climateworks foundation - wikileaks

ClimateWorks Word Document Title 1

ClimateWorks Foundation Meeting of the Board of Directors

16 December 2015

Live meeting: San Francisco, CA

MEMORANDUM

To: ClimateWorks Board of Directors

From: Charlotte Pera, President & CEO

Re: ClimateWorks Board meeting, 16 December 2015

Date: 30 November 2015

We are looking forward to the December 16 meeting of the ClimateWorks Foundation Board of Directors

and are pleased to send along the attached agenda and supporting materials. The board meeting will be

held in San Francisco, California, at ClimateWorks’ offices.

As usual, our meeting on Wednesday will start in executive session, and we will hold a second executive

session (without the CEO present) at the end of the day.

Our meeting follows close on the heels of COP 21, which has become especially poignant given recent

terrorist attacks in Paris. We have invited Jennifer Morgan, Visiting Director for International Policies and

Politics (seconded to ClimateWorks by WRI) to join the meeting via videoconference to give us an update on

what happened in the meetings and her perspectives on what COP 21 signals for future climate action.

In this meeting we will be asking you to make a decision on our 2016 budget and grants over $500,000,

including those to regional climate foundations. We will ask for your feedback on our provisional high‐level

2016 organizational objectives, our areas of programmatic focus for 2016, and more. We will review our

annual governance calendar and you will have the opportunity to re‐elect key board officers and committee

members.

As you requested in our last teleconference, Surabi Menon will join us for a deep dive session on the Carbon

Transparency Initiative. We have included materials in your packet (Tab 4) describing the initiative and

various options we are considering for making the most of this new tool. In the last part of the meeting,

Brian will review the financial report in the board packet (Appendix 3).

We will take a short break after the meeting, then meet for a special dinner in San Francisco.

Best regards,

Charlotte Pera

President and CEO

ClimateWorks Board of Directors 16 December 2015 3

ClimateWorks Board of Directors

Logistics

Board Meeting

16 December 2015

Dinner

16 December 2015

Meeting Logistics 9:00 AM‐4:30 PM local time

ClimateWorks Foundation

Asia Conference Room

235 Montgomery Street

13th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104 USA

Dinner Logistics 6:30 PM Cocktails

7:00 PM Dinner

Farallon

Private Dining “Osetra Room”

450 Post Street, 4th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102 USA


Board meeting: Locations

December 2015 – San Francisco

Parking information The following are good options if you are driving into San Francisco for the day:

The Russ Building: ClimateWorks’ office building at 235 Montgomery Street has a 350‐car garage that can be

entered from either Pine or Bush Streets. Valet parking is available from 5:00 AM until 8:00 PM, for a daily

maximum of $36. After 8:00 PM, see the Russ Building lobby attendant to pay your bill and retrieve your car;

or you may take your car up to Farallon for evening parking.

Sutter Stockton Garage, 444 Stockton Street, between Sutter & Bush Streets with entrances on Stockton or

Bush Streets. Open 24/7, self‐park, daily maximum of $36.

Union Square Garage, 333 Post Street, between Powell & Stockton with entrance on Geary. Open 24/7, self‐

park, daily maximum of $36.

Farallon, 450 Post Street: for the dinner hours only, valet parking will be sponsored by ClimateWorks. If you

are on foot, Farallon is a pleasant 12‐minute walk from ClimateWorks’ offices.

San FranciscoInternational Airport

Farallon450 Post St

ClimateWorks235 Montgomery St

Distances (approximate) San Francisco International Airport to ClimateWorks Foundation:

▪ 13 miles / 20 min by car with no traffic

ClimateWorks Foundation to Farallon:

▪ 1 km / 12 min walking

Meeting locations – see detail at right


ClimateWorks Board Meeting 16 December 2015

Table of Contents Document Tab Page Notes

Welcome

Cover memo ‐ 3

Logistics ‐ 5

Meeting agenda 1 9

September minutes 1 13 We will seek your approval of

these minutes

October minutes 1 17 We will seek your approval of

these minutes

November minutes 1 19 We will seek your approval of

these minutes

Memo: Action items 1 21

CEO Update

Memo: CEO Update 2 23

Memo: 2015 organizational goals 2 25 See also: resume of our new Controller in Appendix 2

