53

Lessons for the Policy Community ...... 67

C onclusions ...... 71

R eferences ...... 73

Appendix A : List of Interviewees ...... 77

Appendix A: List of Solarize Campaigns ...... 79

7 8 Clean Energy Policy Experimentation in the United States

The Spread of Good Policy a group purchasing program for residential solar In an effort to address the many market barriers photovoltaic panels. In a Solarize program, a to the widespread development of clean energy government or civic organization partners with a technologies, policy actors at the state and local single solar contractor on behalf of a community of levels have lately been engaged in a robust and residents, and coordinates a time-limited campaign vibrant process of energy policy innovation. within that community to encourage residents to American cities and states actively experiment with install solar panels with that contractor. In exchange new policy ideas and adopt those that appear to be for large numbers of customer leads and the benefit successful elsewhere. As policy ideas spread, they are of a volunteer-based marketing campaign, the solar adapted to fit local needs and circumstances. 'Ihis installer agrees to offer a solar installation price has led to a complex and constantly shifting set of that is below prevailing market rates.'The Solarize policy solutions to our nation's energy problems. To model emerged in Portland, Oregon in 2009, and understand the current status of clean energy policy contributed to a rapid growth of the local residential to and the prospects for bringing good ideas to scale, solar market. 'The model is widely perceived policymakers must first understand the mechanisms have been successful, and has been replicated in by which state and local governments-and the jurisdictions nationwide. actors that they variety of non-governmental Through Solarize, I examine the manner in which communicate, adopt, and collaborate with-form, policymakers share ideas and learn from each other. adapt these policy solutions. In doing so, I adopt a networked view of policy In this thesis, I hope to add to this understanding formation and transfer. I consider the sets of actors by tracing the development of a policy idea that has from the public, private, and civic sectors that succeeded in one context and rapidly diffused to collaborate to form policy, and the work that they others: a community-based approach to residential do to make external policy ideas suitable for local solar energy called Solarize. Solarize is in essence contexts. 9 Stagnation in Federal Clean Energy needed to create a durable and competitive clean Policy energy market. Renewable energy markets in the United States State governments are particularly well-positioned require strong policy support to continue to grow to impact electricity markets as state-level public and mature. But it is uncertain what this policy utilities commissions have regulatory responsibility support-should it come about at all-will look over privately-owned utilities, which supplied 83% like or where it might come from. In the current of the nation's electricity to end users in 2012.' Local domestic political climate, it appears unlikely that governments, while not possessing the same degree any significant energy policies will be formed at of direct control over energy systems as states,2 have the federal level. While a range of potential policy their own ways to influence clean energy markets, options have been proposed, such as a carbon tax, whether through areas in their direct control or cap-and-trade schemes, or a national renewable through their close working relationships with energy standard, comprehensive legislation to powerful local stakeholders. address energy policy appears unlikely. On the state side, popular clean energy policy 'The most recent attempt, 2009's Waxman-Markey solutions have included renewable portfolio Bill, failed in the Senate and political observers do standards, net energy metering, utility energy not expect Congress to revisit the issue with any efficiency mandates, and tax incentives for clean seriousness in the foreseeable future (Wolfgang, energy installations. Many of these leverage the 2014; McKibben, 2014). While there have been state's authority over regulated private utilities. several important federal policy supports for At the local level, some cities have made direct clean energy, such as the Investment Tax Credit use of their authority by enacting stringent and Production Tax Credit for renewable energy, energy codes, energy disclosure ordinances, and widespread energy efficiency funding through the mandatory energy upgrade ordinances. Many cities American Recovery Act, and agency regulations have also taken a more "soft power" approach, for that restrict the emission of mercury and other example by conducting efficiency upgrades and pollutants, these gains have been hard-won, solar installations on municipal buildings to lead contentious, and often impermanent. Ihe federal by example or by offering direct incentives and government also provides funding support for state financing for clean energy. and local clean energy policy initiatives, funding which contributed to the emergence of Solarize. Community Energy Programs While these policies are critical lifelines for a Both state and local governments have also supported growing market, the federal government will likely community energy programs that leverage social continue to skate around the issue of comprehensive network connections and community-based social support for clean energy. marketing techniques to encourage sustainable behavior by energy consumers (McKenzie- Growth in State and Local Clean Energy Mohr, 2011; Vigen & Mazur-Stommen, 2012). Policy 'Ihese programs, of which Solarize is an example, Instead, the push for advances in clean energy policy will likely come-as it has in recent years-from 1 US Energy Information Administration Form 861 below. In line with their reputation as "laboratories Database, 2012. of democracy", state and local governments have 2 One important categorical exception are those local demonstrated their capacity for policy creation governments that control their own municipal electric and innovation on energy issues and offer a range utilities, which serve about 10% of the nation's population. of policy supports to nascent clean energy markets. Many of these municipal utilities, such as those in Austin, Sacramento, and Gainesville, have actively used their 'These approaches, should they prove effective utilities as levers with which influence local clean energy and scalable, may well provide the support that is markets. 10 often rely heavily on a network of relationships As such, my investigation is explicitly network- between public, private, and civic actors. Rather based, and I examine the ways in which public than directing energy markets through command- organizations interact with those in the private and and-control approaches to regulation, community civic spheres to form policy, the roles that these energy programs utilize soft power. By making use organizations assume in the policy creation process, of the cache and social capital of public agencies and the work that they do to adapt policy ideas to rather than their regulatory authority, community the specific contours of local social networks and energy programs allow governments to influence contexts. I hope to answer the question, how does clean energy markets in a less contentious and more network structurefacilitate the innovation and spread collaborative manner.' ofcommunity energy programs? I look at patterns in the ways in which these Research Objective communities of policy actors adopt-that is, select There is no shortage of clean energy policy ideas and import policy approaches that have proven at the state and local levels. Policy makers at both successful elsewhere-and adapt-how they modify levels offer a steady stream of policy innovations these existing approaches to suit their unique needs intended to help scale clean energy technologies. and context-community energy programs. It is But how are these innovations spread? Just because my hope that this work contributes to our growing a good idea has been proposed does not mean that it understanding of the diffusion of policy innovations, will be implemented. And just because a good idea and of how this process may be supported and is implemented successfully does not mean that it refined to improve the communication of good will be attempted in other contexts, let alone be ideas in community energy and clean energy more suitable for those contexts. broadly.

In this thesis, I look closely at the manner in which Organization of This Thesis communities of policy actors adopt new ideas in energy and adapt them to their needs. 'Ihrough the 'Ihis thesis presents and discusses the networks case of Solarize, I focus specifically on community of policy actors engaged with Solarize in two energy programs in which state and local regions-the Pacific Northwest and New England. governments pursue policy via collaboration with 'Ihis initial section has presented the context in other public, private, non-profit, and civic actors.4 which state and local energy policy is situated. In the second section, I provide an overview of my methodology and data sources. Sections 3 and 3 Examples of community approaches to energy include 4 frame the presentation of the cases. Section 3 Better Buildings Michigan's "neighborhood sweeps", in which trusted community partners go door to door in a does so from a theoretical perspective and presents given neighborhood and offer energy efficiency education the framework of networked policy transfer and and financing packages, and the "carrotmobs" employed formation that I rely on in my analysis of the cases. in Boulder and elsewhere that encourage community Section 4 does so from a practical standpoint and members to support businesses that meet certain clean provides background on the residential solar energy energy targets. specifically. Sections 4 While my focus is on the production of local community market and the Solarize model energy programs, state agencies have been closely and 5 and 6 present case narratives of the establishment directly involved in the development of these programs. and spread of Solarize in the Pacific Northwest Therefore, I consider jointly the role that state and local and in New England. In Section 7, I analyze the play in policy formation. While state and governments cases and discuss my findings about networked local governments possess very different resources and strengths in regards to the formation of community energy policy transfer and formation. Section 8 offers a set programs, they both exist in a network of actors that work of recommendations for policymakers that follow to develop and implement new policies. In this thesis, I from this discussion. I provide my concluding consider state and local governments in much the same thoughts in Section 9. light, as components in a network of policy actors with unevenly distributed opportunities and resources. 11 12 Methods

This thesis uses a qualitative case comparison to policy diffusion would be a useful complement methodology to investigate the mechanisms behind to the existing body of quantitative work on the networked transfer and formation of policy the subject (Graham, Shipan, & Volden, 2012). ideas. Here, my cases are the networks of policy For these reasons, I have approached the role of actors that have implemented a single policy idea- network and social structure in policy diffusion and Solarize-in two separate regional contexts. innovation through a qualitative lens. A qualitative research design allows new themes and observations My choice of qualitative methods in this thesis is tied to be discovered that would be difficult to observe to the nature of my research question, which looks through quantitative methods that empirically demonstrate delicate mechanisms to identify and test existing hypotheses. Quantitative methods, of causality in the social creation of policy. Policy however, are incredibly useful in empirically testing transfer researchers often utilize quantitative the conclusions of qualitative research, such as those methods to track and explain the spread and included in the discussion of this thesis. adoption of policy ideas, including regression-based approaches like event history analysis (Berry & I chose to examine the implementation of a single Berry, 1990; Moreland-Russell et al. 2013; Shipan & policy idea in two separate contexts. By holding the Volden, 2007; Vasi, 2006) and a suite of quantitative policy concept constant across cases, I may more analytical tools developed to study attributes of confidently ascribe differences in its implementation social networks and the actors within them (Cowan, across regions to differences in local contexts, 2005; Robins, Lewis, & Wang, 2012; Sandstrom & networks, and structures. I selected Solarize as Carlsson, 2008). While these quantitative methods the subject of this study for several reasons. First, are usefil for revealing general trends that influence as will be shown below, Solarize is a remarkably the spread of policy ideas, they are not well suited nimble program and can be deployed in a wide to study the more complex interactions considered range of organizational contexts, which allows for in this thesis. Further, scholars in the field have the comparison of policy implementation by rather suggested that a more rigorous qualitative approach different networks of policy actors. Second, Solarize

13 has a national spread but is heavily concentrated outcome of a Solarize campaign is affected by in two distinct geographic areas, providing a ready a wide range of attributes, including existing case comparison.'Ihird, the Solarize model emerged solar market infrastructure, local solar prices and recently in 2009 and has spread rapidly since, available incentives, qualities of local housing stock, meaning that the individuals that participated in local home ownership rates, and even how nice the the model's emergence are easily accessible and that weather is. 'The outcomes of Solarize campaigns their participation is in relatively recent memory. cannot be decontextualized from these intervening Finally, my own experience living and working in factors,6 and so I do not believe that it is possible to both Oregon and Massachusetts-the two states say that a given approach to implementing Solarize that have been most central to the development is more successful than another, or even that any of the Solarize model-has provided me with a one campaign has been objectively better than basic level of familiarity with the mechanisms of another. Instead, I rely on the perceptions of solar policymaking in the two contexts to use as a head policy actors to determine the success of a given start in my investigation. campaign. Campaigns that meet or exceed policy actors' subjective expectations are successful, and 'The two cases that I examine in this thesis are the those that fall short are not. When I refer to Solarize regional Solarize policy networks in the Pacific or a specific campaign as "successful", I mean only Northwest and in New England,' the areas where that it has been considered to be a success by the Solarize has been most widespread. In each policy actors that implemented or adopted a given region, I focus primarily on one state (Oregon and approach. Massachusetts) but also include relevant information about a neighboring state (Washington and Most of the information that I draw on in this Connecticut), allowing for the analysis of regional comparison was collected through 29 interviews networks. In comparing these cases, I present the with individuals that have participated in the spread information necessary to draw conclusions about of Solarize. To assemble a roster of interviewees, I the ways that policy networks adopt and adapt new first had preliminary conversations with several ideas in community energy policy. individuals who had played obvious roles in the development of early Solarize programs and In examining the implementation of Solarize in thoroughly reviewed available Solarize evaluations the two regions, I purposefully avoid any direct and other documents-particularly the Solarize comparison of program metrics and I make no Guidebook, a federally-funded report that includes attempt to claim that any particular approach to descriptions of early Solarize campaigns-to implementation is "better" than others. While the identify interview subjects. From these sources, success of Solarize programs could be, and often are, I compiled a list of individuals and organization evaluated through a number of different metrics- staff from the public, private, and civic sectors that including the number of solar installations, the total I understood to have had input in the creation solar capacity installed, the cost per installed watt of of Solarize and contacted them for interviews. I operating residential solar programs, the reduction relied on snowball sampling to identify additional in the local price of solar, or the lasting impact individuals to speak with. I was able to interview on local solar installation rates-it is difficult to directly and fairly compare the results of campaigns that occur in different areas and contexts. The 6 For example, Portland's Solarize campaigns occurred at a time when generous state tax credits were available for residential solar power, but only applied to first 2 KW 5 My labeling of the regional network of policy actors in capacity of a given project. In Massachusetts, state in Massachusetts and Connecticut as "New England" incentives allow a much higher cap on system size. As a is slightly misleading as it excludes the four other New result, Solarize installations in Massachusetts are on average England states (which have their own sets of solar policy more than double the size of those in Oregon. Given the actors and several of which have hosted their own Solarize obvious importance of incentives in determining system campaigns), but I use it in this thesis as the best easily sizes, it would be inappropriate to attribute this difference identifiable regional term. to the program structure of Solarize campaigns. 14 nearly all of the individuals that I contacted, only interviews and from printed materials fell into a failing to secure interviews with two relatively generally consistent narrative. In instances where I minor actors in regional solar policy networks. was unsure of a particular fact or where I believed There are several additional actors that would have one interviewee's account might differ from others, lent valuable perspectives-such as homeowners I attempted to identify a second source either from that participated in Solarize but who did not a subsequent interview or by locating a relevant assist in campaign operations, additional solar printed report. I have done my best to separate installation contractors, and the Portland Office the facts that my interviewees conveyed from their of Neighborhood Involvement-that were not opinions, and to treat the two differently in my included in my interview sample. construction of the case narratives.

Interviews were conducted during the winter of 2014, and were roughly 30 to 60 minutes in length. Interviews were semi-structured and were conducted in person when feasible-I traveled to Oregon and Washington in January 2014 to make this possible-but were done over the phone when this was impractical. Generally, I first asked interviewees about their pre-Solarize activities that were relevant to their role in the program, then about their experience with Solarize itself (the longest portion of the interview), and finally about their activities since Solarize and what they expected to come next. Each interview was tailored to the specific organizational history and program role of the interviewee. Interviewees that are quoted or cited as providing key facts in this thesis were given an opportunity to review those citations and provide corrections.

13 interviewees were associated with the Pacific Northwest policy network, 11 with the New England policy network, and 5 were associated directly with neither but had national knowledge of the spread of Solarize. 12 interviewees were associated with government agencies, 9 with civic non-profits or community groups, 4 with other private organizations, and 4 were interviewed in their capacity as citizen-participants.'Ihe names and organizations of the individuals interviewed for this study are provided in Appendix A. In addition to these interviews, I conducted a thorough review of related reports and evaluations, program materials, and news reports. 'The information from these sources were used to support my interview data.

In qualitative research, it can be difficult to establish a threshold on which to base a conclusion. Fortunately, the information I gleaned from various

15 16 Introduction to Networked Policy Transfer

Policies do not appear from nowhere. 7hey to consider the role that sets of individual actors are introduced into real and livedplaces, and play in affecting this process. I close by describing are only then, through a range of actions and a framework of networked policy transfer, which strategies, 'Made'intoa success (Ward, 2006). is used in this thesis to explain the spread of the Solarize model. Policy formation is inherently a social process. Policies are proposed, debated, and implemented by sets of actors, whether individuals or groups. Policy Adoption and These actors are responsible for defining policy needs, for devising potential solutions to meet those Adaptation needs, and for ultimately selecting and realizing a It is quite rare for policymakers to create entirely preferred option. Countless decisions must be made new policy ideas. Rather, new policies are often in the course of forming policy, each of which is adaptations, reformulations, emulations, or influenced by these actors' relationships and shared inspirations that draw upon a stock of existing histories-or lack thereof. ideas that have been used in previous times, different settings, or related issues (Majone, 'Through this complex social process, ideas about 1990). Policymakers are wise to observe the policy policy are communicated and spread. In this section, innovations occurring in political systems other than I provide a theoretical basis for understanding their own, and to consider the advantages that these the social mechanisms behind the adoption and ideas might have in their own contexts (Dolowitz, adaptation of policy ideas. I begin by discussing the 2003). Here, I discuss the process by which these process by which policy innovations are transferred ideas diffuse across governments through an active into and adapted to suit new contexts. I then process of policy adoption and adaptation. introduce concepts from social networks analysis

17 Innovation Diffusion Marsh, 1996). In recent decades, policy transfer has become a subject of considerable academic 'Iheories regarding the spread of policy ideas result investigation, and authors have identified several largely from the field of innovation diffusion, common pathways for these transfers. 'hese which considers the mechanisms by which new include, for example, the transfer of ideas across technologies are spread.7 Innovation, in this context, neighboring political systems (Moreland-Russell refers to an idea, practice, or object that is perceived et al., 2013; Shipan & Volden, 2007; Vasi, 2006), as new, regardless of the truth of this perception from large systems to small ones (Crain, 1966; (Rogers, 2005). Diffusion is the communication of Moreland-Russell et al., 2013), across systems with this innovation over time through a social system common organizational memberships (Vasi, 2006), (Gray, 1973). or between systems that view each other as peers Innovation diffusion has four primary components: (Vasi, 2006; Ward, 2006). the innovation itself, the communication channels In addition to identifying frequent pathways of through which it is spread, the time over which policy transfer, the field has also laid out a number diffusion occurs, and the social system within of variables along which the mechanisms of specific which it operates (Rogers, 2005). I am primarily policy transfers may vary. Here, I present five sets concerned with the communication channels of parameters that are particularly relevant to this and social systems involved in diffusion, which study. may be grouped together as structure. Structure includes both social structure-the patterns of First, instances of policy transfer fall on a spectrum relationships among individuals in a system-and between directly copying an existing policy and communication structure-the patterned flows of merely using that policy as the inspiration for the information transfer in a system (Rogers, 2005). In creation of new ideas (Dolowitz, 2003).'Ihe latter this thesis, when I refer to network structure, I refer option is often referred to as "policy learning" to both patterns of relationships and communication (Rose, 1993). Second, the actors that transfer policy channels. innovations will have more or less capacity to implement new ideas, and those that have greater Innovation diffusion research has long been applied capacity will be more likely to learn from external to the spread of policy ideas among cities and other policy ideas rather than imitate them (Shipan & levels of government. Early authors asserted that Volden, 2007). 'Ihird, policies may not always be certain governments are quicker to innovate than transferred in whole, but policymakers may instead others, and that decisions to adopt innovations may only transfer some component of that policy.9 Fourth, be tied to the decisions of other actors (Crain, 1966; the impetus for transfer may either be a "push" from Gray, 1973; Walker, 1969). 'Ihese foundational a host system that wishes to advertise its successful works formed the basis for a much more detailed innovation, or a "pull" from an adopting system that and refined academic discussion of the mechanisms is searching for policy solutions to its local needs of policy transfer that continues today. (Majone, 1990; Ward, 2006). Fifth, policy ideas may

Policy Transfer Broadly, policy transfer is the process whereby some 8 While some scholars (Marsh & Sharman, 2009) distinguish the study of policy transfer-belonging to knowledge about policies that are in use in one the field of international relations-from that of policy place or time are used to inform the development diffusion-associated with the study of public policy-I of policies in another place or time (Dolowitz & do not believe that the ascribed differences are relevant to this thesis and I have chosen to treat the two terms and bodies of literature as largely interchangeable. 9 Dolowitz and Marsh (2000) identify eight components 7 "Technology" in this usage could mean anything of a policy that may be transferred separately or together: from a piece of physical hardware to something entirely policy goals, content, instruments, programs, institutions, information-based and intangible. ideologies, attitudes, and negative lessons. 18 spread horizontally among peers, or vertically from to form and transfer policy. Here, I describe how higher or lower levels of a hierarchy (Dolowitz & the attributes of social networks allow for certain Marsh, 2000; Evans & Davies, 1999). The nexus of patterns of communication and empowers specific state and local government allows for a particularly actors over others. robust combination of horizontal and vertical transfer (Mintrom, 1997b). Social Network Analysis The field of social network analysis deals with Context-Dependency the implications of the arrangement of actors Policy transfer does not end with the communication within a system and their relationships with each of information from one political system to another. other. Social network analysts assert that behavior As a political system adopts a new policy, it must also is embedded in and influenced by networks of adapt it to suit the specific needs and capabilities of personal relationships (Granovetter, 1985), and that that system. networks utilize these relationships as their primary means of communicating (Powell, 1990). Policies are highly context-dependent, meaning that they are heavily situated in specific physical, Early social network research demonstrated the temporal, and institutional settings (Woodward, explanatory power of network attributes in the Ellig, & Burns, 1994) and are implemented through spread of information. Scholars showed that the interaction of local histories with external ideas networked relationships are spread asymmetrically (Berry & Berry, 1990). Policies that are formed in and that certain actors are more central to network response to the context of a given political system activity and communication than others (Milgram, may not be appropriate to other contexts without 1967), and that "weak" bridging ties that connect modification. If policies are not made suitably otherwise isolated networks hold particular consistent with new contexts, an inappropriate influence in the spread of information (Granovetter, transfer may lead to policy failure (Dolowitz & 1973). Marsh, 2000).

Often, policy concepts are reshaped-whether purposefully or inadvertently-in order to fit new Bridging Tie contexts (Cook, 2008). Also often, however, local Central Node policy actors will adjust their normal routines to accommodate the introduction of new policy ideas (Woodward et al., 1994). In either instance, the FIGURE 1 ILLUSTRATION OF RELEVANT SOCIAL NETWORK CONCEPTS details of policy ideas and the contours of local network structures must be made compatible in Social network research introduces several new units order for adopted innovations to be successful. of analysis for investigation. Crudely categorized, these are the location of a given actor (or "node") within a network, the attributes of relationships (or Social Networks and Policy "ties") between actors, and the overall shape and Production characteristics of an entire network. These units of analysis can be used in the study of policy transfer The process of adopting policy ideas from other to reveal the social processes behind the adoption areas and adapting them to suit local contexts and adaptation of policy. (or vice versa) is highly social. Because of this, many scholars adopt a view on policy transfer that is founded in social networks analysis and which considers the manner in which individual actors interact within and beyond local systems

19 Policy Networks and Policy Policy Roles and Collaborative Entrepreneurs Policymaking In policy settings, a set of actors that is concerned In some instances, innovation comes not from with an area of policy and bound together by a single actor, but instead from a distributed relational ties can be referred to as a "policy network" community of users (Hippel, 1988). Therefore, (Mintrom & Vergari, 1998). Policy networks may the impact of a range of interested actors must be be issue-specific or general, may be organized considered in the policy formation, not just that of hierarchically or informally, and may be short-term a traditional (and often governmental) central actor or long-lasting (Powell & Grodal, 2005). 'These Policy in this framework is the collaborative result networks can involve both external ties that span of interactions between actors in multiple sectors local contexts and that are useful for acquiring new and with different network locations. ideas as well as local internal ties that are useful both for information-sharing and for building support In these instances, policy actors are best considered for selected policy ideas (Mintrom &Vergari, 1998). not by the sectors that they inhabit or their place within their own organizational hierarchies, but The arrangement of actors and relational ties instead by the roles that they adopt in the production varies from network to network, which means that of policy. Laws et al. (2001) consider a defined set of different types of actors may be more central to policy roles that must be filled in the successful production networks in different areas, and thereby be more of policy, and note that actors that fill these roles influential in the formation of policy (Considine, may vary over time and across contexts.10 Lewis, &Alexander, 2009). Because of this, the same class of actor may play very different roles in the In the networked production of policy, a formation of policy in different areas, and the same government is not all-powerful but instead is one policy initiative may be driven forward in different actor among many-albeit typically one with particularly substantial resources and network contexts by actors from different sectors (Susskind, Araujo, & Kempster, 2011; Ward, 2006; Woodward centrality-that interact to form policy. Depending et al., 1994). As organizations from different sectors on the circumstance, governments may be more or may have varying strengths-for example, the less suitable to be the primary driving force behind grassroots connections and trust of a community policy innovation. Governments can contribute non-profit offers different opportunities than the to policy innovation not only by leading the formal authority of a municipal government-the implementation of new ideas, but also by making details of policy efforts may be flavored by the type themselves available to play the policy roles that of organization that drives them forward. are left unfilled by and that best complement the strengths of their non-governmental collaborators Because of their disproportionate access to resources (Susskind et al., 2011). and information through relational ties, these central actors are more capable than their peers of developing innovations (Whittington, Owen- A Networked Framework Smith, & Powell, 2009). This allows them to act as for Policy Transfer policy entrepreneurs, which drive the adoption of This thesis draws on the above discussion to new ideas and which are crucial elements in policy investigate how networked policy transfer enables formation (Mintrom, 1997a). While innovation the adoption and adaptation of policy ideas. Here, I depends on a number of social and non-social summarize the assumptions behind this perspective: factors, the presence of a strong and effective policy entrepreneur dramatically increases the ease with which policy innovation occurs (Woodward et al., 1994). 10 Laws et al. identify general policy roles: pioneer, public venture capitalist, superintendent, mediator, and steward of the common good. 20 1. Policy innovations are rarely entirely original. Instead the innovation process often relies on the adoption of ideas that have been implemented elsewhere. 2. When policy ideas are adopted into new contexts, some degree of adaptation between the specifics of the policy idea and the local context is necessary. 3. There are often many pathways for the adoption and adaptation of policy ideas, which can lead to a great deal of differentiation in the details of policy outcomes. 4. Policy adoption and adaptation are social processes, and are performed by networks of policy actors that are arranged differently in different contexts. 5. The structure of these policy networks will grant asymmetric resources and information to different actors within the network, empowering certain actors over others and providing them with differing opportunities to act as policy entrepreneurs. 6. Actors within policy networks will interact and collaborate to form policy, and different actors will take on specified roles in the production of policy. 7. The structure, composition, and attributes of policy networks are not constant, but instead vary greatly across contexts. All aspects of policy adoption and adaptation are dependent on network structure-the patterned arrangements of actors within a network and their patterns of communication with each other. Differences in network structure allow different types of actors to become central to different networks, provide the same type of actors with very different resources, and lead actors to take on different roles. This differentiation in roles and resources in turn influences the specific strengths of the policy network, the types of ideas that the network adopts and the manner in which it adopts them, and the types of modifications that the network pursues to make a policy idea suitable. While policy innovation certainly requires individual initiative and creativity, the opportunities for actors to initiate and create effective policies are guided by the distribution of resources across policy networks. 21 22 Background on Solar and Solarize

The Growth of a National years. In 2013, however, new wind energy additions fell short due to a lapse in federal tax incentives. Distributed Solar Market These trends are shown in Figure 4. Renewable energy is an emerging market in the United States. 'he amount of electricity produced Solar energy, while a small portion of the nation's from non-hydro renewable sources has grown at an overall energy portfolio, is growing. Solar energy impressive rate in recent years, but remains a very contributed 20% of total added capacity in 2013, small portion-5% in 2012-of the United States' though this was made possible by unusually low overall power supply.'Ihe domestic electricity fuel wind energy capacity additions that year. Solar is mix is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. somewhat unique among electricity sources because it lends itself well to both large utility-scale and Much of the growth in renewable energy has been small-scale distributed applications. Figure 5 shows due to the rise of large-scale wind energy, which that both solar energy market segments have grown now accounts for over half of the non-hydro in recent years. Projects under 10 KW in size, renewable energy production in the United States. which would include the sort of rooftop residential In comparison, solar energy accounts for a very installations seen in Solarize campaigns," accounted small portion of renewable energy in the country, for 868 MW of cumulative installed solar capacity accounting for 2% of renewable energy generation in 2012, nearly 20% of total added solar capacity. As in 2012 and 0.1% of all energy generation. the market has grown, prices have fallen, from over $10 per watt at the turn of the century to just over Due mainly to the growth in wind, the market $5 per watt in 2012. share of renewable energy is increasing. Since the natural gas capacity boom of the early 2000s, wind and natural gas have been the two technologies to contribute the most annual added capacity in most 11 Among the 63 Solarize campaigns nationwide for which final numbers are available, installations averaged 5.2 KW.

23 United States energy mix, all fuels annual terawatt-hour production by energy source and year ucoal agas moil snuclear ohydro . renewables 45' fin ------. --- -.------4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 data from EIA Electric Power Annual 2012 FIGURE 2 UNITED STATES ENERGY MIX BY YEAR, ALL FUELS

United States energy mix, renewable fuels annual terawatt-hour production by energy source and year owind abiomass 4geothermal asolar 250-

200-

1501-

100-

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

data from EIA Electric Power Annual 2012 FIGURE 3 UNITED STATES ENERGY MIX BY YEAR, RENEWA Over half of the United States residential solar New Jersey,12 Arizona, and Colorado-boast more market is located in California, where over 100,000 than 10,000 small solar systems, and none top solar systems under 10 KW have been installed as of 20,000. Figure 6 displays the per-capita small solar 2012.'Ihis growth can be attributed to a combination installation rate across the country. of sunny weather, the state-run California Solar Initiative's generous incentive program, and a 12 New Jersey's anomalous appearance in this list Only three other states- progressive population. alongside sun-plentiful southwest states is due to the generous incentives and net energy metering regulations that it offers to small-scale solar producers.

24 United States new generation capacity megawatts of summer capacity added by energy source and year * wind fwsolar ucoal onaturalgas mother 60,000 ------

50,000 50,000 ------

30,000

20,000- --

10,000

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 data from annual EIA Form-860 reports and EIA Electric Power Monthly, December 2013 FIGURE 4 UNITED STATES SUMMER CAPACITY ADDITIONS BY YEAR

Growth in the solar market cumulative installed solar photovoltaic capacity (megawatts) price per watt of <10 KW solar systems on utility-scale projects mdistributed projects >10KW 4wmw national price o distributed projects < 10 KW 5,000 f - $10 $9 4,000 $8 $7

3,000 [ -

2,000 -- 54 $3

1,000 --- $2 $1

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 data from Barbose et al., 2013 FIGURE 5 UNITED STATES SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION BY YEAR AND PROJECT CLASS, SHOWN WITH THE PRICE PER WATT OF SMALL SOLAR Federal Support for Local Solar Markets While much of the direct policy support for 13 Installation counts are based on data from state and distributed solar projects has come at the state utility-level incentive programs, which are not available and local levels of government, federal agencies states. Solar installations not performed as part of for all have played an important role in the market's reporting incentive programs-or as part of non-reporting programs-are not included in LBNL's data. Because of development through a series of initiatives intended this, these numbers are incomplete (Barbose, Darghouth, to lower the price of solar and build local markets. Weaver, & Wiser, 2013). 25 Small-Scale Solar /J' <10 KW solar PV installations per 1000 residents installed by 2012 by state

[ no reported data D less than 0.1 a 0.1 to 1 * 1-2 N greater than 2

data from Barbose et al. 2013 no data reported in Alaska or Hawaii FIGURE 6 UNITED STATES INSTALLED SMALL-SCALE SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BY STATE One notable federal initiative that was useful in round of Solar America Cities, and added 12 more developing solar markets across the nation-and the following year.'4 DOE deliberately selected which played a role in the development and spread a diverse group of municipalities that reflected a of the Solarize model-was the Solar America range of geographic areas, populations, and level of Cities (SAC) program established by the US solar market development. Department of Energy in 2007. While DOE had previously been active in funding solar energy We wanted a mix of cities-some with good research and development efforts, it had not dealt solar experience but that still had a lot to directly with local solar energy markets. DOE staff learn, and some that had hardly experienced recognized that certain market barriers had to be solar. With federal guidance they could learn to develop markets hand-in-hand (Kimbis addressed if these markets were to be developed, but acknowledged that the federal government could interview). only confront these barriers by coordinating with SAC provided a much-needed jump start to many municipalities (Kimbis interview). local solar energy policy efforts. From the perspective Solar America Cities provided funding and of driving local policy innovation in solar, SAC was technical assistance for municipalities to design particularly useful both because it allowed recipient and implement city-scale solutions to solar market cities to establish funded solar coordinator positions barriers. DOE used its convening power to highlight within municipal environmental or planning and communicate good ideas both among the departments with their funding and because of the selected cities and to others across the nation. While federal government's strong encouragement of peer several cities were already active in developing solar communication and idea-sharing. DOE organized markets, they did not have established channels to communicate their ideas and experiences. 14 In the regions discussed in this thesis, both Portland and Boston were included in the first round of the Solar In 2007, DOE selected 13 cities in the inaugural America Cities program, and Seattle was added in 2008. 26 annual conferences of municipal solar program large volume of customers. The genius of the model managers to share best practices, and staff at the lies in its social network effects. In most campaigns, national laboratories also helped suggest ideas that contractors offer a tiered price for installations that were working in other areas (Coughlin interview). decreases as more homeowners sign up. Because of SAC is remembered by local partners as a successful this incentive, and because campaigns are restricted program, with one Portland staffer going so far as to small geographic areas,homeowners are motivated to refer to SAC as "one of the best things DOE to enlist friends and neighbors to participate in the has ever done" in her time working on energy issues program.'Ihis leads both to more solar installations (Jacob interview). and to a lower price for the entire cohort. Solarize campaigns are time-limited and generally last from Through the Solar America Cities partnership, 3 to 6 months, which instills a sense of urgency into recipient cities used their newfound capacity a homeowner's decision-making. to experiment with solar energy programming. Milwaukee used its funding to intervene in the solar Three elements-a competitive contractor selection manufacturing supply chain, San Jose focused on led by a trusted organization, a community-led installing solar on city buildings, and Knoxville-an outreach and education campaign, and a limited- emerging market-focused on increasing general time offer-are cited by Solarize campaign managers awareness about solar power (Coughlin interview). as both the main criteria of the model and the keys to its success (Irvine, Sawyer, & Grove, 2011). Beyond Federal funding for the Solar America Cities this, however, there has been a good deal of variation initiative did not last, and the program wound down in the specifics of Solarize campaigns to date. Some in 2011. Without DOE's funding, a number of the programs work with multiple contractors to ensure municipal solar coordinator positions that had been that installers have adequate capacity to perform the created were terminated (Coughlin interview). work. Several campaigns target solar thermal or hot Since then, DOE has launched a broader effort water systems instead of solar photovoltaic panels. to impact residential solar markets through the A few have also experimented with requirements SunShot Initiative, which aims to reduce both costs that homes undergo energy efficiency upgrades and barriers in the solar market. SunShot continues before participating in the program, or offer referral DOE's work with municipal governments through payments to community non-profits as an added the Rooftop Solar Challenge and Solar Outreach social incentive to participants. Partnership (Huneycutt interview), but not with the degree of direct federal-local collaboration and The initial Solarize campaign in Southeast Portland peer communication of SAC. was organized by a neighborhood association, and subsequent campaigns elsewhere have been operated by state or municipal governments, environmental The Solarize Model non-profits, homeowner associations, and an Solar America Cities provided the infrastructure to assortment of other groups. The Solarize concept support a number of new ideas in solar energy at has also inspired a number of related community the local level, including one that had grown out of energy programs. Campaigns have been organized the neighborhood association structure in Portland, using large employers as an organizing focal point Oregon. Solarize, as it was called, is a community- rather than geographic neighborhoods, solar level bulk-purchasing program for residential solar installers have offered group discounts themselves PV systems. Through a campaign that is organized without the assistance of community organizers, by a trusted community or government organization and campaigns have targeted energy efficiency and generally operated by volunteers, Solarize improvements rather than solar installations." organizes groups of neighbors that install solar panels on their homes through a single contractor, 15 In this thesis, I consider these three program models to that offers a below-market price in exchange for a be distinct from Solarize, and I do not include them in my discussion and analysis of the spread of Solarize.

27 Solarize has been successful for a variety of reasons: installations closer together. An evaluation of Solarize campaigns in Connecticut found that two First, the model makes it easy for homeowners to thirds of the $1.20 per watt difference between participate by addressing many of the concerns Solarize prices and prevailing market prices could that they might have about solar. Solarize presents be attributed to reductions in soft costs, with the a simple choice to homeowners (whether or not remainder due to hardware discounts (CEFIA, to buy a solar panel from the selected contractor 2013). This makes solar much more financially at the offered price under the given conditions) attractive to homeowners. As shown in Figure 7, a where they might otherwise be overwhelmed by the typical participant in the first Solarize campaign in number of options they have in solar installation. Portland saved over $4,000 compared to a market- Also, Solarize contractors are carefully vetted and rate solar installation by participating in Solarize. selected by an organization that is well trusted in the target community. 'Ihe peer-to-peer nature of Solarize and Solar Markets outreach in a Solarize campaign reinforces the trust that homeowners have in the process, and makes The first Solarize campaign was conducted in them more likely to follow the leads of their friends Portland, Oregon in 2009. 'The campaign was and neighbors. successful, and the model began to spread both regionally and nationally. The Solar America Second, the campaign environment-and the City peer-sharing network provided a forum to pressure of a defined deadline-creates a degree highlight the success that Portland was having with of excitement in a Solarize program. Many Solarize. Also, in 2011 the US National Renewable homeowners feel that, by participating, they are Energy Laboratory commissioned the Seattle- doing something good in their community and area non-profit Northwest SEED to develop the are working together to address environmental Solarize Guidebook for communities interested in problems. starting their own campaign. Solarize has also been the subject of numerous case studies, and staff at Third, the campaign structure reduces many of the the Energy Trust of Oregon were recognized for "soft costs" involved in solar installation, allowing their efforts with the 2010 State Leadership in installers to offer a below-market price. Customer Clean Energy award from the Clean Energy States lead generation-a time-consuming process for Alliance. Partially due to this sort of publicity, the solar installers-is almost entirely outsourced to Solarize model has become widely known within volunteers in the community and to governmental energy circles. or nonprofit program administration partners. The installer's labor costs are also reduced by 'Ihe emergence of Solarize has coincided with-and interacting with interested participants en masse contributed to-the national growth in residential rather than individually, and by scheduling more solar installations, and has helped to create more

Financial Savings of Solarize adap ted from Rubado, 2010 compared to summer 2009 market-rate solar installation in Portland, Oregon Solarize Southeast Market Rate Price per Watt actual local prices, summer 2009 $6.80 $8.95 System Size (W) average, Solarize Southeast 2,692 2,692 Non-Subsidized System Cost $18,308 $24,096 Energy Trust of Oregon Incentive $2.25/W -$6,058 -$6,058 State Tax Credit $3/W up to $6,000 -$6,000 -$6,000 Federal Tax Credit 30% of cost after ETO incentives -$3,675 -$5,412 Final Price $2,575 $6,627 Solarize Cost Savings $4,052

FIGURE 7 PRICE ADVANTAGE OF SOLARIZE INSTALLATIONS OVER PREVAILING MARKET RATES

28 Oregon Nationwide annual solar installations, systems under 10 KW annual solar installations, system s under 10 KW 1,400 50,0000 45,0000 1,200 40,0000 1,000 35,0000

800 30,0000 First Oregon Solarize campaign 25,0000 'June 2009 600 20,0000

400 15,0000 10,0000 200 5,0000

0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 data from Barbose et al., 2013

FIGURE 8 GROWTH OF SMALL-SCALE SOLAR INSTALLATION RATE IN OREGON COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL INSTALLATION RATE

Massachusetts Nationwide annual solar installations, systems under 10 KW annual solar installations, systems under 10 KW 3,000 1 50,0000 45,0000 2,500 40,0000 First Massachusetts Solarize campaign July 2011 35,0000 2,000 30,0000 1,500 25,0000 20,0000 1,000 15,0000 10,0000 500 5,0000 0 0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 data from Barbose et al., 2013

FIGURE 9 GROWTH OF SMALL-SCALE SOLAR INSTALLATION RATE IN MASSACHUSETTS COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL INSTALLATION RATE durable solar markets at the state and local levels. installation of small (<10 KW) solar systems sharply In both Oregon and Massachusetts, where the use increased after the introduction of the Solarize of Solarize has been particularly widespread, the model. In Oregon, where the momentum for introduction of Solarize coincided with a distinct Solarize has largely died down, the solar installation uptick in the rate of residential solar installations rate has plateaued and even declined slightly from compared to nationwide trends, shown in Figures its Solarize-driven peak in 2010. 8 and 9. In both states, the rate of growth in the

29 Solar in Portland annual residential installations * Solarize a non-Solarize 600

500

400

300

200

100

0 - - - - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 adapted from Irvine et al., 2012

FIGURE 10 RESIDENTIAL SOLAR INSTALLATIONS IN PORTLAND, OREGON BY YEAR AND BY INCLUSION IN SOLARIZE CAMPAIGNS Solarize campaigns help to lay the foundation for production served only 0.004% of the 48,280 strong and durable solar markets. In Portland, for GWh consumed statewide in Oregon in 2012.17 example, while Solarize dramatically and directly While local markets for distributed solar energy increased the rate of solar installations in the city, the are growing nationwide-and while Solarize has rate of non-Solarize installations also increased as contributed to that growth-they are still dwarfed the model spread throughout the city.This is shown by the massive scale of the electric power industry. in Figure 10. Portland's solar program managers Interviewees with experience in solar markets credited Solarize with exerting competitive pressure nationwide speculated that Solarize is most useful to lower overall market prices, increasing the as a policy tool in emerging markets, where even number and capacity of local solar contractors, and had not yet installed rooftop solar "normalizing" the idea of residential solar in the city early adopters Armstrong interviews). Solarize (Jacob interview). Others credited Solarize with (Denver and residents that have already helping to develop the local solar market from a has strong appeal to installations, have not acted due to niche collection of specialized contractors to a more considered solar or time, and need only a social mainstreamed industry (Cohen interview). lack of information nudge and a special price to be persuaded. For While Solarize has helped to increase residential residents with higher barriers to participation- solar installation rates and lend visibility to clean such as renters or homeowners that aren't able to energy efforts, its direct contribution to changing shoulder burdensome upfront costs-Solarize alone the electric power supply mix is barely noticeable. may not be appealing enough to persuade them to In Portland, 669 homeowners installed 1,912 decide to install solar. KW of solar energy capacity through the Solarize As evidenced by the plateau in the annual rate of campaigns for which numbers are available, which residential solar installations in Oregon, additional corresponds to an annual production of roughly solar program models may be needed to continue 1,950 M1Wh. 16 In context, however, this power

16 This assumes a local solar energy capacity factor of 17 US Energy Information Administration Form 861 11.66%, sourced from the NREL's online PVWatts tool. Database, 2012. 30 to drive Solarize forward beyond the early adopter models - are in the Pacific Northwest and in New market segment. In the areas where I conducted my England. interviews, policy actors that had used Solarize to rapidly increase the rate of local solar installations While the basic components of Solarize are the had begun to think about what a successor model same in both regions, each has developed a unique might look like. Elsewhere, actors in areas like way of structuring and implementing the model. In California with more mature solar markets had the case studies in the next two sections, I provide an opted to bypass Solarize entirely in favor of in-depth discussion of the development and spread of Solarize in each region. Ihis discussion focuses alternative models. GroupEnergy, for example, offers a similar group purchasing model that is on the roles that different actors within the Solarize organized as an employee benefit program of large policy network have played in spreading the model, employers, and is another means of encouraging and is informed by the theoretical discussion of solar installations in areas where early adopters networked policy transfer presented above. have already been reached (Denver and Armstrong interviews). Solarize, then, may be envisioned as one in a series of useful policy tools in the development of local markets, and as particularly useful in the early stages of solar market development.