Timeline update checklist – 2015 Coordination Process

2 39

Memo: Third‐party evaluation 2 41

Memo: Follow‐up on Evaluation Baseline Report Priority Areas

2 51

Memo: 2016 organizational goals 2 59

Programs Update

No materials for this session

International Agreements Update

Memo: Post‐Paris debrief 3 65

Article: On the Path to Paris, a steep final ascent

3 67

Carbon Transparency Initiative

Memo: Carbon Transparency Initiative 4 71


Document Tab Page Notes

CTI model description 4 73

CTI projected spending 4 75

Slide presentation: CTI Alternatives 4 77

ClimateWorks Case Study

Materials for this session will be sent separately

2016 Budget

Memo: ClimateWorks’ 2016 budget 5 83 We will seek your approval of ClimateWorks’ 2016 budget

Grants and Contracts

Memo: Grants 6 99 We will seek your approval of two grants

Governance: year in review See also the Board Handbook

distributed separately

Memo: Annual governance review 7 101

You will consider election of the Board Chair and Vice Chair, and reelection of one Audit Committee member

Finance Update

Q3 2015 Financial Report Appendix 3 117

Board Calendar

ClimateWorks Board Calendar Appendix 4 125

ClimateWorks Board resolutions

December resolutions 8 105

Appendices

External Relations Update Appendix 1 111 See also the Development Tables in the Board Handbook

Resume of new ClimateWorks staff Appendix 2 115

Q3 2015 Financial Report Appendix 3 117

ClimateWorks Board Calendar Appendix 4 125


ClimateWorks Board of Directors

Wednesday

16 December, 2015

9:00 AM ‐ 4:30 PM

Pacific Standard Time

Live meeting ClimateWorks Foundation

235 Montgomery Street

13th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Attendees Board members:

Jamshyd Godrej, Larry Kramer, Carol Larson, Pam Matson, Charlotte Pera, John

Podesta, and Sue Tierney

Absent:

Kristian Parker

Staff:

Ann Cleaveland, Charlie McElwee, Brian McCracken, Surabi Menon, Gretchen

Rau, and Jean‐Louis Robadey

Guests: Jennifer Morgan, Visiting Director for International Policies and Politics

(seconded to ClimateWorks by WRI), via videoconference; Susan Cook,

Principal, Spearfish Innovation

This meeting will be held live in San Francisco, CA. If you are unable to attend the

meeting in person and plan to participate remotely please contact Gretchen Rau

([email protected] or +1 415.517.0613). There is a separate

teleconference line for the executive session listed in the following agenda for

any board members who will not be attending in person.

Teleconference line for the regular sessions:

From the U.S.: 1‐877‐384‐2311 Participant code: 770 483 887

From outside the U.S.: 1‐480‐629‐1629 Moderator code: 506 046 968


Board Agenda Wednesday, 16 December 2015

8:30 AM Breakfast will be available

TIME TOPIC SUPPORTING MATERIAL STAFF PRESENTING

Executive Session I

9:00 AM

1 hour

Executive Session I (CEO will join)

We will use a separate teleconference line for this session. If you need a toll‐free number for other countries

email [email protected]:

From the U.S.: 1‐877‐384‐2311 Participant code: 997 212 108

From outside the U.S.: 1‐480‐629‐1629 Moderator code: 513 626 855

Regular Board Session

10:00 AM

10 min

Welcome, review agenda, and

approve minutes

Cover memo

Logistics memo

In Tab 1:

Meeting agenda

September, October, and November minutes

Memo: Action Items

10:10 AM

30 min

CEO update In Tab 2:

Memo: CEO update

With attachments:

o Memo: 2015 organizational goals

o Timeline update checklist – 2015

Coordination Process

o Memo: Third‐party evaluation

With: Follow‐up on Evaluation

Baseline Report Priority Areas

(Social Policy Research

Associates)

o Memo: 2016 organizational goals

Charlotte Pera

10:40 AM

20 min

Programs Update Charlie McElwee

11:00 AM

30 min

International Agreements Update In Tab 3:

Memo: Post‐Paris Debrief

With attachment:

o Article: On the Path to Paris, a steep final ascent

Jennifer Morgan


Additional materials in appendix:

1. Memo: External Relations update (Development Update Tables in Board Handbook)

2. New staff resume: Suzanne Greva (Controller)

3. Q3 Financial Report

4. ClimateWorks Board calendar

TIME TOPIC SUPPORTING MATERIAL STAFF PRESENTING

11:30 AM

1 hour

Carbon Transparency Initiative In Tab 4:

Memo: Carbon Transparency Initiative

With attachments:

o CTI model description

o CTI projected spending

o Slide presentation: CTI Alternatives

Surabi Menon Sue Cook

12:30 PM

45 min

Lunch (with ClimateWorks staff)

1:15 PM

20 min

ClimateWorks Case Study Materials will be sent separately Charlotte Pera Jean‐Louis Robadey

1:35 PM

1 hour

2016 Budget In Tab 5:

Memo: ClimateWorks’ 2016 budget

Charlotte Pera Brian McCracken Charlie McElwee

2:35 PM

15 min

BREAK

2:50 PM

30 min

Grants and Contracts In Tab 6:

Memo: Grants

Charlie McElwee

3:20 PM

15 min

Governance: year in review In Tab 7:

Memo: Annual governance review

Gretchen Rau Brian McCracken

3:35 PM

15 min

Finance update The Q3 2015 Financial Report is included as

Appendix 3

Brian McCracken

3:50 PM

5 min

Board calendar The board calendar is included as Appendix 4 Gretchen Rau

3:55 PM

5 min

ClimateWorks Board resolutions In Tab 8:

December resolutions Gretchen Rau

Executive Session II

4:00 PM

30 min

Executive session II (no ClimateWorks staff)

4:30 PM Adjourn

6:30 PM Dinner at Farallon, 450 Post Street, 4th Floor (Osetra Room)

Cocktails 6:30 PM

Dinner 7:00 PM


CLIMATEWORKS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

REGULAR SESSION OF THE BOARD

Meeting date: Monday, 9 September 2015

Time: 9:00 am Central European Time

Meeting held live in Geneva, Switzerland

Attendees and absentees

Attending board members (representing a quorum): Jamshyd Godrej, Larry Kramer, Carol Larson,

Pamela Matson, Kristian Parker, Charlotte Pera, John Podesta, Sue Tierney (Chair)

Absent: none

Attending staff: Brian McCracken, Charlie McElwee, Gretchen Rau (Secretary), Jean‐Louis Robadey,

Anthony Eggert

Guests: William Reilly, Emeritus Chairman

Executive Session The board met in executive session from 9:00am until approximately 10:25am, with ClimateWorks’ CEO

Charlotte Pera present. No formal decisions were considered in executive session.

Welcome Dr. Tierney opened the general session at 10:35am. All directors were noted as present, representing a

quorum. The board unanimously approved the 4 June 2015 and 9 July 2014 board meeting minutes.

Ms. Pera reviewed the Action Items memo in the packet, including an update on ClimateWorks’ funding

coordination process and staff recruiting efforts.

CEO Update Ms. Pera discussed the highlights from the recent Funders Table meeting in Copenhagen. Ms. Pera then

led the board in a discussion about new opportunities that could potentially enhance ClimateWorks’

value proposition, asking the board for feedback on process and prioritization of these opportunities.

Strategic Look Ahead at the Budget Ms. Pera reviewed the memo in the packet on 2015‐2017 Projected Allocations, which echoed from

previous memos and discussions this year an assumed loading order for allocations as revenues are

reduced in future years. The board affirmed that they continued to agree with the assumed loading order


and priorities outlined in the memo.

External Relations Update Mr. Robadey presented a general external relations update including the status of core funding and the

fundraising pipeline; the potential for using recently developed proposals as a template for future

opportunities; and how staff are approaching ClimateWorks‐led new initiatives from both a programmatic

and a fundraising perspective. The board discussed ClimateWorks’ possible role in incubating new

initiatives and what that revenue model might look like.

Mr. Robadey then led the board in a discussion on where they saw the greatest value for institutional

communications.

The Recommended Portfolio for 2016 Anthony Eggert joined the meeting.

Mr. McElwee gave a slide presentation on ClimateWorks’ Recommended Portfolio for 2016 and also

referred to the narrative analysis of the Recommended Portfolio that had been distributed to the board

electronically on August 10th. He began with brief remarks on the process of developing the

Recommended Portfolio, and the main differences between the process this year versus last year. Mr.