Extent of Solarize Through a combination of interviews and a thorough search of online materials, I have identified 168 Solarize campaigns that have been coordinated by 59 different organizations in 17 states since 2009. These are listed in Appendix B. 8

Figure 11 charts the growth of the Solarize model over time. Each year, the number of campaigns initiated has grown. While Solarize has spread to areas across the nation, much of the activity is concentrated in four states: Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Nearly three- quarters of all Solarize campaigns have occurred in these four states.

This is reinforced by the spatial distribution of Solarize campaigns across the country, which is shown in Figure 12. While Solarize campaigns are scattered across the nation, the highest concentration of campaigns - and the deepest penetration of the

18 Compiling an absolute list of Solarize campaigns is an imperfect process as no single organization has knowledge of all campaigns and many campaigns have minimal online presence. Though I made every effort to create an exhaustive list of Solarize campaigns, it is possible that my list is incomplete. I have purposefully excluded programs that are related to Solarize but that do not meet the criteria discussed above. 31 Solarize America campaigns established by year

2013 70 -Oregon x Massachuselts aOther continued growth UWashington * Connecticut in New Enqland 60 2014 50 2012 (though march) full Massachusetts stong growth program, spread 40 2011 to Connecticut spread to Washington, 30 pilot in

20 2010 spread through Portland and 10 2009 first campaign in southeast Portland 0

FIGURE 11 SOLARIZE CAMPAIGNS INITIATED BY YEAR AND SELECTED STATE, ANNOTATED

Solarize America spatial distribution of campaigns nationwide

S Solarize campaign

no campaigns in Alaska or Hawaii

FIGURE 12 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOLARIZE CAMPAIGNS IN THE UNITED STATES

32 The Pacific Northwest: Where the Grassroots are Greener

A Prepared Policy Network that blanket the city and provide input on various municipal initiatives through Portland's Office In many ways, Portland was a natural place for of Neighborhood Involvement. Neighborhood the Solarize model to emerge.'The city possessed a associations demonstrated their muscle early, as strong history of neighborhood-level involvement several associations in Southeast Portland organized in policymaking, an existing collaboration between to successfully halt the construction of the proposed governments and civic organizations to promote Mount Hood Freeway-which would have torn residential solar energy, and the finding and support through several existing neighborhoods-in 1974 of the federal government in the development (Abbott, 2008). of local solar policy. These preexisting roles and connections provided fertile ground for an idea like Portland's neighborhood associations quickly Solarize to develop, succeed, and grow. self-organized into seven different neighborhood coalitions, which represent the different areas of Neighborhood-Based Planning the city and act as resources for their constituent associations. Neighborhood coalitions are almost Portland's unique neighborhood structure has entirely funded by the City of Portland. While played a strong role in planning decisions in the small, these coalitions provide permanent staff city's history, and provides valuable resources for and modest programming capacity to support citizen initiatives. Guided by state legislation" community initiatives, and provide a direct that requires municipalities to develop land use connection between residents and the City of plans with formal citizen input, in the 1970s the City of Portland developed and came to rely on a formal structure of 95 neighborhood associations 20 The Executive Director of the Southeast Uplift neighborhood coalition commented to me, "there is a 19 Oregon Senate Bill 10 in 1969 and Senate Bill 100 in long-standing joke in the city that they fund us so that we 1972. can sue them" (Dufay interview). 33 Secluded In the upper left corner of the mainland United States, much of the Pacific Northwest is as environmentally pristine today as It was when Lewis and Clark first navigated the Columbia River to the western shore. In addition to coffee, microbrews, and counterculture, the states' major population centers of Portland and Seattle are known for their progressive politics and rich civic fabrics. In contrast, the majority of the states'land area Is rural and more politically and culturally conservative.

Seattle area The first Solarize campaign was conducted in Southeast Portland in the summer of 2009 as an initiative of a local neighborhood association, and wildly surpassed expectations. Because of its success, the idea quickly spread throughout the city of Portland, the state of Oregon, and north to Washington. As of spring 2014, 35 campaigns have been planned In the two states, 12 of which are neighborhood efforts in either Portland or Seattle. In the 24 campaigns with available evaluations, 1,607 homeowners installed a total of 5,256 KW of solar capacity. Partially as a result of Solarize, the annual rate of small-scale solar installations in Oregon has increased from under 300 In 2008 to over 1000 in 2012. Solarize also contributed to lowering prices for on m residential solar in Portland. Before Solarize, solar Seattle campaign prices were 10-20% higher in Portland than In the rest of the state. The first Solarize campaign offered a U other Washington campaign price of $6.80 per wat, 24% lower than prevailing dspread local market price. Partially because of this, local sprea of Solarize Portland area non-Solarize installation prices fell to equal those in in Oregon and Washington the rest of the state.

campaigns by year price per watt of residential solar 15 $12

10 $8 $64- - $4I

0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 01 02 Q3 Q4 Q1 02 Q3 Q4 Q1 (through March) 2008 2009 2010 First Portland campaign, Continued spread in Rate of expansion slows, - Portland (excludingSolarize) OInitial Solarize Portland Campaign NW SEED some new campaigns in spread throughout city Oregon, Oregon (excluding Portland) Adapted from Rubado (2010) and beyond in Oregon brings campaigns to Seattleand rural Oregon Seattle and greater Washington key actors Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Portland Neighborhood Associations & Coalitions As a division of the City of Portland, BPS provided Portland's unique neighborhood-level organizations crucial organizing and leadership capacity to the offered considerable resources for grassroots efforts spread of the Solarize model locally, regionally, and and coordinated Solarize campaigns within the city. nationally. NW Sustainable Energy for Economic Development Energy Trust of Oregon A Seattle non-profit, NW SEED brought Solarize to A state-chartered but independent non-profit Washington and organized campaigns in the state. charged with transforming energy markets, ETO provided much of the initial technical knowledge Seattle City Light and Snohomoish County PUD and intellectual thought behind the Solarize model. A pair of Washington public electric utilities, SCL and SnoPUD funded Solarize campaigns in Washington. Solar Oregon A statewide non-profit advocacy group based in Sustainable Communities All Over Puget Sound Portland, Solar Oregon's grassroots connections The loosely organized grassroots SCALLOPS network throughout the state provided ready avenues for the provided much of the necessary volunteer muscle in spread of Solarize. Seattle-area Solarize campaigns.

FIGURE 13 PACIFIC NORTHWEST SOLARIZE OVERVIEW

34 Portland. As the neighborhood associations Rubado interviews). In response, in 2006 the four themselves are small and entirely volunteer-run, organizations banded together to provide a unified coalition resources are vital to support citizens in approach to solar education and outreach, called planning decisions. David Sweet, an active citizen Solar Now! While workshops were well attended, who was involved in Solarize and several other the rate of solar installations did not increase in recent local sustainability initiatives, describes the response. The organizations'formal collaboration in impact of Portland's neighborhood structure: Solar Now! has since ended, though Solar Oregon has continued to offer solar outreach and education [Becoming involved with the coalition]seemed throughout the state as Solar Now! University, to me, as an activist, a good way to amplify through which it has built a network of local solar my voice because the City of Portland is set advocates and partners. up to listen to neighborhood associations and neighborhood coalitions. When the For the purposes of the spread of Solarize, the actual neighborhood says, "we want this, we don't programming that the four groups offered through want that",people listen to them. And when Solar Now! was less impactful than the relationships the coalition says it, it's an even bigger voice that they built. Many of the individuals that were (Sweet interview). most important in the establishment and spread of Solarize first worked together on Solar Now! These The Solarize model emerged out of this existing relationships provided a basis for their neighborhood structure. The first campaign was further collaboration on Solarize. developed and coordinated by Southeast Uplift, the neighborhood coalition initially formed to oppose Portland: A Solar America City the Mount Hood Freeway. Associations provided much of the volunteer labor that made the first Portland's Bureau of Planning and Sustainability campaign a success, and coalitions and associations was one of the recipients of funding in the first across the city quickly took note of the idea and round of Solar America Cities in 2007. The city used made it their own. its funding in part to pursue the creation of Solar Now! After the idea for Solarize emerged, BPS Solar Now! received follow-up funding from SAC specifically to promote the Solarize model. Portland's SAC Before Solarize, several governmental and non- funding allowed BPS to hire a dedicated solar governmental organizations were already working coordinator and gave the bureau the resources to expand the residential solar market in Portland necessary to spread the Solarize model. and throughout Oregon. The City of Portland's Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), the institutional non-profit Energy Trust of Oregon The Spread of Solarize (ETO), and the non-profit advocacy group Solar Oregon each offered separate education and Ground Zero: Solarize in Southeast outreach campaigns for residential solar. The Portland Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) was also The first Solarize campaign was formed through a involved with solar in its role overseeing state tax collaborative effort between a concerned and active incentives for renewable energy. homeowner, a young neighborhood organizer, and a knowledgeable solar energy program manager. These four organizations-BPS, ETO, Solar Oregon, and ODOE-each developed their Stephanie Stewart-a homeowner in the Mount own approach to encouraging residential solar Tabor neighborhood in Southeast Portland-had installations. However, residents found this fallen into a volunteer position as the Mount Tabor decentralized and uncoordinated approach to Neighborhood Association's Land Use Chair based market transformation confusing (S. Stewart and on her involvement in a dispute over a proposed

35 subdivided lot in her neighborhood. To learn more to work through these barriers one by one-for about her newfound role, Stewart began to attend example by participating in Solar Now! to offer meetings of the various neighborhood associations a more cohesive marketing approach-but were in Southeast Portland, which were organized by in search of a comprehensive solution that would Southeast Uplift (SEU), the neighborhood coalition address multiple barriers at once. that served the area. In 2009, she met Tim O'Neal, an AmeriCorps fellow working as a sustainability ETO staff had considered implementing some sort coordinator at SEU. of "Costco-style" purchasing program, and Rubado felt that of a grassroots-based approach would have Through Southeast Uplift, O'Neal had previously a good chance of success in Portland. ETO was also coordinated several small community projects with aware of 1BOG's solar campaigns, but had similarly a sustainability focus, such as organizing a tool had difficulty attracting the organization to Oregon. library for local residents. In his search for new ideas But while staff saw the benefit of the 1BOG to bring to the community, he had heard of a solar model, ETO was not well equipped to recreate campaign model offered by One Block Off the Grid the idea itself, having neither the experience, the (1BOG), a San Francisco organization that works organizational mandate, nor the necessary staff time with communities in various cities to coordinate for direct organizing. So despite researching ways group purchases of solar panels. At one meeting of to break open Portland's residential solar market, local neighborhood associations, O'Neal proposed ETO had not had an opportunity to act on their the idea of bringing 1BOG to Portland. work.

Stewart was interested. She had been interested in "'Then," Rubado says, "Tim called." O'Neal and installing solar on her home but was intimidated by Stewart were interested in creating a group solar the amount of research required on the part of the purchasing campaign similar to 1BOG's, and the homeowner, and hoped that by working through an Energy Trust was the logical place to turn to for organized campaign, she would have the benefit of technical assistance due to its previous support for working with people that understood the process residential solar. Looking back at the first meeting well. The pair reached out to 1BOG to ask about between the three, Stewart recalls being surprised bringing group solar purchases to Portland, but did at just how well Rubado understood the problems not receive a response. Undeterred, they thought she had as a homeowner, and how a local solar about how they could recreate the model themselves. campaign might address them.

On the other side of town, Lizzie Rubado was And then we got to Lizzie, of course, and she also thinking about how to improve the residential was just like this powder keg. She'djust been solar market in Oregon. As the Senior Solar waiting for somebody like us to come knock Project Manager for the Energy Trust of Oregon, on her door, which I think is a little strange.I Rubado hoped to boost participation in ETO's mean, it was sofantastic to have her,but at the solar programs. ETO had offered incentives for same time I don't know why she had to wait. solar installations for several years, but wanted to It seemed like she had it all mapped out. This encourage deeper changes in the solar market. had been going on in her headforyears,and it ETO had commissioned studies of the barriers seemed like her hands had been tied. Somehow to residential solar in Oregon, and found many. her directive was you have to do things only "at Homeowners, like Stewart, were hesitant to invest the bidding of"(S. Stewart Interview). in a technology they knew little about, needed Together, the three sketched out what would be the assistance selecting contractors they could trust, and were confused by an overload of information defining parameters of the program: a time-limited from multiple organizations that offered slightly campaign restricted to a small geographic area, a different versions of the same message. Rubado single contractor vetted by ETO and selected jointly and her colleagues at the Energy Trust had begun with Southeast Uplift, and the use of grassroots

36 social networks to spread the word throughout the potential participants. As an interested homeowner neighborhood. 'They also gave this idea a name: herself, Stewart organized the campaign's website Solarize. with the information that she felt residents needed, but took a backseat in the actual operation of the Relying on Rubado's experience with solar program. Imagine Energy worked closely with contractors, the group developed a Request for O'Neal to manage recruitment and installations. Proposals for installers, which O'Neal issued through Southeast Uplift. 'The selected contractor 'The group relied of the neighborhood association would coordinate with Southeast Uplift to conduct structure to spread the word about Solarize. In a local campaign, and would perform all of the Stewart's eyes, the existing network that was resulting installations. One respondent was Imagine available through the Mount Tabor Neighborhood Energy, a small local firm owned by Jonathan Association was crucial, as it provided a trusted Cohen. Imagine's proposal included many of the name to put behind the program and a list of details of what would eventually become the first interested homeowners to start with as a potential Solarize campaign, such as its tiered and volume- customer pool. based pricing schedule. [The neighborhood association is] just like a No one had done volume pricing at thatpoint, layeroffiber across the community that's a little so there was no guidanceas to what it should be bit bigger than what a homeowner's association or how it should be structured,how you would fiber would be. Even though not everyone is handle hundreds of customers of leads, how you aware that thatfiber falls over them, you can would handle the education and outreach, how sometimes pierce into new people more quickly you would kind of assembly-line go through that way (S. Stewart Interview). the installations. So in one long work session at night I tackled all those issues andformed 'The campaign was more successful than originally the blueprintofhow we would deal with all of anticipated. While the group had initially hoped to that ... We didn't know what kind of volume geta few dozen installations,the campaign ultimately price on solar modules we couldgetat the time. resulted in 130 solar projects in Southeast Portland, Volume pricing was not something at a lot of totaling 350 KW in capacity. In comparison, only people did because people just weren't doing a 38 residential solar projects had been installed in all lot ofvolume (Cohen Interview). of Portland in 2008 (Rubado, 2010).

Imagine Energy did not offer the lowest cost bid 'These installations were also considerably more among responding contractors but O'Neal and affordable than what had been seen in Portland to Stewart were insistent that a local installer would date. In 2009, the market price for residential solar be better received by the community. Imagine was was $8.95/watt in Portland. High participation awarded the contract.2 ' in Solarize pushed the price down to $6.80/watt, the lowest possible in the tiered pricing schedule Solarize Southeast Portland kicked off in June (Rubado, 2010). Crucially, Imagine Energy was able 2009. O'Neal was the campaign's primary manager, to make a profit even at this reduced price due to coordinating the efforts ofvolunteers from Southeast the reduction in soft costs and high volume of sales Uplift's neighborhood associations and handling (Cohen interview). individual responses. The Energy Trust played the of project installations role of a technical advisor, offering information Besides its success in terms and finances, the organizers of and participants about solar installations at workshops offered to in the first campaign saw a social benefit to the program as well. Solarize lent a sense of community 21 In fact, the lowest-cost bid did not win any of the empowerment to these residents, a feeling that Solarize contracts in Portland. Instead, each community chose to select a contractor based on other criteria, such as many interviewees expressed to me over the course local ownership, minority hiring, or staff capacity. of this study. 37 [Solarize is] a really empowering thing to do. Solarize Northeast, in January 2010, just months It takes quite a lot of organization, butpeople after the close of the campaign in Southeast can do this. It's a thing that people can do. Portland. In this campaign, BPS took on much of It's not like other programs like a recycling the role that ETO had played in the first campaign, program or an energy conservation program helping the coalitions to select a contractor and where individuals have to do it on their own. define the parameters of a program, and supporting It's really a community thing, and I think the them in their outreach and education efforts. community aspect is really powerful (O'Neal Solarize Northeast selected SolarCity-a national interview). solar installer-as their contractor of choice, impressed by the firm's commitment to hire from Scaling to the City and Municipal Northeast Portland's large community of color Involvement and confident in its ability to handle the scale of a Solarize campaign. Solarize Northeast repeated the The city's energy community watched the Solarize success of the first campaign by installing 204 solar experiment in Southeast Portland with great projects totaling 549 KW, the largest of Portland's interest, and many were eager to quickly replicate campaigns. the campaign's success. The most significant of these onlookers were the City of Portland's Bureau of 'he next neighborhood coalition to raise its hand Planning and Sustainability, and Southeast Uplift's was Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc. (SWNI), peer neighborhood coalitions across the city. representing the lower-density and higher- income areas to the south of Portland's downtown As residents across Portland began to express commercial district. A group of local citizens interest in additional Solarize campaigns, it including Ron "Mac" McDowell, then the Board became apparent that the model would be repeated President of Solar Oregon, had long looked to bring and ETO suggested that BPS take on its role as solar to Southwest Portland by coordinating solar technical advisor. While ETO was well suited to installations on high schools and other community identifying and supporting new ideas in energy, assets. With BPS's assistance, McDowell and it had neither the staff time nor the funding to others in Southwest Portland developed the city's support a mature program. BPS, however, had third Solarize just received its Solar America Cities funding and program and selected Mr. Sun Solar, another local contractor, as the installer. had a dedicated staff that could coordinate solar initiatives in the city. Over the next three years, 'There would ultimately be six Solarize efforts in BPS would work with neighborhood coalitions to Portland, with campaigns repeated in Southeast and implement Solarize campaigns in every quadrant of Northeast Portland and one more offered jointly by the city. In doing so, BPS would walk a fine line by the Neighbors West/Northwest and North Portland offering resources and coordination to "community- Neighborhood Services coalitions, rounding out the driven, city-supported" campaigns. BPS strove to spread of Solarize to all of the city's quadrants. Ihe provide just enough support to ensure the success of last Solarize Portland campaign was concluded in Solarize campaigns without seeming to residents as 2012. though the city was controlling the initiative (Jacob interview). As the program expanded, its management grew conceptually from the neighborhood level to the The first of the other neighborhood coalitions city level. With BPS's participation and funding, the to express interest in Solarize was the Northeast campaigns were branded as a product of Solarize Coalition of Neighborhoods (NECN), where a Portland, and city staff worked actively to spread group of active citizens brought Solarize Southeast the model throughout the city. City leadership was to the attention of NECN's board and proposed generally perceived as a positive as, in the words of replicating it in Northeast Portland. NECN Southeast Uplift Executive Director Anne Dufay, launched the city's second Solarize campaign, the program "was all grown up and moved away from

38 home" (Dufay interview). Municipal involvement non-profits hoping to establish solar programs, did come with some detractors though, with one which often involved a Solarize campaign." local solar contractor using a charity auction to publish a front-page story in a local newspaper At the same time that BPS was offering statewide that lambasted the city for playing favorites in the funding to establish new solar programs, Solar Oregon was marshaling its extensive state-wide solar installation market (Mirk, 2011).22 Some, like Stephanie Stewart, also worried that the city's network to spread the word about Solarize. support would be short-lived and dependent upon Solar Oregon organized a series of workshops available funding and political support (S. Stewart and worked directly with members and affiliates interview).23 statewide to understand the benefits of Solarize campaigns. Supported by funding from BPS In all, Portland's Solarize campaigns would install and the networking work of Solar Oregon, local over 1,900 KW of solar energy on nearly 700 governments and organizations coordinated a series homes, wildly surpassing the city's previous rate of of Solarize campaigns. In some areas, like Eugene, solar installations. Solarize Portland has had lasting local partners learned of Solarize independently and impacts both on the local solar market in Portland, self-organized to initiate campaigns without any and in the ways that communities regionally and formal support from either BPS or Solar Oregon nationwide approach residential solar programming. (McDowell interview).

Since2010,19 Solarizecampaignshavebeeninitiated State-Wide Growth in Oregon in Oregon outside of Portland. The communities As the Solarize model was adopted by neighborhood that hosted these campaigns varied strongly in coalitions throughout Portland, BPS and Solar terms of location-from leafy Portland suburbs to Oregon were also working to spread the program to the rural Union county-and in size-from the the rest of the state. state's second largest city of Eugene (population 156,000) to the Columbia River Gorge community BPS's application for the second round of Solar of Corbett (population 3100). Many different types America Cities finding included a rather curious of organizations led the development of Solarize provision. In addition to using grant funds to campaigns in the state. Several local governments- support its programs-including Solarize-within like Pendleton, Beaverton, and Hillsboro-took the city of Portland, BPS proposed to also re-grant on Solarize as a municipal initiative. Elsewhere, a these funds to other communities and organizations hodgepodge of civic organizations-like Eugene's throughout Oregon for the purpose of solar market Resource Innovation Group, the Southern Oregon transformation. Ihis move was slightly controversial Clean Energy Alliance, and Oregon Rural in Portland, as it invited questions about whether Action-organized campaigns from outside the the city government should be focusing its energies governmental sphere. on programs outside of city limits, but BPS saw an opportunity to use federal funding to encourage Moreover, the specific parameters of the Solarize solar throughout the state. BPS received a number programs that have been adopted throughout the of applications from Oregon city governments and state have varied. 'Ihe Salem Creative Network's campaign offered customers discounted rates 22 Several interviewees were quick to note that this for locally-produced solar modules, the town of installer later came around as a supporter of Solarize Pendleton used an existing municipal fund to offer because of the tremendous growth that Portland's solar market experienced as a result. zero-interest financing to participants, Clackamas 23 For this reason, Stewart retained ownership of the Solarize trademark and website to ensure that they would 25 The second iteration of the So/maire Guidebook (Irvine, always be available for interested community organizations Sawyer, & Grove, 2012) suggests that communities budget to use. $4,350 for material costs in a Solarize campaign. Portland's 24 This count excludes the Solarize North-Northeast sub-grants to Oregon communities were generally around campaign, for which results could not be obtained. $2,000.

39 offered customers a financed solar leasing option [Solarize Washington] came about as a in addition to outright purchasing solar panels, program that was working really well in its Eugene worked with five different solar contractors, first iteration down in Portland, and there and the Central Oregon Environmental Center was a willing intern-me--who was looking organized a rural campaign that stretched over for a project to do for my undergradsenior three counties (Irvine et al., 2011; Rahr, 2012). thesis. And we kind of decided to run with it However, the general principles established because I was there and able to devote time to by Solarize Portland-competitive contractor it, and see what we could do to bring it up to selection, community-led outreach and education, Seattle (Sawyer interview). and a limited-time offer-were put into place in out by Solarize each campaign. Following the blueprint laid Portland, NW SEED looked to partner with 'Ihese Solarize efforts had no central authority local neighborhood groups to conduct Solarize or formal relationship to each other. 'Ihey are campaigns. Without the formal neighborhood instead a loosely coordinated set of governmental association structure of Portland, NW SEED turned and nongovernmental organizations working to instead to the Sustainable Communities All Over adopt a good idea in their local communities. Puget Sound (SCALLOPS) network, an umbrella Only a portion of these communities received organization for a very loosely structured set of local SAC funding from BPS to conduct solar market sustainability groups in the Seattle area. NW SEED transformation, and not all communicated directly inquired among the SCALLOPS network for with Solar Oregon before initiating a campaign. interest in operating a campaign, and the first group But the actions of BPS and Solar Oregon breathed to respond was Sustainable Queen Anne, located life into the statewide solar market, and created a in a neighborhood just north of downtown Seattle. culture of experimentation among solar advocates After a period of inaction, Sustainable Queen throughout Oregon.'Ihrough the City of Portland's Anne was reorganizing under new leadership, formal and financial support and Solar Oregon's and was looking for a suitable project to take on informal and relational support, Solarize grew from (Trim interview). Sustainable Queen Anne and a city phenomenon to a state one. NW SEED worked together to begin Seattle's first Solarize campaign in April 2011, which eventually Replicating the Model in Washington resulted in 30 residential solar installations. As BPS and Solar Oregon were working to spread After this initial campaign, NW SEED looked Solarize throughout the state, the model also spread to spread the model throughout the Seattle area, across the border to Washington. Northwest SEED, using SCALLOPS organizations as the primary a Seattle-based non-profit, brought the Solarize local partners. While SCALLOPS did not have concept north and established a series of campaigns the strong inter-organizational relationships of in the Puget Sound area and beyond. Portland's Neighborhood Associations, the groups offered an existing grassroots infrastructure of In the summer of 2010, BPS held a Solarize Summit motivated and engaged volunteers that was critical Portland to share the success that the city was in to the implementation of Solarize campaigns in the having with Solarize to the broader regional energy state. community. The attendees included staff from the Seattle non-profit Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (NW SEED), which 26 NW SEED initially hoped to partner with and receive saw the potential in the Solarize model and thought funding from the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, a similar organization in principle to Portland's Office of it could replicate its success in Seattle. In the words Neighborhood Involvement albeit with a less formal and of Alex Sawyer, NW SEED's project manager for direct model of neighborhood engagement. However, Solarize: NW SEED's application for funding was denied and the relationship never materialized. NW SEED instead turned to alternative strategies.

40 To spread the Solarize model in Washington, has been with rotary clubs and other groups where NW SEED needed to secure funding to cover its the sustainability mission is not as clear. In other costs. A pair of Puget Sound-area public utilities- areas, NW SEED was able to attract interest, but Snohomish Public Utility District (SnoPUD) and there was no mechanism to find their campaign Seattle City Light (SCL)-provided the solution activities as public utilities in the Seattle area had. by agreeing to fund NW SEED's campaigns in their service area. SnoPUD sponsored Solarize [In these Solarize Utrainings,]wefound that we had all the rightpeople in the room, they campaigns in Stanwood/Camano and Mukilteo, and SCL has worked with NW SEED on three of were all really interested,but they still needed the six neighborhood-level campaigns in Seattle. somebody to run it. It wasn't enough to have Staff at Seattle City Light reported being aware of the city people and the likely volunteers in the room because they still didn'tfeel like they had the success that Portland was having with Solarize, but that they did not have the resources to offer it enough resources to do it. And they said, "Well themselves. When NW SEED brought the model how much does it costfor Northwest SEED to to Seattle, SCL saw how a partnership could provide come andhelp us administerthis?"And the cost value for their customers (Brautigam interview). was essentially too much at that timefor them (Sawyer interview). For NW SEED, this funding support was crucial. Solarize is not by default a money-raising operation To date, there have been nine Solarize campaigns in for campaign managers, and-unlike in Oregon- Washington. Seven have been directly coordinated SAC funding and municipal staff support were not by NW SEED in the Seattle area-resulting in 471 available to use for campaigns in Washington. As solar installations totaling 2,179 KW of capacity- a non-profit organization, NW SEED needed to and there are plans for an eighth in 2014. secure a funding plan to pay for its activities, and utility partnerships gave them the support they needed to continue their work and spread the The Future of Solarize and program throughout the Seattle area. By funding Solar Energy in the Pacific Solarize, SnoPUD and SCL were able to augment Northwest their existing customer engagement programs and Currently, Solarize is at a crossroads in the Pacific offer an additional benefit to customers that-as Northwest. While there are still a few campaigns public utilities-fell within their organizational in progress or under development in rural southern values and policy goals (Brautigam interview). Oregon and in Seattle, the model's rate of growth NW SEED also worked to encourage groups outside has slowed. For the most part, the network of actors of the Seattle area to take on the program, offering and organizations that gave birth to and spread trainings and workshops around the state through a Solarize have pauses to reassess. program based on Oregon's Solar Now! and branded Ihere are several contributing factors to this as Solarize U. While these trainings resulted in two slowdown. First, the funding that BPS offered to additional campaigns outside the Seattle area- market transformation efforts statewide ended one in 'Ihurston County and one in the Tri-Cities along with the federal Solar America Cities area in southeast Washington-NW SEED found program. Second, Solarize has swept through it difficult to encourage the widespread adoption many of the major population centers in Oregon of Solarize in Washington as had happened in and Washington and may have simply run out of Oregon. NW SEED's local connections do not room to grow. By virtue of its success, the Solarize run as deep in broader Washington as they do in model may have exhausted the early-adopter Seattle, and there is frequently no go-to grassroots market segment that it targets so well, and many environmental organization-like the local interviewees felt that Solarize had simply run its SCALLOPS chapters-in much of the state. In course. Third, the cadre of volunteers, government these areas, much of NW SEED's communication 41 officials, and solar advocates that made Solarize But several interviewees felt that the days of Solarize a reality has been exhausted in a different sense. may not truly be over in the Pacific Northwest, and Nearly every interviewee I spoke with mentioned a new collaboration between NW SEED and Solar the incredible demands that are placed on solar Oregon may yet continue the regional spread of the program coordinators and volunteer teams in model. Working with the Washington Department conducting a campaign, and many commented that of Commerce, the two have recently received a new it was a relief to see campaigns come to a close.'Ihe grant from the US Department of Energy for solar second iteration of the Solarize Guidebook (Irvine et market transformation and have committed to al., 2012) recommends that communities budget deploying new market transformation strategies in 1,000 hours of labor to conduct a campaign, split nine communities in Oregon and Washington. At nearly evenly between the project organizer and the time of my interviews, the groups were unsure a team of volunteers. It would be difficult to ask whether this would involve the creation of new that this level of exertion be maintained on a more Solarize campaigns, or if it would be used as an permanent basis. opportunity to try new approaches.

Out of this pause in Solarize's expansion, the actors No matter what the next steps for solar in the in the solar policy network in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest are, the market is stronger today have begun to think about how to make use of the than it was a half-decade ago when a homeowner, expanded solar market that Solarize has helped to a neighborhood organizer, and a solar program forge. In Portland, BPS has shifted its attention to manager met to sketch out the basics of a new the Community Solar model, in which a group of approach to residential solar. In this new context, residents that are unable to install solar on their the network of policymakers that collaborated to own roofs buy shares in a larger project located at make Solarize a success in the region now looks to a local school or other community asset. In Seattle, develop a new set of tools that will take advantage NW SEED is considering adapting the Solarize of these gains and continue to work towards a sunny concept to target ductless heat pumps in a potential future in rainy Cascadia. program they call Heatwise. They and SCL have also begun to discuss what might come next in Seattle's solar market, with both commenting that following the sixth and final upcoming Solarize campaign in Seattle they would like to reassess the needs of residents and local solar contractors.

We need to move on and come up with something that's going to take us through the next couple ofyears. It's probablygoing to look a little different, but that's only because we did it this way and nothing is static in this market. You've got to move on and you've got to create new opportunities and new ways of engagement and we're going to do that. So we'll come up with something, which will be "Solarize Two. "Other communities may adopt the more traditional model or they may see what we're doingand try something a little bit diferent.I think itsgoing to continue to evolve and I think that's a good thing, its how you survive (Brautigam interview).

42 New England: Leading from Above

A Prepared Policy Network programs that might otherwise be difficult for government agencies to pursue. For example, When Solarize came to New England, it spread MassCEC operates the Wind Technology Testing through an established network of policy actors Center in Boston, which conducts engineering tests that were already working to transform energy on privately manufactured wind turbine blades, and markets in the region. Both Massachusetts and is currently developing a specialized marine port Connecticut-the two states to adopt state-level in New Bedford to serve the region's anticipated approaches to Solarize-had established quasi- offshore wind energy industry. CEFIA programs public organizations mandated with transforming offer a mix of direct funding and partnerships energy markets in creative ways and had formed with private capital that encourage clean energy direct ties between state and local governments on projects, for example by administering the state's energy issues. The region also has a rich history of commercial energy efficiency lending programs. local community energy programming and planning Both organizations are funded by a systems benefit to draw on in adopting the Solarize model. charge that is added onto the electric bills of homes and businesses in their respective states. Quasi-Public Organizations and Energy Market Transformation MassCEC and CEFIA are both well positioned and empowered to experiment with new A pair of New England quasi-public agencies-the approaches to energy, both in terms of their internal Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), capacities and their organizational mandates. 'he established in 2009, and the Connecticut Energy organizations demonstrated their ability to pursue Financing and Investment Authority (CEFIA), market transformation in their efforts to establish formed in 2011-have driven market transformation and spread Solarize programs in their states. in the clean energy sector in a number of ways. Solarize Mass and Solarize Connecticut grew out 'These organizations have the flexibility to offer of a tradition of state government policy innovation

43 Shaped by centuries of history and development, New England is a potpourri of modem urban hubs, sprawling suburbs, quaint pastoral towns, and fading manufacturing centers. The regional center, Boston, is famed for Its world-class hospitals and universities, its left-leaning political machine, and Its place as a home both to founding fathers and to generations of Immigrants. For its small size, New England-and the Boston area in particular-has played an outsized role in the nation's history.

Solarize came to New England In 2011, when Massachusetts' Clean Energy Center and Department of Energy Resources sponsored four town-level pilot campaigns. After the pilot's success, the model spread quickly throughout the state and to its southern neighbor of Connecticut. As of spring 2014, state-level agencies have coordinated 70 campaigns in the two states. In the 34 campaigns that have been completed and evaluated, residents have installed 1,970 solar installations with 13,214 KW of total capacity. The success of the state-led Solarize programs has also inspired the creation of 17 additional campaigns independently run by non-profits and municipal governments. Due in part spread of Solarize to Solarize, the number of small solar installations in in Massachusetts and Connecticut Massachusetts doubled from 2010 to 2011, and again in 2012. Solarize campaigns also offered low " Solarize Mass campaign prices for solar panels. In 2012, Solarize campaigns " Solarize Connecticut campaign offered an average price of $3.91 per watt compared , independent campaign to a prevaling price of $5.10 per watt.

campaigns by year price per watt of residential solar $10 1- 40 - - - 30 -

$2 - 10 so 2011 2012 2013 2014 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (through March}) . average Solarize Mass campaign price Massachusetts prices Solarize Mass Round 2 in MA, Round 3 in MA, Round 4 in MA, prevailing MA price for systems < 10KW from Barbose et al. 2013 pilot Pilot in Phases 2 Phases 4 in CT, (data not available for all years) campaigns Connecticut and 3 in CT, Independent Independent campaigns effortsstarted continue by SEEAL, HEET. and others key actors Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Non-Profit Organizations A quasi-public state organization with a broad Several non-profit organizations in Massachusetts, mandate to develop renewable energy markets, have drawn inspiration from statewide Solarize MassCEC drove the creation of and now manages programs to create their own similar campaigns. the Solarize Mass program.

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Connecticut Clean Energy Financing and A state agency with existing relationships with Investment Authority municipal govemments on energy issues, DOER Another quasi-public state organization, CEFIA collaborated with MassCEC to use these borrowed the statewide model from Massachusetts relationships to establish Solarize in Massachusetts. and implemented it in Connecticut.

Municipal Governments SmartPower With connections both with state agencies and local A non-profit marketing group with a history of citizens, many New England municipal governments conducting community energy campaigns, have facilitated their towns' participation in SmartPower assisted with and influenced the statewide Solarize programs or assisted in the growth of Solarize Connecticut. creation of independent campaigns.

FIGURE 14 NEW ENGLAND SOLARIZE OVERVIEW

44 on energy, and demonstrate the benefits of quasi- Local Community Energy Efforts public organizations that have the flexibility to pursue creative policy approaches. Before Solarize emerged on the scene in Massachusetts, an array of organizations was already advancing community energy programs in State-Local Collaboration on Energy Planning the state. Some of these efforts were led by non- profit organizations, such as the energy efficiency The 2008 Massachusetts Green Communities work parties coordinated by the Home Energy Act (GCA) affected energy markets in numerous Efficiency Team (HEET) in the Cambridge area ways, primarily by mandating increases in energy and the SouthCoast Energy Challenge coordinated efficiency and renewable energy on the part of the by the Southeastern Environmental Education state's privately owned utilities. The act also created Alliance (SEEAL). a Green Community designation for municipalities that met a set of local energy planning criteria, Massachusetts's regional planning agencies, including streamlined energy siting and permitting established to support municipal governments guidelines, a more stringent building energy code, in their planning needs, have also played a role in and efficiency improvements in municipally-owned community energy programs. 'The most notable buildings and vehicles. of these is the Boston-based Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), which helps town Municipalities were given state grant funding governments develop and implement municipal to support their efforts to comply with the energy plans. Larger municipalities in the state have requirements, which many used to increase their also developed their own independent community local capacity for energy programming. Often, these energy programs. Boston, also an inaugural DOE municipalities formed citizen energy committees to Solar America City, offers a suite of community- support these efforts and built direct connections facing energy programs through its Renew Boston with staff at the Massachusetts Department of and Greenovate Boston initiatives. Energy Resources (DOER), which was responsible for overseeing the program and which established 'This great variety in local energy planning efforts regional offices throughout the state to support the not only reinforced the ability of communities implementation of the GCA. DOER regional staff in Massachusetts to participate in the state-led forged strong individual relationships with citizens Solarize program, but also created the capacity for and staff in many Green Communities. municipal governments and non-profits to develop their own independent campaigns when necessary. To the south, Connecticut's Clean Energy Communities program allowed for a similar relationship between state and municipal The Spread of Solarize government. Formed in 2004 and administered by a state coalition that includes CEFIA, the program The Development of Solarize Mass assists town governments in the development of 'Through a mix of conference presentations, renewable energy projects and the installation of publications, and personal connections, energy efficiency upgrades in municipally owned buildings. policy actors across the nation quickly learned of the These partnerships not only provided an established success that Portland was having with the Solarize connection between state and municipal model and considered how they might use the idea governments, but also bolstered the capacity of local in their own areas. actors to deal with energy planning issues. In both Staff at MassCEC, which had been looking for ways Massachusetts and Connecticut, state organizations to bolster their incentive offerings for residential relied on the foundation built by these programs to solar energy, learned of Solarize through these implement state-level Solarize efforts. channels and recognized its potential to advance

45 the local solar market. By 2011, solar hardware In the four pilot campaigns, 162 homeowners costs had declined dramatically in Massachusetts, installed 830 KW of solar energy, an impressive but soft costs like permitting and labor continued enough result to convince MassCEC and DOER to make residential solar an expensive investment. to continue the program on a larger scale. In 2012, MassCEC viewed Solarize as a way to target the second round of Solarize Mass was opened, the soft costs of solar by making installations this time including 13 town-level campaigns. In an more geographically concentrated and creating evaluation after the completion of the second round, opportunities for more effective outreach and MassCEC and DOER found that each community education (Kennedy interview). The organization that conducted a Solarize Mass campaign saw their began to consider how the Solarize model might be rate of residential solar installation at least double implemented in Massachusetts. (Sylvia & Barton, 2013).

Advancing a community-based approach to solar Evolution of the State Solarize Model energy necessarily required forging connections with local groups across the state, but fortunately To date, there have been four rounds of Solarize these were readily available through DOER, Mass, and 36 campaigns have been operated in which had built relationships with municipal 46 Massachusetts towns. After the pilot round, governments and citizen energy advocates through municipalities have been asked to apply to host its management of the Green Communities Act. To a state-sponsored Solarize program, and have take advantage of these relationships, MassCEC been selected on a competitive basis. While the partnered with DOER to develop a Solarize municipal government is tasked with applying for program for Massachusetts. and sponsoring a Solarize Mass campaign, most of the responsibility for campaign operations typically Together, staff at MassCEC and DOER sketched falls to a volunteer group of residents. Over the out a pilot program to be implemented in course of repeated rounds of Solarize Mass, state Massachusetts. Solarize Mass, as itwas called,would staff have adjusted the parameters of the program be operated at the municipal level, with the state in three major ways, and are viewed by municipal organizations supporting and coordinating multiple partners as having demonstrated a willingness to local campaigns. With community input, the make program adjustments based on feedback MassCEC and DOER would vet and select a solar (Hunt interview). contractor for the campaign in each community, and would then offer educational workshops and One way that Solarize has evolved over time has technical support to local partners. Citizens in been in the selection of solar contractors for each the community, however, would be responsible for town. Where MassCEC and DOER made the conducting the campaign itself. contractor selection in the pilot round of Solarize Mass, the decision is now made jointly between state State staff opted to run four pilot campaigns, one and local partners, allowing for both state technical for each regional DOER office. DOER put out expertise and local preferences to be accounted for a call for interest to its 53 Green Communities in the choice of contractor. State officials feel that 2 partners " and received about 25 responses (Lusardi this change gives local partners a greater sense of interview). By quite literally picking names out of ownership over the campaign and makes them a hat, the agencies selected the towns of Harvard, more willing to work through any difficulties with Hatfield, Scituate, and Winchester as the first the selected contractor (Kennedy interview). municipalities to be offered Solarize Mass. Eligibility for Solarize Mass has also expanded 27 The first Massachusetts municipalities were recognized beyond the state's Green Communities to include as reaching Green Community status in 2010, and 53 had all municipalities in Massachusetts, as program staff received the status by 2011 when the Solarize Mass program felt that other communities had strong capacity was initiated. As of spring 2014, 123 of 351 Massachusetts for local energy planning but had chosen not to cities and towns have received Green Community status.