McElwee then reviewed the elements of the Recommended Portfolio, including the recommended

funding within each campaign and region, emissions targeted by the initiatives and how they are

estimated; and the mix of mature, new, and emerging strategies within the Portfolio.

Mr. McElwee then answered the board’s questions about exit strategies, areas where the exploration of

new hypotheses has resulted in shifts in the Portfolio from last year, and how funding to grantees is

aligning with the Portfolio. Mr. McElwee then reviewed the next steps. The board commended staff on

their work and observed that the process has had a positive effect on funders’ strategic development

processes.

Programs Update Mr. McElwee presented a general update on ClimateWorks’ programs. He referred to the materials in Tab

6 on the Carbon Transparency Initiative, reporting that ClimateWorks was developing a communications

strategy for the initiative. He commented that the ClimateWorks Dashboard was receiving favorable

reviews from members of the Funders Table. He then summarized the insights and challenges emerging

from structured learning exercises that focused on the Recommended Portfolio process.


Global Electric Drive Vehicle strategy Mr. McElwee introduced the Global Electric Drive Vehicle strategy, explaining that ClimateWorks would

begin to fund the strategy once it was approved by the board but that the board would need to approve

any specific grants over the $500,000 threshold. Mr. McElwee then introduced Anthony Eggert,

ClimateWorks’ program officer for the strategy.

Mr. Eggert explained the opportunities presented by the current state of the electric drive vehicle market

and the potential for scaling a strategy for significant impact on ClimateWorks’ climate goals. Mr. Eggert

reviewed the elements of the strategy, explaining the rationale for a global strategy and the best role for

philanthropy in the space. The board had a lively discussion of the strategy.

Grant Mr. McElwee reviewed the proposed grant to the New Venture Fund (NVF) in the amount of $685,000,

commenting on the factors that went into recommending the grant. Mr. Eggert, program officer for the

grant, reviewed highlights of the proposal.

The board raised questions about internal controls at NVF, and about how the proposed activities fit with

Shell Oil Company’s decision‐making structure. They also asked about other funders in the space and how

the grant would relate to work done by other conservation organizations.

A motion was presented to approve the grant to New Venture Fund as‐is, with the understanding that

ClimateWorks staff would report back to the board at a later meeting in response to their unanswered

questions. The motion was seconded and the grant was unconditionally and unanimously approved by all

directors with the exception that Mr. Podesta abstained from voting.

Finance Update Mr. McCracken gave a brief overview of the Q2 financial report in the appendix.

Board Business Mr. McCracken reported that with Barbara Kosnar’s term on the Audit Committee ending in June, the

committee was now down to two members, Sue Tierney and John Natoli. The committee revisited the

charter approved in August 2013 and recommended adding more flexibility and clarity to the charter by

changing the language as indicated by the redlined version in the packet.

Ms. Tierney reported on the process used to select a candidate for the open position on the Audit

Committee, The candidate, Diana Mears, had the enthusiastic recommendation of the Audit Committee.

A motion was presented to approve both the changes to the Audit Committee charter and the election of

Diana Mears. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved by all directors present.


Resolutions A motion was presented to approve the Global Electric Drive Vehicle strategy as proposed. The motion

was seconded and unanimously approved by all directors present.

Adjournment Board Chair Sue Tierney adjourned the regular meeting at 4:10pm local (Central European) time.

Executive Session

The board met in second executive session from 4:20pm until 4:40pm local (Central European) time

without any ClimateWorks staff present. No formal decisions were considered in executive session.

Official record

These minutes are submitted in the record book of the Corporation by Gretchen Rau, corporate secretary.




Meeting date: Monday, 12 October 2015

Time: 8:30 am PDT

Meeting held via teleconference


Attending board members (representing a quorum): Larry Kramer, Carol Larson, Pamela Matson,

Kristian Parker, Charlotte Pera, John Podesta, Sue Tierney (Chair)

Absent: Jamshyd Godrej

Attending staff: Anthony Eggert, Brian McCracken, Charlie McElwee, Gretchen Rau (Secretary)


Welcome Dr. Tierney opened the general session at 8:45 am.1 Seven directors were noted as present, representing

a quorum.

ClimateWorks’ 2014 Tax Return Mr. McCracken led a discussion on the 2014 Tax Return. He described the review process by

ClimateWorks’ auditing partners, Grant Thornton; and by ClimateWorks staff and the board’s audit

committee. The audit committee met on October 8 to review the tax return and formally recommended

approval of the 2014 Tax Return to the ClimateWorks Board of Directors.