46 adopt one or several of the GCA requirements energy committee member, sometimes it's a (Kennedy and Lusardi interviews). In place of municipalofficial. But there has to be somebody the GCA requirement, Solarize Mass has instead who really wants to champion this cause. 7he put a greater emphasis on the commitment that big thing to recognize is that each municipality individuals in a community show as an indication has its own unique culture, their own way that a given municipality has the capacity to of doing things and they have to respect that, implement a Solarize campaign. Solarize Mass and they can't force things in a way that's first asked communities to identify a town-level not respective of their process of doing things Solar Coach that would oversee a local campaign, (Lusardi interview). and more recently have asked towns to identify a broader network of volunteers that would assist In Solarize Mass, community Solar Coaches have with the burdensome campaign outreach process. for the most part been citizen volunteers rather than municipal officials. The balance between municipal Finally, later rounds of Solarize Mass have and citizen involvement has played out differently allowed multiple municipalities to apply as one, in different communities, and either group may be accommodating smaller communities that might the driving force behind environmental action in a not have sufficient capacity or interest to pursue a community.The experiences of the municipalities of campaign on their own. Harvard and Medford, Massachusetts illustrate this difference. Through this series of adaptations, MassCEC and DOER have created a program that they feel gives Solarize Harvard: Citizen Advocates for Clean Solarize campaigns the best chance for success in Energy Massachusetts. Solarize Mass remains a strongly The impetus for Solarize in the town of Harvard state-led program, but state staff have structured originated with Harvard Local, a group of it so that individual campaigns rely on volunteers citizens that had previously advocated for energy groups that have adequate capacity for community conservation and a "low carbon diet" in the town. efforts. When Harvard received a state grant for municipal energy efficiency upgrades, the town established the Local Differences in Solarize Mass Harvard Energy Advisory Committee (HEAC)- Campaigns which included several Harvard Local members- This is not to say, however, that there is not a to guide local energy efforts. great deal of differentiation among local Solarize programs in Massachusetts in terms of the When the Green Community Act created a new composition of the state program's local partners. funding source for municipal energy assistance, In structuring the program, MassCEC and DOER HEAC members successfully urged the Board of were careful to allow for a degree of flexibility Selectmen to take the necessary steps to apply and across campaigns that recognizes local differences. become a Green Community. Though advocates had to overcome both a hesitant building inspector Speaking on community energy planning in general, Meg Lusardi at DOER stressed the importance of and some local opposition (Broadbent interview), accommodating a variety of local contexts. Harvard received its Green Community designation in December 2010. I always say there's no set formula. ihe one thing that Ithink is criticalno matter who you In Solarize, Harvard's environmental citizen- are is that there has to be some sort ofchampion, advocates saw an opportunity to build on their success. Again at HEAC's request, the town agreed whether it's an individual or a group of individuals. And who that champion is can to apply for the initial pilot round of Solarize Mass, be in all different kinds of roles. Sometimes it's for which they were selected. This volunteer group an elected official, sometimes it's a volunteer did nearly all of the work on the Solarize Harvard campaign, with the municipal government doing 47 little more than approving of the initiative. HEAC While engaged citizens have been crucial to the member Eric Broadbent says, success of Medford's energy initiatives-residents on the town's energy committee played a large role A lot of the environmental and energy in the planning of the city's wind turbine and a pair initiatives that have happened in Harvard of volunteers led the town's Solarize outreach-the has been because of citizens, not the town city has provided strong municipal leadership. With government. Infact, I would say almost all of the benefit of a supportive mayor and a dedicated it (Broadbent interview). staff, Medford has shown the possibilities of municipally led local energy planning. Solarize Medford: A Tradition of Municipal Energy Planning The Other Solarize(s) In Medford, conversely, municipal government has long played a strong role in energy planning. 'Ihough successful, the state-run Solarize Medford's long-time Mayor, Michael McGlynn, Mass model has not been a viable option for established an environmental office in the late every community hoping to pursue group solar 1990s as an agreement with state regulators after purchasing. Some communities find it difficult the city unintentionally ran afoul of state wetlands to work within the parameters of Solarize Mass, protection laws. 'Ihe office eventually expanded while others are not eligible to participate at all. to deal with energy issues as well. In response to As of spring 2014, 14 municipalities and non- resident interest, the town worked closely with profit organizations throughout Massachusetts a citizen committee to explore local renewable have coordinated 17 different independent Solarize energy generation and eventually helped construct campaigns, accompanying the 36 campaigns offered a municipally owned wind turbine at a local to date through Solarize Mass. Here, I discuss how elementary school in 2009. four of these independent efforts came to be.

Mayor McGlynn was eager to formalize Medford's SouthCoast Solar Challenges: Tweaking Solarize to leadership on energy issues, and the city became Create Revenue Models one of the first Green Communities in the spring of On the south coast of Massachusetts, the Southeast 2010.'he town also partnered with the Metropolitan Environmental Education Alliance (SEEAL) Area Planning Council in its Local Energy Action -a coalition of 19 smaller environmental Program, in which MAPC supports municipal organizations-has long conducted energy efficiency governments in creating and implementing town- programming with a focus on youth empowerment, wide energy plans. most notably through the Sustainable New Bedford program that it launched in 2006. Acting on a Medford watched the first two rounds of Solarize suggestion from a member who had seen a similar with interest but did not participate, occupied with idea on a visit to Minnesota, SEEAL launched the its other energy initiatives and concerned that the SouthCoast Energy Challenge, enlisting residents model may not be as successful locally because the to reduce their energy consumption by fifteen city already had already seen a high level of solar percent through both efficiency improvements and installations. Ihe city also considered creating an solar installations.'Ihrough the challenge, SEEAL independent Solarize campaign with the support of built relationships with municipal governments MAPC, which would allow them more flexibility on the south coast as well as with a pair of local in determining program parameters. But eventually solar contractors, from whom they receive a referral the city decided to apply for Solarize Mass in order fee for solar installations that partially funds their to receive the benefits of state support, particularly in outreach. contractor selection and marketing, and participated in round three of Solarize in 2013 (Hunt interview).

28 Many of these campaigns are termed "Solar Challenges" to avoid confusion with the state-led Solarize program. 48 When the south coast community of Fairhaven alternative to the state-run version of Solarize. was considering an application for Solarize Mass, HEET is best known for its energy efficiency "barn- they asked SEEAL if they would be able to assist raisings", in which the group assembles a team of the campaign. While SEEAL was interested, the neighbors and volunteers to descend on churches, Solarize Mass structure did not offer a mechanism non-profit headquarters, and other community to cover the group's staff and administrative costs buildings to conduct weatherization upgrades. as campaigns are designed to operate on volunteer From these events, HEET's mission has expanded labor. SEEAL was also concerned that the Solarize to cover a wider array of community-based energy campaign structure did not provide for any lasting campaigns, including residential solar energy. community energy engagement beyond the time- limited campaign (K. Stewart interview). Like SEEAL, HEET decided to adopt the Solarize model and tweak it to suit the organization's own As an alternative, SEEAL convinced Fairhaven to needs. But unlike SEEAL, which chose to conduct forgo the Solarize application and instead allow a campaign primarily out of a need to secure a SEEAL to operate an independent Solarize-style revenue source, HEET's decision was based more campaign in partnership with one of their solar on a disagreement over what Solarize should installers, from whom SEEAL could continue to attempt to accomplish. HEET's leadership felt that receive referral fees. SEEAL ran the program in the model's dependency on volunteer labor and the summer of 2013, and then launched similar the uncertainty of a final price meant that Solarize campaigns in the Tri-Town area of Marion, primarily appealed to wealthier families and would Mattapoisett, and Rochester and in nearby generally be staffed by stay-at-home mothers. To Dartmouth. While SEEAL believes that state offer access to the program to those beyond the agencies are supportive of their efforts, they have social networks of this limited demographic and not been involved in the south coast campaigns (K. to appeal to the multifamily housing market of Stewart interview). Cambridge, HEET opted to reformat the Solarize program structure in partnership with the City SEEAL has seen both benefits and drawbacks from of Cambridge-with whom HEET has a history operating campaigns independently. The group has of collaboration. 'The resulting Cambridge Solar been given the programmatic flexibility to structure Challenge launched in May 2013, with a second Solarize in a way that suits its needs, and has been campaign in neighboring Somerville forming two able to use the campaigns as a revenue source to fund months later. their educational activities throughout the area. But, going alone has meant sacrificing the "buzz factor" HEET's Solar Challenges offered a non-tiered, but that comes along with Solarize Mass.While SEEAL still below-market rate, solar price to participants. has conducted its own campaign launch events to Due to fears that a non-tiered pricing structure build excitement and interest around its efforts, would reduce the effect of peer-to-peer marketing, they have not benefited from the automatic media HEET selected a contractor known for its strong attention that Solarize Mass campaigns produce (K. community outreach efforts and arranged for Stewart interview). Similarly, the absence of a state referral fees to be paid to partnering non-profits as partnership has made municipal relations difficult. an additional incentive. For example, in Fairhaven the town government was ultimately unwilling to offer co-branding and As with SEEAL's efforts on the south coast, HEET official sponsorship of the campaign. operated without programmatic support from MassCEC. While results of the challenge-26 installations in Cambridge and 20 in Somerville- The Cambridge Solar Challenge: Targeting New Market Segments did not meet the goals set by HEET's Executive Director, Audrey Schulman, she believes that the In metropolitan Boston, the Cambridge-based program has helped both to prime the pump for Home Energy Efficiency Team offers another more solar installations in the city and to expand

49 access to solar energy to a new demographic. She Concord has not been alone in its efforts to bring notes that many different program models are group solar purchasing to areas ineligible for Solarize needed to reach different segments of the residential Mass. In Wellesley, Belmont, and Stowe, which are solar market and she feels that it is incumbent upon also served by municipal utilities, communities have solar program managers to experiment with new worked to implement similar variations on the and innovative approaches (Schulman interview). Solarize Mass model.

Concord Solar Challenge: Independent Programs Renew Boston Solarize: Building on State-Led for Independent Utilities Success One quirk of Solarize Mass is that it is limited to Boston has also implemented a city-led Solarize areas served by the state's investor-owned utilities, program, but for different reasons. After successfully a result of the funding that MassCEC receives participating in Solarize Mass, Boston's municipal from added charges on the bills of these utilities' energy office chose to develop a second campaign on customers. Communities served by the state's 41 its own. Unlike SEEAL's and HEET's communities, municipally owned utilities-whose customers which chose not to participate in Solarize Mass, do not contribute to this fund-are ineligible or municipalities like Concord, which could not, for Solarize Mass. As a result, several of these Boston's second campaign was run independently communities have developed their own Solarize because by that point the community did not need campaigns that closely mimic the state-led model. to partner with the state. As the state's capital and largest municipality, the City of Boston has One such town is Concord, Massachusetts, where internal staff resources that are unavailable to other a group of citizens with connections to the town's municipalities, and has developed a strong suite of Comprehensive Sustainable Energy Committee community energy programs. have led the creation of an independent Solarize campaign for the community. After speaking with Boston's internal capacity to deal with community solar organizers in neighboring towns that had energy has grown steadily over time. The city was participated in Solarize Mass, the group concluded a member of the inaugural class of Solar America that the model could be successfully organized in Cities in 2007, the same year that it developed its Concord and tried to replicate its success. first Climate Action Plan. Over the next several years, Boston developed a suite of programs for Unlike SEEAL or HEET, Concord's residents municipal energy efficiency and created a hub saw no reason to deviate far from MassCEC's for the city's public facing green initiatives, called successful model. As Jill Appel, chair of the Energy Greenovate Boston. In one of Boston's initiatives, Committee, says: called Renew Boston, the city partners with We had no pride in being original. What we local community outreach organizations to more wanted was to get stuff done. We stealfrom the effectively market available rebates for energy smart and sell to the rich (Appel interview). efficiency and solar energy. While initially funded with ARRA money, Renew Boston quickly proved 'he resulting Concord Solar Challenge was driven its worth and is now a permanent initiative of the by the town's residents. With the support of an city with dedicated staff. enthusiastic municipal government, a group of citizens interviewed installers and made a selection An eager participant in Solarize in 2012, municipal based on the previous experience and marketing staff were encouraged by the outcome-Solarize capabilities of a particular installer. Concord's Boston resulted in 116 solar installations-and knew that they had the necessary capabilities to municipal utility, while supportive of the program, was not directly involved. Campaign organizers did offer the program themselves the next year (Swing not have any contact with MassCEC or DOER in interview). the course of the campaign (Appel interview).

50 Solarize Boston demonstrated to city staff that programs is the intermediary role played by the model could be effective, and that it could be SmartPower in Solarize Connecticut. CEFIA accomplished without dedicating large amounts recognized that it had limited staff capacity to of municipal resources. Using the internal capacity dedicate directly to Solarize (Wall interview), and built over time through the city's energy and climate so the agency hired SmartPower-a non-profit work, Boston offered a second round of Solarize on marketing firms specializing in community-based its own in 2013.29 Termed Renew Boston Solarize, social marketing campaigns in the energy field- Boston's independent campaign is broadly similar to assist with education, marketing, and outreach to the Solarize Mass model. Bradford Swing, efforts in Solarize Connecticut. Director of Energy Policy and Programs for the City of Boston, noted that there was strong political SmartPower's coordination of Solarize campaigns in Connecticut-and their professional organizing support for community energy initiatives in Boston, and that the city may choose to continue to offer staff-allowed Solarize Connecticut to ease the independent Solarize campaigns should their first burden on local volunteers. Instead of relying on be successful (Swing interview). volunteer Solar Coaches, which in Massachusetts have been given primary responsibility to operate a campaign, Solarize Spread to Connecticut Connecticut takes a larger role in local campaigns and coordinates a team of The success that the Massachusetts state Solar Ambassadors, who are generally homeowners government had with Solarize did not go unnoticed. that have already installed solar and are willing to In Connecticut, the state's Clean Energy Finance share their experience. Toni Bouchard, SmartPower and Investment Authority initiated its Solarize Chief Operating Officer, explains that this more Connecticut program, closely modeled on Solarize professional approach was intended both to spread Mass, in September 2012. the responsibility for driving a campaign forward across many individuals, avoiding the need to CEFIA staff credits its peer organization, place responsibility for the campaign on a single MassCEC, with offering substantial support in the citizen advocate, and also to take advantage of the creation of Solarize Connecticut (Wall interview). individual social networks of each of these Solar Because of the strong cooperation between CEFIA Ambassadors. and MassCEC, and because they share general organizational characteristics and strengths, the [In the Solarize Connecticut] model, we design of Solarize in the two states is very similar. don't want it to emanate from one person. As with Solarize Mass, Solarize Connecticut We believe that the most important way for is rooted in the relationship between state and people to become interested in solar isfor it to local governments. Also as in Massachusetts, comefrom their trusted social networks. So if municipalities in Connecticut apply to CEFIA to you can difuse that [the program will be more host a Solarize campaign, and the state works with successful] (Bouchard interview). successful applicants to administer a campaign. And as with Massachusetts's Green Communities, Solarize Connecticut began its fourth round in CEFIA had a stable of Clean Energy Communities April 2014, and has now initiated campaigns in that had previously coordinated local energy over 40 towns. A 2013 grant from DOE's SunShot initiatives, had developed citizen energy committees, initiative to a group of Yale and NYU researchers, and had a strong relationship to state government. SmartPower, and CEFIA provided an opportunity to experiment with a series of modifications to the One major difference between the two state Solarize program design. Two variations-Solarize Express, which conducts a campaign over 12 weeks 29 Boston's large population suggests that multiple instead of the normal 20, and Solarize Choice, campaigns may be successful in the city. Portland and which allows communities to partner with multiple Seattle-cities with comparable municipal populations to solar contractors-were deployed in the fall of 2013. Boston-each hosted six campaigns within city borders.

51 The Future of Solarize and Solar Energy MassCEC's original intention in bringing Solarize in New England to Massachusetts was to breathe life into the state's solar energy market. Now that it appears to have MassCEC, DOER, and CEFIA will soon face a done so, the organization is considering its next decision on how and whether to continue state- steps, and may consider spreading its resources led Solarize campaigns. While officials are pleased thinner across future Solarize campaigns and with the results of the programs, they question redirecting staff and funding to other programs that whether Solarize will continue to be the best tool have been placed on the back burner by the state's for residential solar in the states and, if so, whether focus on Solarize (Kennedy interview). it should continue to depend heavily on state resources and leadership or if responsibility could The great variety of independent Solarize campaigns be shifted to the broader civic space. Meg Lusardi, in Massachusetts demonstrates that there are several Director of DOER's Green Communities Division, possible paths by which Solarize could continue to explains Massachusetts's current thinking: grow even without the direct leadership of state organizations. Civic organizations like SEEAL and [Including civic organizations in Solarize HEET and municipal governments like Concord Mass] is one of the things we talked about and Boston have developed campaigns without early on, and we do talk about revisiting the direct supervision of the state. Massachusetts's it. We went this way because we have this regional planning agencies could also potentially relationship with municipalities, so it was coordinate local Solarize campaigns-a role that a way to get the program up and running. MAPC in particular had considered taking on Some communities have done Solarize on before MassCEC and DOER made the decision their own, I think they have been municipally to scale their program statewide (Brandt interview). driven. But yeah, recognize that in Portland it was community-based groups. We talked Looking beyond Solarize, many interviewees about creating a modelfor Solarize that then mentioned Community Solar as being a potential municipalities could do themselves. And it next model in the region. In Harvard, local residents doesn't have to be the municipalgovernment, are already working to implement this strategy with it could be a well-positionedcommunity-based its Harvard Solar Garden, a shared solar installation group. I personally would still like to see that with a goal of 500 KW (nearly 100 times the size happen, I don't know that we necessarily have of the average residential installation in Harvard's to be involved. Two rounds ago, we weren't Solarize campaign and nearly 100 KW greater than quite there yet, and when we did debriefs with the total installed capacity of the program). the groups that had done it, they didn'tfeellike they could let go of the assistanceat thatpoint. While the next directions for Solarize and But I think its something we'll be revisiting residential solar in New England may be unknown, after this round to think "how do we continue state-led Solarize campaigns in Massachusetts and this, do we continue it this way" that type of Connecticut have provided a substantial market thing. 'here is a question of"is there a required foundation on which to build. A mere three years rolefor us here". ihere is some education and after a pair of state agencies brought the Solarize training that I think the municipalitiesfind concept to Massachusetts, it had spread rapidly helpful, but you can also have those tools not only throughout the state, but also throughout availablefor folks to use. I think the model Connecticut as well. State Solarize programs have of the solar coach and the outreach and the also encouraged the creation of a wide variety of survey and all of that are all great things to independent campaigns that may become even do, but how much does government need to be more frequent as the solar market continues to grow. involved? (Lusardi interview). While the future of solar in New England may not be certain, it is certainly exciting.

52 Discussion and Findings

'Ihe establishment and spread of Solarize through Oregon's proactive efforts to use Solarize in the Pacific Northwest and New England provide market transformation efforts statewide-and pull a rich case for a discussion of networked policy mechanisms-as with MassCEC's identification diffusion in community energy programs. Many of and importation of Solarize as a useful tool to the theoretical aspects of networked policy transfer address barriers to the local residential solar market. that were discussed earlier ring true in the case of As Solarize spread, information and ideas about the Solarize. model traveled along network channels that were both horizontal-from neighborhood coalition to Solarize was formed and spread through a process neighborhood coalition in Portland-and vertical- of collaborative reinvention, not one of creation from state agencies to municipal governments in from a blank slate. Just as MassCEC drew its Massachusetts and Connecticut. inspiration from the Solarize Portland program, so did Tim O'Neal, Stephanie Stewart, and Lizzie Solarize is heavily context-dependent and Rubado draw inspiration from the existing One campaigns in different areas display different Block Off the Grid model. As Solarize spread, some program structures. 'Ihis reveals a process of communities directly copied programs that they saw adaptation in which both policy and network adjust as successful in other areas, while others drew out to suit the needs of the other. As Solarize expanded, only the elements that seemed appropriate in their its program structure was modified to accommodate context. SEEAL and HEET in Massachusetts, different arrangements of policy actors, such as by for example, adopted much of the basic program using Massachusetts'strong state-local relationships design of Solarize Mass, but added elements like a to house Solarize as a formal government initiative. contractor referral fee or door-to-door canvassing But policy networks were also altered in the course that suited their own needs. of implementing the new program-as with the new connections forged between neighborhood Solarize spread through a combination of push coalitions in Portland with staff at ETO and mechanisms-as with Portland BPS and Solar BPS. The policy networks that exist in the Pacific 53 Northwest and in New England today have been 4. 'Ihe network location of policy entrepreneurs impacted by Solarize, just as the Solarize model impacts the spread of policy ideas. Policy has been impacted by the networks. This is policy entrepreneurs will structure an idea according innovation and adaptation. to their strengths and communicate it according to the network channels available to them. As Solarize also reinforces the importance of policy ideas spread through networks, they network location, particularly that of the policy retain attributes that were initially developed to entrepreneurs that advocated for the adoption of suit the network location of the original policy Solarize. In different places and times, Southeast entrepreneur. Uplift, BPS, Solar Oregon, NW SEED, MassCEC, CEFIA, and other actors each acted creatively as a policy entrepreneur. Each benefited from network In novation-Ready Network connections-and a degree of network centrality- Structures that were sufficient to allow them build a coalition In many ways, the success of the Solarize model in of actors with complementary strengths that could Portland seems to have been the happy result of a take on a wide range of roles in the implementation series of chance occurrences. Stephanie Stewart just of a Solarize campaign. happened to be attending neighborhood meetings But beyond reinforcing an existing body of and had an interest in solar energy when Tim knowledge about networked policy transfer, the O'Neal proposed his idea of attracting a 1BOG spread of Solarize is also useful in supporting campaign to Portland.'Ihe Energy Trust of Oregon several new conclusions about how ideas are formed just happened to have recently researched market and spread across networks of policy actors. Here, barriers to residential solar energy when O'Neal I discuss several findings about networked policy and Stewart walked into Lizzie Rubado's office. transfer that can be extracted from the cases: Portland's Bureau of Planning and Sustainability just happened to have dedicated federal funding 1. Innovation occurs when networks prepare and staff capacity for solar programming when the for it. While innovation may seem to result from Solarize idea emerged. Jonathan Cohen, the solar random bursts of individual inspiration, in reality contractor in Solarize Southeast, remembers how it is heavily dependent on network structure. unique the first campaign seemed to be. Well-structured networks provide both access to existing ideas and channels to implement new [Tim O'Neal]was exceptional,andtheir group ones. was exceptional. 'he time was exceptional, and so were the particular homeowners 2. Actors fill policy roles in a manner that we worked with. It was all kind of an reflects local network contexts. Certain roles are exceptional circumstance which contributedto required for a policy or program like Solarize to its great success. [It was an] almost mystical be successful, and policy actors will collaborate combination of time and place and situation to fill these roles. But the role that a given actor that all worked to conspire to make people adopts varies based on the attributes of the want to do it (Cohen interview). relevant policy network. 3. Different types of policy information are But while the emergence of Solarize may have been communicated at different scales. Policy actors to some degree spontaneous, it occurred within an participate simultaneously in national, regional, institutional framework that was ready and waiting and state/local policy conversations. Because for an idea like it to come along.'Ihe policy network the channels of communication and quality of in Portland, like those seen elsewhere in the cases relationships differ across these scales, the types above, was "innovation-ready." While policy of information that are transferred across them actors must still do the creative work of policy also differ. formation, previous network developments had

54 Pacific Northwest Pre-Solarize Solar Policy Network Oregon _ _ _- - Washington O Solar America Portland %Cities network ONI NW SEED Public Utilities Sar-- BPS Solar Solar Now! r - Oregon, Coalition ETO ------neighborhood - - - - ~ SCALLOPS associations network

New England Pre-Solarize Solar Policy Network Massachusetts Connecticut I nationalpolicy .------discussion

DOER -MassCEC------CEFIA

SmartPower 0 independent Massachusetts Connecticut campaign managers municipalities municipalities

strong/formal connection - --- loose/informal connection

FIGURE 15 NETWORK DIAGRAMS OF REGIONAL SOLAR POLICY NETWORKS BEFORE SOLARIZE created connections between these actors, focused markets, the Energy Trust was positioned to listen their attention on residential solar, and allowed to and support an idea like Solarize. Portland's city them to build the capacity necessary to support the government had earned a progressive reputation formation of the Solarize model. on planning and sustainability issues, and its participation in the Solar America Cities program In both regions examined in this thesis, substantial built on an interest within BPS to encourage solar network connections predated the emergence of energy. Also, the Solar Now! initiative had forged provided the basis for Solarize. These connections strong working relationships between ETO, BPS, the development and expansion of the model. The and Solar Oregon, all of which collaborated on the pre-existing policy networks are displayed in Figure spread of Solarize. 15. Ihe policy network in Massachusetts was similarly Long before the idea for Solarize came about, prepared for Solarize. Ihere, the model thrived Portland had developed the institutions and because of the connections and capacity created relationships that would eventually make it a success. by the Green Communities Act and the creation Portland's neighborhood association structure had of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. The been built over time to provide residents with access GCA both encouraged municipal governments to local decision makers (particularly through the to take on energy planning initiatives-increasing Office of Neighborhood Involvement) and direct local capacity for programs like Solarize-and staff capacity in the neighborhood coalitions. formed strong connections between local actors The coalitions also provided a forum for Stewart and state officials in DOER's regional offices. As and O'Neal to first meet and interact. Similarly, a quasi-public organization with a broad mandate through its broad mandate for developing energy for market transformation, MassCEC had both the

55 flexibility and the capacity to perform the necessary network connections. 'he matching of actor to role, duties to develop and support Solarize campaigns then, depends both on the strengths of the policy in the state. MassCEC's professional energy staff entrepreneur and their network location. was also connected to the national energy policy conversation as well as-through DOER-to local I identify three broad categories of actors that have communities. This positioned the organization well collaborated to grow the Solarize model: design to learn about successful ideas occurring elsewhere actors that develop a successful program and present and to then implement them in Massachusetts at to others that it is a good idea, implementation the local level. actors that contribute to the actual operation of the program, and transfer actors that actively encourage Solarize did not emerge into a social vacuum. Policy program adoption in other areas. Within these networks in both regions discussed above were well broad categories, I identify five typological roles prepared to implement new ideas in community that actors within policy networks took on in the energy, provided that the right one come along. development and operation of Solarize programs: Both networks had a set of actors with substantial - Community partner, a design actor with direct resources to offer in deploying an idea like Solarize, as well as a robust set of network connections grassroots connections to local residents, who tying them together. While these resources trust the partner to understand their perspective and connections were deployed in new ways in and represent their interests. Solarize, they were not created from scratch. For - Technical partner, a design actor with sufficient an innovative policy idea like Solarize to succeed, technical knowledge and professional experience it must be sown within a network that is ready to to lend credibility to a Solarize campaign and support innovation. In the Pacific Northwest and assure residents that the offer being presented New England, areas with strong histories of civic is a good one. This partner vets potential solar and government leadership on clean energy issues, contractors and explains concepts about solar the policy actors that proposed Solarize had the power production and financing to residents. necessary network resources to implement and - Campaign partner, an implementation actor spread the model. responsible for overseeing the actual day-to-day operation of a Solarize campaign. Context-Dependent Policy - Funding partner, an implementation actor that provides the bulk of the resources necessary to Roles conduct a campaign, such as printed materials 'Ihe attributes of local policy networks, and the and paid staff time. differing opportunities and resources they offer - Network partner, a transfer actor with the to policy actors, have resulted in a good deal of necessary connections and capacity to promote variety in the ways that policy ideas like Solarize are the Solarize model throughout and across policy eventually implemented and made real. At the same networks and to encourage the establishment of time, however, the duties performed by policy actors more campaigns. in developing Solarize programs remain generally constant across policy contexts. While the roles that No particular policy actor must play any of these are played in the creation of policy do not change, roles, and a single actor may play multiple roles in the actors that fill those roles do. the development of a campaign. In each area where Solarize spread, patterns emerged in the types of 'Ihe allocation of roles and responsibilities in organizations that took on certain roles, and the depends in large part on the policy entrepreneur, types of relationships that were forged to offer which themselves take on the responsibilities that campaigns. I summarize these typological roles and it is capable of. To fill the remaining roles, the relationships in Figure 16. entrepreneur solicits collaborators from among its

56 Pacific Northwest

Portland Greater Oregon Washington utility Energyrust &Portland BPS Portland BPS Solar Oregon KW SEED partner

neighborhood non-profit or SCALLOPS coalition rmoicipality groups partner (category) community (design) neighborhood coalitions non-profits & municipalities SCALLOPS groups technical (design) Energy Trust & Portland BPS Portland BPS & Solar Oregon NW SEED campaign (implementation) neighborhood coalitions non-profits & municipalities SCALLOPS groups funding (implementation) Portland BPS Portland BPS public utilities network (transfer) Portland BPS & coalitions Portland BPS & Solar Oregon NW SEED

New England

Solarize Mass MA Independent Campaigns Connecticut on-proCit or Mass(EC&DOER SmartPower munocpality (EFIA

MassEC& DOER

municipal citizen groups itizen groups muricipal citizen groups govemrment goverorent partner (category) community (design) municipalities & citizen groups non-profits & municipalities municipalities & citizen groups technical (design) MassCEC & DOER non-profits & municipalities CEFIA & SmartPower campaign (implementation) local citizen groups non-profits & municipalities SmartPower & citizen groups funding (implementation) MassCEC referral fees or municipalities CEFIA network (transfer) MassCEC & DOER non-profits & municipalities CEFIA & SmartPower

FIGURE 16 OVERVIEW OF TYPOLOGICAL ROLES IN SOLARIZE AND THE ACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH In Portland, Solarize programs were generally later BPS, acted as the technical partners in the formed through the collaboration of a grassroots Solarize Portland campaigns.With its SAC funding, organization (neighborhood coalitions) and BPS was also able to provide many of the resources an institutional partner (the Energy Trust of for Portland's campaigns, and its dedicated solar Oregon and the Portland Bureau of Planning and staff worked with the city's neighborhood coalitions Sustainability). In the first campaign, Southeast to spread the Solarize idea throughout Portland. Uplift had both the necessary grassroots connections BPS and Solar Oregon provided much ofthe impetus and staff and volunteer capacity to implement a for the spread of the Solarize model to broader community group purchasing program, but lacked Oregon, and through BPS's funding support and detailed knowledge about the solar market and Solar Oregon's network of solar activists combined specific contractors. After failing to attract interest to fill the roles of technical, funding, and network from 1BOG to establish a program in Portland, partner. To replicate the role that neighborhood Southeast Uplift sought out the Energy Trust of coalitions played in Solarize Portland, the pair Oregon and established a partnership based on the formed partnerships with a variety of non-profit two groups' complementary strengths. ETO, and

57 and municipal organizations to act as community quite capably so. Boston and Concord were both and campaign partners. able to replicate many of the services provided by MassCEC and DOER in Solarize Mass campaigns, When NW SEED spread the Solarize model to and SEEAL was able to use its installer referral Washington, it was able to provide technical and model effectively to replace MassCEC's campaign networking support for the Solarize model, largely funding support. But in some cases the absence of replicating the role played by BPS and Solar state support in education, outreach, and legitimacy Oregon in the neighboring state. As with BPS and created difficulties for independent campaigns. Solar Oregon, NW SEED also built partnerships with local grassroots organizations-in this case In Connecticut, CEFIA mostly replicated the roles the SCALLOPS groups-that had community and decisions made by MassCEC in Massachusetts, legitimacy and volunteer capacity to manage the a reasonable strategy given the similar characteristics, campaigns. But because NW SEED lacked the connections, and strengths of the two organizations funding capacity of Portland BPS, it also established and the support MassCEC provided in the partnerships with local utilities-who had an establishment of Solarize Connecticut. The one interest in seeing successful campaigns in their major adjustment that CEFIA made-hiring territory, the funding capacity to support them, and SmartPower to perform technical, campaign, whom NW SEED had previously worked with- and networking duties-responded to its limited to act as funding partners. NW SEED has had a capacity to directly manage Solarize Connecticut. harder time establishing the Solarize model outside As in Massachusetts, CEFIA's previous relationships of the Puget Sound area, due in no small part to with municipal governments facilitated the the lack of available community, campaign, and formation of local campaigns and the recruitment funding partners to collaborate with in establishing of local campaign volunteers, though the duties a campaign. of these residents were shared with SmartPower's professional staff. When MassCEC initiated the spread of Solarize to Massachusetts, it had the necessary technical Across geographies, Solarize policy actors expertise and funding capacity to support campaigns collaborated to fill a defined set of typological roles in the state, but few of the necessary network that stayed generally constant across contexts. The connections. Fortunately, it was able to partner types of actors that adopted certain roles varied with DOER and thereby take advantage of its widely across contexts, but tended to be consistent connections with municipal governments statewide. within contexts. While the five roles discussed 'Ihese municipal governments offered MassCEC here are specific to Solarize-not every policy idea and DOER connections to and legitimacy within will require an actor with grassroots community local communities, and their endorsement of connections, for example-the broader functional Solarize provided assurance to residents that the deal categories of policy design, implementation, and presented could be trusted. But municipalities often transfer can be generalized to the adoption and were not well positioned or equipped to operate adaptation of policy ideas. 'Ihe importance of the campaigns themselves, and so these responsibilities entrepreneur in matching policy actor to policy were granted to groups of citizen volunteers-led role by taking on the roles they are capable of by a designated Solar Coach-that would manage and soliciting partners to fill the others can also campaign operations. be generalized to other areas. As new policy ideas are formed and spread, they are done through the But not all Solarize campaigns in Massachusetts collaboration of policy actors with complementary had access to the technical, financial, and network strengths that take on the specific roles required to resources of MassCEC and DOER. Municipalities advance a particular idea, and the contours of policy and non-profit organizations that conducted networks strongly contribute to the types of roles independent campaigns were left to fill all that different actors take on. necessary network roles themselves, in many cases

58 Pacific Northwest to New England-specifically in Multiple Scales of Policy the spread of the idea to staff at MassCEC and their Communication decision to establish Solarize Mass on the basis of Policy adoption and adaption result from the its success in Portland. 'Ihere were three primary networked communication of policy ideas, both channels by which the Solarize idea spread from across and within specific policy networks. In Portland to policy actors nationwide: Solarize, the cases include instances of policy 1. Conferences and other presentation forums communication at several scales, with different types where solar program managers shared ideas and and granularity of information conveyed across best practices. Portland policy actors regularly each. Here, I discuss how ideas about Solarize have represented Solarize Portland at Solar America been transferred at the national, regional, and state/ Cities' annual conference and at other industry local levels, summarized in Figure 17. events. 2. Written materials and case studies intended Level National for mass consumption among the energy To apolicyidealike Solarize,nationalcommunication policymaking community. 'Ihe most notable channels offer opportunities to broadcast basic of these was the Solarize Guidebook, written by ideas about successful policies to a large and diverse NW SEED with funding from NREL to assist audience. 'Ihese channels tend to be impersonal in communities nationwide in establishing Solarize nature and there is rarely an opportunity for detailed programs. out in follow-up, and so many details may be left 3. Personal cross-regional relationships between channels. policy transfers that occur across national early Solarize policy actors and those that would Instead, adopting actors adapt these basic program implement the idea in other areas. Individuals in best suits their local concepts in whatever fashion Portland used personal connections to support needs and circumstances. the creation of programs elsewhere, as in Santa In the spread of Solarize, national communication Barbara, California, and Madison, Wisconsin. channels enabled the transfer of the model from the

national scale regional scale state/local scale

0 -- - __ _

0 ---- 0-0

consistency of low medium high context

closeness of loose and detached bridging ties densely networked relationship

policy information basic program roles and modular program transferred concepts responsibilities template

examples MassCEC learning NW SEED replicating Neighborhood-level of Solarize Portland Solarize Portland growth in through publication model in Seattle Portland and Seattle and conference channels CEFIA consulting Town-by-town with MassCEC for expansion in Solarize Connecticut New England

FIGURE 17 SELECTED ATTRIBUTES OF POLICY COMMUNICATION BY NETWORK SCALE

59 'Ihese channels were effective in spreading the basic channels, actors offer more detailed support in the idea behind Portland. For example, the Solarize transfer of information, for example by sharing Guidebook defines the main criteria of a Solarize ideas about how policy roles and responsibilities campaign, but stresses that different communities may be structured. have packaged the program in different ways. In Solarize, program information was transferred By providing communicating basic program details, at the regional level both in the Pacific Northwest these channels meant that MassCEC was free to and in New England. Actors shared information develop a program structure for Solarize Mass that not only about the general usefuilness of Solarize, suited its own strengths and context. Rather than but also about how campaigns may be managed and working directly with neighborhood associations what types of organizations might take on which and other grassroots groups as had been done in roles. Portland, MassCEC partnered with DOER to use the formal city-state relationship as the primary In the Northwest, the structure and spread of vehicle to manage Solarize. MassCEC also enforced Solarize campaigns in Washington was similar a much more uniform program structure across to-but not duplicative of-those in Oregon. Ihis campaigns and formalized Solarize Mass as an was due largely to the wealth of information about initiative of the state government, whereas Solarize Solarize Portland that NW SEED had obtained campaigns in the Pacific Northwest had encouraged due to its proximity to the Portland solar policy more community-specific flexibility and were often network. In bringing the model to Seattle, NW coordinated on a more informal basis. SEED generally duplicated the formula that had worked in Portland, by partnering with individual As seen in the case of Solarize, national networks grassroots community groups to coordinate a series appear well suited to transmit information about of neighborhood-level campaigns. NW SEED also new ideas and general best practices in community generally replicated Solar Oregon's efforts to spread energy program planning. However, they do not Solarize statewide by building relationships with transmit the details of implementation very well. solar advocates from a variety of organizations and 'Ihis allows for a rich variety of program approaches sectors outside the Seattle area. to be pursued across the nation." But, NW SEED also made necessary adjustments to the Solarize Portland model in recognition of Regional Level institutional differences between the two areas. Regional communication" allows for information For example, after failing to attract interest from transfer across areas that often share similar general the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, NW network attributes and sets of institutions, but that SEED coordinated Solarize programs in the state still retain a degree of differentiation. Similar to without direct government participation and Granovetter's (1973) "weak ties", regional networks secured program funding from interested public do not involve densely connected actors but do utilities. These partnerships were a departure from include bridging ties between certain actors that the Portland model (where Solarize had never been provide open communication channels across state part of any utility program) that addressed the and local clusters of policy actors. Through these differences in structural contexts between Oregon and Washington.

30 Other examples of differentiation include the In New England, the creation of Solarize application of Solarize to solar thermal technology in Connecticut also closely followed the precedent Minnesota's Make Mine Solar campaign and its use in set by a regional neighbor in Solarize Mass. Both workforce-based programs in San Jose and elsewhere. 31 I use the word "regional" to refer to the scale of my two cases-the Pacific Northwest and New England-both 32 While NW SEED had not previously worked with BPS of which have connections that bridge policy networks in staff, they had done work with ETO and were present at neighboring states. Portland's Solarize Summit in summer 2010. 60 programs were established by quasi-public state In Solarize, this has allowed for the modular agencies, built on prior energy-specific relationships expansion of the model with little need for structural between state agencies and municipal governments, change within each of the four states discussed and were spread via successive rounds of competitive here.'Ihe relationship that Portland's neighborhood application from interested municipalities. TIhese coalitions had with ETO & BPS was generally similarities result from the close relationship consistent, as was the relationship between NW between MassCEC and CEFIA, and CEFIA staff SEED and SCALLOPS groups in the Seattle credit MassCEC for its support in the creation of area and the partnership between local actors and Solarize Connecticut (Wall interview). Because the state government in Solarize Mass and Solarize Solarize model in Massachusetts-controlled at the Connecticut. 'Ihe adjustments that did occur at the state level by MassCEC-had worked so effectively, state and local level-the handoff from ETO to and because a similar organization existed next door BPS in Portland, differences in contractor selection in Connecticut, it was only logical for CEFIA to criteria across towns and neighborhoods in all be the one to manage Solarize Connecticut and areas, and the evolution of the Solar coach role and for them to import much of the structure that experimentation with Solarize Choice and Express MassCEC had established. But as with NW SEED in New England-had little impact on campaign in Seattle, CEFIA adjusted the Solarize program structures or policy roles. For the most part, Solarize structure to align better with its own strengths and expanded at the state and local level by simply needs by partnering with SmartPower to manage transposing what had worked in one community Solarize Connecticut. into a neighboring community. This was facilitated by peer communication about campaign details Regional connections in both areas have been used across neighborhoods and municipalities and was to convey a more granular level of information coordinated by network partners that worked with about program structure than national channels, local actors in multiple community simultaneously. while still allowing for differentiation in accordance with local needs and circumstances. Here, regional However, when the consistency of network structure networks transfer ideas about how campaigns ought across communities breaks down, so does the to be structured, what actors ought to be involved, ease of replicating Solarize without modification. and what responsibilities they should have. 'Ihis As noted above, NW SEED's efforts to spread information is transferred by a combination of Solarize statewide were stymied by inconsistent direct observation of activities and close collegial network structure, as neither community partners relationships among actors of similar classes in nor funders could easily be found outside the Puget nearby areas. Sound area. And in Massachusetts, the structure offered by Solarize Mass had to be modified- State and Local Levels and campaigns conducted without the support of state agencies-in areas outside of MassCEC's At the state and local level," policy actors are jurisdiction or that had non-profits interested in densely networked and community contexts are participating in Solarize but that could not work generally consistent. This allows for easy replication within the Solarize Mass structure. In these cases, of successful policy ideas, as actors are intimately structural differences caused a departure from the familiar with each other's policy experiments and default Solarize program structure in the area. what works in one area is likely to work in an adjacent and similar area. In general though, mechanisms of policy transfer at the state and local level allowed for highly consistent policy formation and incredibly granular 33 I combine state and local levels for this discussion communication about policy ideas in the spread as many of the network dynamics that happened at the of Solarize. 'Ihese mechanisms are distinct from municipal scale in Portland and Seattle are similar to those that occurred at the state level in Massachusetts and those at the regional level-where bridging ties Connecticut. allow for the spread of general ideas about program

61 structures and roles but not a simple duplication of types of roles filled by those in Harvard and the that program-and those at the national level- other pilot towns, and CEFIA followed the lead of where mass communication permits only the spread its peer organization in Massachusetts. of relatively basic and non-specific policy concepts and practices. Because the idea for Solarize was spread via the channels available to the initial policy entrepreneurs in each network, and because the actors that then The Precedent Set by took on Solarize had a ready example to follow in implementing the idea, subsequent campaigns Policy Entrepreneurs retained many of the characteristics of the first As discussed above, the roles that different actors Solarize effort in each network. 'Ihe way that assumed in policy formation depend n part on the Solarize has manifested itself in each area is at least network location of policy entrepreneurs. Here, I partially dependent on where within that network discuss how the location and attributes of that policy the idea came from. In areas where Solarize was first entrepreneur also affected the way that regional formulated as a grassroots community initiative, it approaches to Solarize were structured and spread. tended to stay a grassroots community initiative. In areas where it was conceived as a structured When policy entrepreneurs in the Pacific Northwest government program, it tended to retain elements and in New England solicited collaborators to form of a formal governmental hierarchy. Solarize programs, they both selected partners from the range of actors that they were already in contact In practice, the spread of Solarize blurred the lines with (such as NW SEED'S partnership with SCL between horizontal grassroots diffusion and vertical to provide campaign funding) and also forged new hierarchical diffusion. In each area examined in this targeted relationships with actors that could fulfill thesis, ideas about Solarize spread both through necessary roles (like Southeast Uplift contacting informal peer-to-peer exchanges and also within ETO to begin the first campaign).As the idea spread formalized ties between actors with some type of throughout policy networks, it did so through the hierarchical relationship. channels available to the actors that were driving the program forward. For example, neighborhood But while there is evidence of both vertical and coalitions learned of Solarize through their close horizontal diffusion in both the Pacific Northwest contact with Southeast Uplift, and MassCEC and and in New England, there are also clear differences. DOER used the state's existing relationships with Where Solarize campaigns in Oregon and municipal energy staff to spread the program. Washington have been developed by a hodgepodge of organizations and communicated in large part As new policy actors began to develop additional through informal and non-hierarchical channels, campaigns, they were able to use their peers as a in New England Solarize has predominantly been template to inform the role that they should adopt. structured through formal state programs and Neighborhood coalitions in Portland followed the managed within the formal hierarchy of the state- example set by Southeast Uplift, citizen groups and local government nexus. I attribute this difference municipalities in Massachusetts took on the same between the two networks to the network location

Early Stage Late Stage

Portland ETO Portland/BPS networked transfer of Solarize

Uplift ~ ' coltin * participating actor - participating tie

O latent actor - - - latent tie scouteastneighborhood

FIGURE 18 DIFFUSION OF SOLARIZE IN PORTLAND

62 Early Stage Late Stage

Oregon Portland networked transfer of Solarize campaigns BPS -0

* participating actor - participating tie Solar statewide Oregon non-profits 0 latent actor - - - latenttie & municipalities FIGURE 19 DIFFUSION OF SOLARIZE IN OREGON of the policy entrepreneurs that introduced the about and interest in Solarize spread throughout this Solarize model to the two areas. network. Because BPS attached few programmatic constraints to its grants, local communities were In Portland, the idea for Solarize initially grew out left to their own devices in determining program of the city's longstanding neighborhood association parameters and structures. As knowledge about Uplift had structure. Before Solarize, Southeast Solarize had spread widely throughout the state, formal ties with both the City of Portland through several communities were able to launch their the Office of Neighborhood Engagement as well as own campaigns without any support from BPS or to leadership at other neighborhood coalitions. But Solar Oregon. Consistent with Solarize Portland's as shown in Figure 18, the first Solarize campaign conception as a community-driven effort, campaigns grew out of an informal relationship between in greater Oregon displayed a good amount of Southeast Uplift and ETO. Word about the variety in program parameters and a high degree of program then spread organically to citizen activists local control. in other parts of the city, who had learned about Solarize through word of mouth and local media The community-based nature of Solarize followed and were eager to try the it, as well as to BPS, who the program to Washington as well, though NW did eventually establish formal relationships with SEED took on a stronger coordinating role than campaign coordinators at the coalitions. Because Solar Oregon and BPS had in greater Oregon. the Solarize model emerged in Portland at the Still, Solarize was organized in the Puget Sound neighborhood level, and because of the strong ties area based on the informal relationship between between neighborhood organizations, Solarize NW SEED and community groups. When formal remained a grassroots and neighborhood initiative institutional actors-in the form of public utilities- in the city. did get involved in Solarize in Washington it was primarily in a funding capacity. SCL and SnoPUD Solarize maintained this grassroots and never attempted to internalize Solarize into their decentralized (but coordinated) model in its spread own utility-run programming. to the rest of Oregon. Solar Now! had resulted in a statewide web of relationships between In the Pacific Northwest, the types of organizations municipalities, solar installers, and community and that would become involved in Solarize,the roles that environmental groups. With BPS's SAC funding they would play, and the manner that the program and Solar Oregon's outreach efforts, awareness would spread, all flowed logically from Solarize's Early Stage Late Stage public Seattle area utilities networked transfer of Solarize NW SEED -

participating actor participating tie Sola rize Port]and

- - - latent tie U-u-U O latent actor SCALLOPS groups FIGURE 20 DIFFUSION OF SOLARIZE IN SEATTLE

63 Early Stage Late Stage Solarize Mass MassCEC networked transfer of Solarize 0-0- DOER ~lt' Ic i * participating actor participating tie

O latent actor - - - latent tie L Municipahities FIGURE 21 DIFFUSION OF SOLARIZE MASS original development as a neighborhood-level and New England as an initiative of state government, neighborhood-run program. 'Ihe combination of this became the dominant mode by which it spread. Solarize's hyper-local origins and a mature set of relationships between community-level actors in Interestingly, a number of independent Solarize the solar energy space preserved Solarize as a model campaigns have been established in Massachusetts. that was owned by the grassroots in the Pacific In these instances, the local default arrangement of Northwest. Solarize policy actors only deviated from Solarize-participation in the state-run Solarize this model when required to do so by differences in Mass program-was unavailable or impractical, local network structure. and so policy actors in these communities instead developed their own campaigns because the state In Massachusetts, conversely, the idea for Solarize option was unavailable. emerged into the state government apparatus- albeit within an agency with strong organizational Possibilities for Other Paths flexibility. In transferring the model, MassCEC Could Solarize have happened differently? Would modified it to suit its own organizational strengths, the Pacific Northwest have supported a strong taking advantage of its staff's technical capacity to state-led program, and could Massachusetts have establish formal parameters that were designed to developed the idea at the grassroots level? It is support effective programs.'Through its partnership impossible to know what might have happened with DOER, MassCEC spread the program via had the idea for Solarize come from an actor with formal and hierarchical connections with local a different network location, but observations from governments. When Solarize Mass spread, it was the two cases may be used to speculate. not through grassroots word of mouth, but instead through a closely controlled process in which In Massachusetts, it seems that other paths to municipalities applied to become the state's partners implementation that do not depend on the state in subsequent program rounds. As a state-run government are available and could have been used program, Solarize Mass is a product of government to spread Solarize. Community energy efforts are hierarchy. 'This state-centric model spread from ongoing in several parts of the state, through a Massachusetts to Connecticut, where CEFIAs variety of civic organizations including SEEAL and formal management of the program mimicked HEET, through proactive municipal governments MassCEC's nearly exactly. Because Solarize entered like those in Boston and Medford, through engaged

Early Stage Late Stage Independent Campaigns MassCEC networked transfer of Solarize & OER - -I non-profits& - non-eligible municipalities - * L -0 * participating actor participating tie Solarize Mass O latent actor - - - latent tie municipalities

FIGURE 22 DIFFUSION OF INDEPENDENT SOLARIZE CAMPAIGNS IN MASSACHUSETTS

64 and organized citizen groups like Harvard Local, not through the energy of grassroots organizations and through supportive regional planning agencies and community members, a notion that was not like MAPC. Had one of these organizations been expressed in my New England interviews. In the first to learn of Solarize Portland and decide Massachusetts, the policymaking network possesses to implement the idea locally, would the structural alternate channels of communication that could arrangement of Solarize in Massachusetts be have (and still can!) spread ideas about community different? It is certainly possible. energy programs without any significant state support. But these pathways never self-activated. Alternate paths in the Pacific Northwest, however, Instead it took the leadership of a state agency with appear to be less obvious. Interviewees consistently a mandate for creativity to see the promise in a noted the lack of capacity and interest that state community energy program across the country and agencies and utilities in Oregon would have for apply it to a new context. a program like Solarize. While many of concepts behind Solarize had already occurred to staff at the While the contours of a policy network-and the Energy Trust, they did not have the opportunity degree to which it is "innovation-ready"-may to act on them until being approached by Tim create opportunities for multiple types of actors to O'Neal and Stephanie Stewart. As Lizzie Rubado become policy entrepreneurs, it is still incumbent explained: upon individual policy actors to take advantage of those opportunities. In both regions where We don't want to make ourselves a central Solarize has seen deep penetration, individuals lynchpin in a process. We want to create took this initiative. Had these actors not made use capacity (Rubado interview). of the resources and connections available to them, and In fact, several interviewees in Portland stressed the Solarize would not have been implemented 3 4 effectiveness, if at all. particular community-focused mindset of the city, spread with the same noting that Solarize was very much a product of its 'Ihe identity and attributes of the individuals that environment: take this initiative have consequences. In the Pacific Uplift All these people you've talked to including me, Northwest and in New England, Southeast of residential we're uniquepeople in a lot of ways. I mean, and MassCEC shaped the spread we are. And I think that' why we have such solar energy throughout their regions by defining a strong connection with each other. You through their actions how Solarize campaigns know, I've lived in other places, you're living ought to be structured, who ought to be involved, would be repeated and zn other places, it's not like that. It' hard to and how. Ihese arrangements throughout get a grassroots campaign goingfor anything, confirmed as the Solarize model spread anything (McDowell interview). the two regional networks, demonstrating the importance of the policy entrepreneur not only in I am not in a position to evaluate whether community implementing a new idea in a new area, but also in groups in Portland do indeed play an outsized role defining how it will be implemented. in the formation of policy compared to other areas. But, many of my interviewees expressed the notion that Solarize would not have emerged in the area if

34 I interviewed David Sweet-coordinator of the Solarize campaign in Northeast Portland-in his home in Cully Grove, a 16-family "solar-powered garden community" dedicated to living shared values of neighborhood and sustainability. On cue, a neighbor interrupted my interview to stop in and borrow some pushpins. "That's what community's all about," Sweet said as he went off to retrieve them. 65 66 Lessons for the Policy Community

'The spread of Solarize reveals several lessons for Build Connections that Prepare Networks those that seek to improve the rate and effectiveness for Innovation of policy innovation. I offer four recommendations As discussed above, the networks studied in this for those with the ability to influence policy thesis were successful in implementing Solarize networks and policy adoption to bear in mind. because they were prepared for it. The regional policy networks in the Pacific Northwest and Policymakers should proactively develop 1. in New England boasted strong connections issue-specific relationships within and necessary between grassroots citizen groups, state and local across policy networks to ensure that they are governments, and civic organizations. Nationally, prepared for innovation. policy entrepreneurs also had mechanisms available 2. Policymakers should allow for organizational to communicate and share ideas with their peers flexibility in public agencies to create room for across the country. While some of these relationships creativity and to permit agencies to adapt to fill were general, many were formed specifically on the necessary roles in policy formation. issue of solar power. Policymakers at various scales 3. Policymakers should allow for programmatic can learn from the discrete steps that were taken to flexibility in their approaches to community- build Solarize policy networks. based programs to suit the unique needs of local Policymakers at the municipal scale should consider communities. the direct finding that the City of Portland provided 4. Policymakers should ensure that they are to neighborhood associations and coalitions, and the learning from-rather than simply imitating- importance of this support in empowering grassroots the successes that their peers in other jurisdictions communities and in building strong relationships have had with new policies. between the city government and its citizens. Those at the state level should consider the connections that were forged through Massachusetts's Green Communities Act between state and municipal staff

67 specifically on energy issues, and the importance that In promoting Solarize throughout Oregon, these relationships played in facilitating the spread Portland's Bureau of Planning and Sustainability of Solarize Mass. And policymakers at both the made a controversial decision to re-grant its Solar federal and state levels should consider the benefits America Cities finding to organizations throughout of the issue-specific policy-sharing network that the state, rather than just to those located within was formed by the Solar America Cities initiative Portland. By going beyond its jurisdiction, the City and how those inter-municipal networks might be was able to fill a need in the policy network. Similarly, recreated and nurtured. the US Department of Energy stepped outside of its normal operations in offering Solar America Cities In each of these examples, officials at a higher level in the first place. Supporting local initiatives in solar of government provided direct resources as well was a new concept for the federal government, but as personal relationships at the staff level to lower SAC was ultimately very successful. In both of these levels of government. Not only did these initiatives cases, individual government officials made the promote policy innovation at lower levels that decision to go beyond normal operations to support benefited from their unique understandings of the expansion of solar programming. local needs and strengths, but they also provided the foundation for relationships that would be Other organizations have this flexibility built into leveraged later to implement new policy ideas. By their organizational mandate. Solarize campaigns creating these linkages, policymakers can better in Massachusetts and Connecticut were supported prepare their networks for innovation. by quasi-public state agencies tasked with market transformation in the energy sector, and Oregon's Allow for Flexibility in Government was supported by an institutional non-profit created Agencies by state legislation. These states all have traditional energy departments as well, but formed these In the networked view on policy transfer presented organizations to more explicitly intervene in energy in this thesis, public agencies are not categorically markets. The flexibility afforded to these quasi- different from private and civic actors in the role public agencies has allowed them to be creative that they play in the implementation of new in the sorts of programming they choose to offer, ideas-though they do possess substantial resources which they displayed in their contributions to the and network connections that are often unavailable development of Solarize. to other actors. In encouraging new policy ideas like Solarize, governments can be most effective Policymakers should heed the benefits of flexible not in assuming a priori a leadership position in government and create avenues for creativity. Some the production of policy, but instead by developing cities have approached this by creating government resources that complement those brought to bear offices that are designed specifically to test by other local policy actors and deploying them in innovative approaches to government services, such collaborative relationships with these actors. as Boston's Office of New Urban Mechanics and San Francisco's Office of Civic Innovation. At the 'Ihe growth of the Solarize model was aided by least, policymakers should consider that the options governmental actors that displayed such flexibility, that public agencies have in policy formation is not either by stepping outside of their normal policy limited to strict government, but instead include roles or by taking advantage of the creativity that collaborative efforts where governments adopt new was afforded them by their organizational mandates. roles to support the activities of private or civic By being flexible, governments could take on policy organizations. roles that were otherwise not filled by network collaborators, and contribute to the development and implementation of Solarize campaigns.

68 Allow for Flexibility in Community communities. Policymakers should allow some Programs degree of flexibility to accommodate the desires of communities and other stakeholders, but should Much of the success of the Solarize model is due to consider whether too much flexibility might its flexibility, both in the Pacific Northwest and in diminish program outcomes. All else being equal, New England. policymakers should allow program structures to In the Pacific Northwest, the details of Solarize mold to the preferences and strengths of individual programs differed substantially across local communities. campaigns, particularly among those that were conducted in greater Oregon and that were Practice Policy Learning Rather than organized by a great variety of municipal and Imitation nonprofit organizations. Solarize was adopted One grave mistake that policymakers can make by whatever kinds of organizations were present, in importing policies from other jurisdictions is interested, and able to do the necessary work, in failing to make necessary adaptations to local and these organizations made the modifications circumstances. 'Ihe solar policy networks discussed necessary to implement Solarize campaigns in their in this thesis benefited greatly from learning-based own contexts. adaptations. The most obvious example of this was the transfer of the Solarize model to Massachusetts, In New England, state leadership led to a greater where MassCEC and DOER adapted the model to degree of consistency in the roles that various actors suit their own organizational strengths by creating a took on in a Solarize campaign, but state agencies state-led program that leveraged existing municipal still relied on communities to self-organize, define relationships. If importing policy networks don't internal roles and responsibilities between municipal make necessary adaptations like these, imported government and citizens, and to operate their programs may fail. own campaigns. Organizations such as SEEAL or HEET that desired modifications to Solarize Policymakers need to consider not only if policies Mass found ways to implement their own versions must be adapted to suit local circumstances, but of Solarize that incorporated these elements, but also if a given policy is the right solution for local they lost the resources that a partnership with state problems at all. For example, a program like Solarize agencies would afford. may not be appropriate for all solar markets, particularly those where early adopters have already As state Solarize programs in Massachusetts and installed solar systems or where there is insufficient Connecticut look to the future, MassCEC and demand to take advantage of group purchasing. CEFIA will have to consider how to approach communities that are interested in Solarize but In light of this, policymakers must evaluate their that desire modifications to the state-sponsored own local market barriers and needs, search both programs' parameters. 'The agencies will be forced internallyand externally for policy solutions, evaluate to address a tradeoff. On the one hand, relaxing whether these solutions would be suitable for program structure requirements will allow these addressing local needs and, if they are, appropriately civic actors to have the best of both worlds- adapt policy solutions to local contexts. 'This is true state support and local control-while allowing not only in the case of Solarize, but in the adoption state agencies to hand more of the responsibility and adaptation of policy more generally. for campaign development and support to local partners. However, the program structures used in Solarize in the two states have been very effective, and relaxing these may diminish program outcomes.

Policymakers should be mindful of this tradeoff when structuring their relationships with local 69 70 Conclusions

Solarize is only one of the many recent clean energy to implement these solutions locally in a way that policy ideas that has been proposed at the state makes sense given the particular context of a place. or local level. While this great variety in policy the experimentation is more a byproduct ofa fragmented Networks are a critical element that facilitates of policy. Without decision-making process than a purposeful formation and implementation the necessary outcome, it is necessary given the many barriers to a strong network that provides clean energy markets. Energy problems do not have opportunities for resource sharing and collaboration, one-size-fits-all solutions, and policy actors need efforts to form and implement policy ideas can and to pursue many approaches simultaneously-and will fail. And without necessary network connections policies, pursue them differently in different areas-to craft to enable the communication of successful that are implemented will not be successful solutions. any good ideas scaled. In this thesis, I use the case of Solarize to 'Ihis is particularly true for residential solar markets, examine the ways that network dynamics support where many of the most pressing barriers-like an policy adoption and adaptation. underdeveloped contractor community, insufficient the adoption of new policy education, or complex municipal permitting Networks influence ideas in several ways. First, networks provide the processes-are local, and where cities and states infrastructure from which eventual have made very different levels of progress in communication first learn of innovative addressing these barriers. What is effective in one policy entrepreneurs area may not be effective somewhere else, and even approaches being pursued elsewhere. Then, of a particular policy approach pursue replicable solutions will need to be scaled modularly proponents a new idea by communicating it along established and often tweaked to apply to each unique context. network channels, and recruit collaborators from State and local solar policy actors need a way among their network contacts. These collaborators to identify the barriers and needs in their local market, to identify solutions that have worked to adopt various roles in the design, implementation, and transfer of the policy idea. Depending on address similar problems in similar contexts, and

71 the shape of the network, the location of a policy entrepreneur within it, and the types of connections immediately available to them, these efforts may be more or less successful.

Networks also influence how policy ideas are adapted to suit the contours of local networks, and vice versa. Policy entrepreneurs will modify a given idea to suit their own organizational strengths and those of their collaborators-which is why the Solarize campaign first implemented by Southeast Uplift in Portland looks so different than the statewide Solarize Mass program initiated by MassCEC. At the same time, in the course of implementing a campaign policy actors will strengthen existing network connections, forge new ones, and thereby modify the distribution of resources across the network.

'Ihe regional cases of Solarize presented above demonstrate that the arrangements of actors within policy networks have critical impacts on the formation and implementation of policy ideas. Network connections dictate which actors have access to what resources and information, and how they go about building a coalition to realize an idea.

In a policy context like that of clean energy-where rampant policy experimentation at the state and local level offers an abundance of ideas but rarely the information to know which will be successful in what contexts-network structure and location are critical filters of policy decisions and actions. With a deeper appreciation of how networks enable the formation and implementation of policy ideas, policymakers can better ensure that the ideas being adopted and adapted are good ones, and can better scale solutions to barriers in clean energy markets.

72 References

Abbott, C. (2008). Portland: Planning, Politics, and Growth in a Twentieth-Century. Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., Weaver, S., & Wiser, R. (2013). Tracking the Sun VI. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. 7Ihe American PoliticalScience Review, 395-415. CEFIA. (2013). Sun Rise New England - Openfor Business. Considine, M., Lewis, J. M., & Alexander, D. (2009). Networks, Innovation, and Public Policy: Politicians, Bureaucratsand the Pathways to ChangeInside Government. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cook, I. R. (2008). Mobilising Urban Policies: The Policy Transfer of US Business Improvement Districts to England and Wales. Urban Studies, 45(4), 773-795. Cowan, R. (2005). Network Models of Innovation and Knowledge Diffusion. In S. Breschi & F. Malerba (Eds.), Clusters,Networks and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crain, R. L. (1966). Fluoridation: the diffusion of an innovation among cities. Social Forces,44(4), 467-476. Dolowitz, D. P. (2003). A Policy-maker's Guide to Policy Transfer. The PoliticalQuarterly, 74(1), 101-108. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: 'he role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5-23. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature. PoliticalStudies, 44(2), 343-357. Evans, M., & Davies, J. (1999). Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-Level, Multi-Disciplinary Perspective.Public Administration, 77(2), 361-385. Graham, E. R., Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2012).'Ihe Diffusion of Policy Diffusion Research in Political

73 Science. BritishJournal of PoliticalScience, 43(03), 673-701. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American JournalofSociology, 91(3), 481-510. Granovetter, M. S. (1973).'Ihe strength of weak ties.AmericanJournal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. 7he American PoliticalScience Review, 67(4), 1174-1185. Hippel, von, E. (1988). 7he Sources ofInnovation. Oxford University Press, USA. Irvine, L., Sawyer, A., & Grove, J. (2011).'Ihe Solarize Guidebook, Version 1. Irvine, L., Sawyer, A., & Grove, J. (2012).The Solarize Guidebook, Version 2. Laws, D., Susskind, L., Abrams, J., Anderson, J., Chapman, G., Rubenstein, E., & Vadgama, J. (2001). Public Entrepreneurship Networks. Environmental Technology and Public Policy Program, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Majone, G. (1990). Cross-national sources of regulatory policy-making in Europe and the United States. Journalof Public Policy, 11, 79-106. Marsh, D., & Sharman, J. C. (2009). Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3), 269-288. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). FosteringSustainable Behavior. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers. McKibben, B. (2014, March 13). All talk-little action-on climate change. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from MSNBC.com. Milgram, S. (1967).'Ihe small world problem. Psychology Today, 2(1), 60-67. Mintrom, M. (1997a). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738-770. Mintrom, M. (1997b). 'Ihe state-local nexus in policy innovation diffusion: 'The case of school choice. Publius:the Journalof Federalism,27(3), 41-60. Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms.JournalofPolitics, 60, 126-148. Mirk, S. (2011,January 27).'Ihe Dark Side of Solar. PortlandMercury. Moreland-Russell, S., Eyler, A., Barbero, C., Hipp,J. A., &Walsh, H. (2013). Diffusion of Complete Streets Policies Across US Communities.Journal ofPublic Health Management and Practice,19, S89-S96. Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12,295-336. Powell, W. W, & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook ofInnovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rahr, L. (2012).'Ihe History of Solarize, Powerpoint Presentation. Robins, G., Lewis, J. M., & Wang, P. (2012). Statistical network analysis for analyzing policy networks. Policy StudiesJournal, 40(3), 375-401. Rogers, E. M. (2005). Diffusion ofInnovations. New York: Free Press. Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing inpublicpolicy.Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. Rubado, L. (2010). Solarize Portland: Community Empowerment through Collective Purchasing. Sandstr6m, A., & Carlsson, L. (2008).'Ihe performance of policy networks: the relation between network structure and network performance. Policy StudiesJournal, 36(4), 497-524. 74 Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2007). When the Smoke Clears: Interstate vs. Intrastate Diffusion of Youth Access Policies. American Journalof PoliticalScience, 52(4), 840-857. Susskind, L., Araujo, K., & Kempster, E. (2011). Green Technology Innovation at Scale: Relying on Public Entrepreneurship Networks. Unpublished Working Paper, 1-61. Sylvia, M., & Barton, A. (2013). Building Markets with Solarize Mass, Powerpoint Presentation. Vasi, I. B. (2006). Organizational Environments, Framing Processes, and the Diffusion of the Program to Address Global Climate Change Among Local Governments in the United States. Sociological Forum, 21(3), 439-466. Vigen, M., & Mazur-Stommen, S. (2012). Reaching the "High-Hanging Fruit" through Behavior Change: How Community-Based Social Marketing Puts Energy Savings within Reach. American Councilfor an Energy Efficient Economy. Walker, J. L. (1969). 'he Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American PoliticalScience Review, 63(6), 880-899. Ward, K. (2006). "Policies in Motion," Urban Management and State Restructuring: The Trans-Local Expansion of Business Improvement Districts. InternationalJournalof Urban and RegionalResearch, 30(1), 54-75. Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2009). Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly,54(1), 90-122. Wolfgang, Ben. (2014, January 28). Obama throws in towel on global-warming legislation. Washington Times. Woodward, A. E., Ellig, J., & Burns, T. R. (1994). Municipal Entrepreneurshipand Energy Policy: A Five Nation Study ofPolitics,Innovation, and Social Change. Yverdon, Switzerland: Gordon and Breach.

75 76 Appendix A: List of Interviewees

Name Organization* Title* Region Sector Jill p .. Concord Comprehensive Sustainable Energy Committee Chair New.England Citizen Kvn Armistrn Goupnegy Prgra Mange NtonlPrvt Toni Bouchard SmartPower Chief Operatin Officer New England Private Erin Brandt Metropolitan Area annin Council Assistant Manager of Clean Ener New.England Government Jk ru i Sett cCt~t R nergyProra ManaePcicNotws Goenmnt Eric Broadbent Havad Energy Advisor Committee Member New Englan Citizen

Jason C 0 hlin US National Renewable.Energy Laboratory Solar Finance.Analyst National Government Jessie Dnve G up nryPrgairetrNtoa rvte Mia Devine Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development Project. Maaer Pacific Northwest Civic Anne Dufy Southeas Uplift ExecutiveDirector PacificNorthwest Civic JoshHuneycutt US Department of Energ Analyst, SunShot Initiative National Government Alicia Hunt Cit of Medford Director, Office of Energy & Environment New England Government Andria Jacob Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainabili Senior Manager, Clean Ener Proga Pacific Northwest Government Elizabeth Kennedy Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Solar Program Director New England Government Tom Kimbis USDepartme of Energy Director, Market Transformation, US Solar Program National Governmen Meg Lusardi MassachusettsDepartment of Energy Resources Director, GreenCommunities Division New Enand Government Ron McDowell SoarOregon Board President Pacific Northwest Civic Tim 0Neal Sustainbility Coordinator Pacific Northwest Civic Lee Ralr Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainabilit. Solar Program Coordinator Pacific Northwest Government Lizzie Rubado Energy Trust of Oregon Senior Solar Project Manager Pacific Northwest Civic

Alex r othwest staale ergyfc Development Poect Manager Pacific Northwest Civic Audrey Schulman Home Energy Efficiency Team President New Enand Civic Karen Stewart Southeastern Environmental Education Alliance Assistant Director, SouthCoast Energy Challenge New England Civic Stephanie Stewart Mount Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Chair Pacific Northwest Citizen David Sweet Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods Board Member Pacific Northwest Citizen Bradford..Swing.Ciy of Boston Director of Energy Poli and ogr s New England Government Heather Trim Sustainable Queen Anne (SCALLOPS) Chair Pacific Northwest Civic Bob Wall Connecticut Clean Energy Financing and Investment Authority Director, Marketing and Outreach New England Government

* Organization and title reflect the position the interviewee held during their participation in Solarize campaigns, not their present position. 78 Appendix B: List of Solarize Campaigns

State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date California Solarize East Bay Community Power Pending Connecticut Solarize Columbia / Solarize Connecticut November 2013 Network Lebanon California Solarize Ojai Valley Community July 2013 Connecticut Solarize Coventry Solarize Connecticut March 2013 Environmental Connecticut Solarize Durham Solarize Connecticut September 2012 Center Connecticut -o.arizeEast Ly .e I C April 2014 Connecticut Solarize East/.. Lyme Solarize Connecticut April 2014 California Solarize San Luis Community August 2013 Redding .Trumbul Obispo Environmental Connecticut Solarize Easton / Solarize Connecticut July2013 Redding/ Trumbull Center ....onnect...... o Con Solarize Solarize Connecticut November 2013 California Solarize Santa Barbara Community May 2011 Connecticut Enfield I Environmental Connecticut Solarize Ess x Solarize Connecticut April 2014 Center Connecticut Solarize Fairfield Solarize Connecticut September 2012 California Solarize Santa Barbara Community August 2012 II Environmental Center Connecticut Solarize Greetnich Solarize Connecticut Julymbr2013 California Solarize Santa Ynez, Community April 2013 Valley Environmental Connecticut Solarize Haddam / Solarize Connecticut April 2014 Center Colorado Solarize La Plata Four Corners October 2013 Connecticut Solarize Hamden Solarize Connecticut November 2013 Office for Resource Connecticut Solarize Manchster Solarize Connecticut July 2013 Efficiency (4CORE) Connecticut Solarize Mansfield / Solarize Connecticut March 2013 Connecticut Solarize Ashford / Solarize Connecticut July 2013 Windham Chaplin / Hampton / Connecticut Solarize Montville Solarize Connecticut April 2014 Pomfret Connecticut Solarize Newtown Solarize Connecticut July2013 Connecticut Solarize Bloomfield Solarize Connecticut April 2014

Connecticut...... - arize Bridgeport.So.arize.Con --- March 203 Connecticut Solarize Roxbury / Solarize Connecticut November 2013 Connecticut Solarize Brokged Solarize Connecticut March 2013 Washington Connecticut Solarize Canton Solarize Connecticut March 2013 Connecticut Solarize Simsbury Solarize Connecticut April 2014 Connecticut Solarize Chesire Solarize Connecticut November 2013 Connecticut Solarize Stafford Solarize Connecticut November 2013 State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date Connecticut Solarize Stamford Solarize Connecticut November 2013 Massachusetts SEEAL Fairhaven SEEAL June 2013 Conciu Soize Tolland Solari.e Connecticut April014 . Solar Challenge Connecticut Solarize Torrington Solarize Connecticut April 2014 Massachusetts SEEAL Tri-Town SEEAL September 2013 Solar Challenge Connecticut Solarize West Hartford Solarize Connecticut July 2013 Connecticut...... Solarize-West-H Connecticut Nove r 2 Massachusetts Sherborn Solar Sherborn Energy July 2013 Connecticut Solarize West Haven Solarize Connecticut November 2013 Challenge Committee Cnnetiut Solrz Wston Solrz Conneciut Apri. 21 Massachusetts Solarize Acton Solarize Mass June 2012 Connecticut Solarize Westport Solarize Connecticut September 2012 Massachusetts Solarize Adams Solarize Mass February 2014 Maryland Solarize Frederick Frederick County April 2013 Massachusetts - Amherst - o .arize County Government Mass--ebruary.2014 ...... --_-...... - ...... I...... Massachusetts Solarize Andover Solarize Mass February 2014 Massachusetts Belmont Solar Sustainable Belmont Pending Challenge Massachusetts Solarize Arlington Solarize Mass June 2012 Massachusetts Cambridge Solar HEET MA May 2013 Masschusetts .SolaizeBoston . olarizeMass June 2012 Challenge Massachusetts Solarize Bourne Solarize Mass June 2013 Massachusetts Co-op Power Solar Co-op Power August 2013 Massachusetts Solarize Brookline Solarize Mass June2013 Electric Buying Group Massachusetts Solarize Chelmsford Solarize Mass June 2013 Massachusetts Concord Solar Concord April 2013 Carlisle Challenge Comprehensive Sustainable Energy Barrington / Egremont Massachusetts-.oarie Harvard-.olarize- Mass-July 2011 ...... I ...... I...... _ ...... Committee ...... I ...... -.. . Massachusetts Solarize Hatfaed Solarize Mass Massachusetts Greenfield Solar Town of Greenfield Pending Massachusetts -ar -Hopkinton - olarize Mass June-2012July 2011 Challenge Massachusetts Solarize HaLkele Solarize Mass June 2013 Massachusetts Lynn Solar Challenge Lynn Housing June 2013 Authority & Massachusetts Solarize Leno Solarize Mass June 2013 Neighborhood Development ...... I...... -...... Pittsfield Massachusetts Natick Solar Challenge Town of Natick January 2013 Massachusetts Solarize ILext Solarize Mass February 2014 Massachusetts Power to Choose Wellesley Sustainable March 2014 Bedford Wellesley Energy Committee ...... Massachusetts Solarize Mere Solarize Mass June 2012 ...... Ii Massachusett Solarize incoln / oarize Ms ue21 Massachusetts Renew Boston Solarize City of Boston September 2013 Wayland / Sudbury Massachusetts Roslindale Solar Greening Rozzie August 2013 Massachusetts Solarize Medford Solarize Mass June2013 Challenge Massachusetts Solarize Medway Solarize Mass June 2013 Massachusetts SEEAL Dartmouth SEEAL March 2014 Initiative State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date Massachusetts Solarize Mendon Solarize Mass June 2012 Missouri Sustainable Tower Southwest Garden August 2013 Massachusetts Solarize Millbury / Solarize Mass June 2012 Grove (St. Louis) Neighborhood Sutton Association Massachusetts Solarize Montague Solarize Mass June 2012 New Hampshire Solarize Cornish- Upper Valley March 2014 Plainfield Communities Massachusetts Solarize Needham Solarize Mass February 2014 New Hampshire Solarize Lyme Upper Valley March 2014 Massachusetts Solarize Newburyport Solarize Mass June 2012 Communities Massachusetts Solarize Newton Solarize Mass June 2013 New York Solarize Brooklyn Sustainable Flatbush May 2013 Massachusetts Solarize Northampton Solarize Mass June 2013 & Sustainable Massachusetts Solarize Poalm o Solarize Mass June 2012 Kensington Windsor Terrace Massachusetts Solarize Salem / Solarize Mass February 2014 Swampscott New York Solarize Genesee Genesee County January 2013 Economic Massachusetts Solarize Scituate Solarize Mass July2011 Development center Massachusetts Solarize Shiatery Solarize Mass Jun 20121 Massachusetts Solarize Watretw Solarize Mass Fueur 2014 New York Solarize Hornell City of Hornell January 2013 New York Solarize Madison I Madison County June 2012 Massachusetts Solarize Wellfleet Solarize Mass February 2014 Planning Massachusetts Solarize Williamsburg Solarize Mass February 2014 Department / Whately / New York Solarize Madison II Madison County April 2013 Chesterfield Planning Massachusetts Solarize Williamstown Solarize Mass June 2013 Department Massachusetts Solarize Winchester Solarize Mass July 2011 New York Solarize Thompkins Energy Independent Pending Caroline & Partners Massachusetts Somerville Solar HEET MA July 2013 Challenge New York Solarize'Ihompkins Energy Independent June 2013 Southeast Caroline & Partners Massachusetts Stow Solar Challenge Stow Energy November 2013 Working Group North Carolina Solarize Asheville Blue Ridge August 2013 ...... Sustainability Massachusetts Waltham Solar Waltham Energy January 2014 Institute Challenge Action Committee North Carolina Solarize Durham North Carolina January 2014 Minnesota Make Mine Solar Midwest Renewable July 2012 WARN Energy Society Oregon Go Solar! Central The Environmental July 2012 Minnesota Solarize Kingfield Kingfield October 2012 Oregon Center Neighborhood Association Oregon Growing Solar Clackamas January 2012 Clackamas County County Office of Sustainability oo S tate Program Name Organizing Group Start Date State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date Oregon Hillsboro Solar City of Hillsboro September 2011 Oregon Solarize Southeast Southeast Uplift March 2010 Advantage Portland 11 Oregon Rogue Solar I Rogue Valley June 2012 Oregon Solarize Southern Southern Oregon July 2012 Council of Oregon Clean Energy Governments Alliance Oregon Rogue Solar II Rogue Valley July 2013 Oregon Solarize Southwest Southwest April 2010 Council of Portland Neighborhoods, Governments Incorporated ...... I...... 1...... ?.. 9 ..-...... Oregon Solar Beaverton I City of Beaverton May 2010 Oregon Solarize Union County Oregon Rural Action May 2012 Oregon Solar Beaverton II City of Beaverton March 2011 1 Oregon Solar Gresham City of Gresham March 2012 Oregon Solarize Union County Oregon Rural Action May 2013 11 Oregon Solarize Corbett Informal citizen July 2011 group Oregon Solarize West Linn - City of West Linn & March 2012 Lake Oswego City of Lake Oswego Oregon Solarize Eugene The Resource June 2011 Innovation Group Texas Solarize Garland Solarize Garland February 2014 Oregon Solarize Malheur Oregon Rural Action January 2014 Texas Solarize Gillespie Fredericksburg Pending County County SHINES Oregon Solarize North! Neighbors West- January 2011 Texas Solarize Plano Plano Solar June 2013 Northwest Portland Northwest & Advocates North Portland Utah Salt Lake Community Utah Clean Energy June 2012 Neighborhood Solar Services Utah Summit Community Utah Clean Energy May 2013 Oregon Solarize Northeast Northeast Coalition January 2010 Solar Portland I Neighborhoods of Vermont Solar Addison County Vermont PIRG July 2011 Oregon Solarize Northeast Northeast Coalition January 2012 Vermont Solar Berlin Vermont PIRG March 2011 Portland II of Neighborhoods Vermont Solar - Vermont PIRG--arch 2011 Oregon...... So-ari-e-Pend.eton...City.of.Pend.eton Vermont Solar Charlotte Vermont PIRG March 2011 Vermont - Vermont -i.esburg- March 2011 Oregon Solarize Pendleton I City of Pendleton April 2010 Vermont Solar East Montpelier Vermont PIRG March 2011 Oregon Solarize Pendleton II City of Pendleton March 2011 Vermont Solar Montpelier o PIRG M --2011 Vermont Solar Hinesburg Vermont PIRG March 2011 Oregon Solarize Salem I Salem Creative August 2010 Network Vermont Solar Widlesex Vermont PIRG Setm 201 0 Vermont Solar Oregon Solarize Salem 11 Salem Creative May 2011 Montpelier Vermont PIRG March 2011 Network Vermont Solar Shelburne Vermont PIRG March 2011 Oregon Solarize Southeast Southeast Uplift June 2009 Vermont Solar Waterbury Vermont PIRG September 2010 Portland I State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date State Program Name Organizing Group Start Date Vermont Solar Williston Vermont PIRG September 2010 Washington Solarize Mukilteo NW SEED July 2012 Vermont Solarize Norwich I Norwich Energy May 2012 Washington Solarize Northeast NW SEED January 2012 Committee Seattle Vermont Solarize Norwich II Norwich Energy May 2013 Washington Solarize Northwest NW SEED January 2013 Committee Seattle Vermont Solarize Norwich III Norwich Energy February 2014 Washington Solarize Queen Anne NW SEED January 2011 Committee (Seattle) Vermont Solarize Strafford- Upper Valley March 2014 Washington Solarize Stanwood / NW SEED February 2012 Ihetford Communities Camano Virginia Solarize Blacksburg Virginia March 2014 Washington Solarize Thurston NW SEED June 2012 Solar United County Neighborhoods Washington Solarize West Seattle NW SEED Pending Washington Solarize Central/ NW SEED October 2013 Wisconsin MadiSUN City of Madison June 2011 Southeast Seattle Wisconsin Solar Bayview Milwaukee SHINES February 2014 Washington Solarize Magnolia NW SEED July 2011 (Seattle) Wisconsin Solar Riverwest Milwaukee SHINES March 2013 Washington SolarizeMid Columbia NW SEED June2013 Wisconsin Solarize Marshfield Sustainable April 2012 Marshfield