Mr. McCracken described the information reported in Schedule A related to the public support test for

retaining status as a public charity. ClimateWorks is using “facts and circumstances” to qualify; Mr.

McCracken described what would be needed to maintain public charity status in the future. The board

discussed Grant Thornton’s recommendation that ClimateWorks leave more cushion under its 501(h)

lobbying election and the board asked for follow‐up in a future meeting on how lobbying funds are used.

A motion was presented to approve the 2014 Tax Return; the motion was seconded and unanimously

approved by all directors present.

1 The meeting started late due to technical difficulties.


Follow‐up on New Venture Fund grant Mr. McElwee reviewed that the board approved a grant to New Venture Fund (NVF) in the September 9

board meeting, to support work to protect the Arctic from oil and gas exploration. The board had raised

several questions in the meeting, and in the interim a significant new development had also occurred:

Shell Oil Company decided to temporarily suspend drilling activities in the Arctic. Mr. McElwee referred to

a memo in the board packet addressing the board’s questions as well as the impact of the new

developments on the grant. He then introduced Anthony Eggert, ClimateWorks’ Oil Campaign director

and the program officer for the grant.

Mr. Eggert reported on the context of Shell’s decision and stated that it was a huge win for the Arctic

initiative. He described other actions that were needed to protect the Arctic, and said that NVF would

shift in focus but keep the same end goal of preventing large‐scale capital investment in the area. He

provided insights into NVF’s organizational health and capacity, and ClimateWorks’ plan to manage the

grant. The board discussed resource allocation and suggested ClimateWorks continue to investigate other

areas such as the Atlantic offshore. The board reaffirmed their support for the grant.

Contracts Mr. McElwee reviewed proposals for three contracts with Redstone Strategy Group, which in addition to

Redstone contracts currently in place to support campaign activities, would trigger the need for board

approval for contracts over the $500,000 threshold.

A motion was presented to approve the three new contracts totaling $346,500 for (a) advancing the Oil

TRAIN ($132,000), (b) priming the Oil Campaign for 2016 ($132,000), and (c) identifying the potential to

add value in renewable energy forums ($82,500); the motion was seconded and unanimously approved

by all directors present.

Adjournment Board Chair Sue Tierney adjourned the regular meeting at 9:18 am PDT.

Official record





Meeting date: Thursday, 12 November 2015

Time: 7:00 am PST

Meeting held via teleconference


Attending board members (representing a quorum): Larry Kramer, Carol Larson, Pamela Matson,

Kristian Parker, Charlotte Pera, John Podesta, Sue Tierney (Chair)

Absent: Jamshyd Godrej

Attending staff: Brian McCracken, Charlie McElwee, Catherine Rondinaro (Acting Secretary)


Welcome, review agenda Ms. Tierney opened the general session at 7:02am and reviewed the agenda. Seven board members were

noted as present, representing a quorum.

Update on India banking issue Mr. McCracken updated the board on the status of a lease deposit in India associated with ClimateWorks’

India Liaison Office.

Preview of ClimateWorks’ 2016 budget Ms. Pera presented a draft version of ClimateWorks’ 2016 budget as described in the memo and two

tables in the board packet. She described staff’s recommendation to roll over some 2015 funds for

specific programs in 2016, and reviewed the priority loading order for budgeting as discussed in prior

board meetings. Ms. Pera asked for feedback on the draft budget; the board was supportive of the draft

budget and asked for more discussion in the December meeting about 2016 funding to Regional Climate

Foundations and the rollout of the Carbon Transparency Initiative.

Grants and contract Mr. McElwee presented two grants and one contract to the board for approval: a lobbying grant to the

Green Tech Action Fund in the amount of $910,000; a renewal grant to Securing America’s Future Energy

(SAFE) in the amount of $750,000; and a contract to the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) in the

amount of $1.3 million. Mr. McElwee noted that the SAFE grant and the RAP contract were included as

part of a proposal to Oak Foundation trustees for allocation of $5.0 million of their core support grant to


ClimateWorks, and had just been approved by the Oak Foundation trustees. The board discussed the

three proposals and Dr. Parker shared observations from a recent Oak Foundation trustee call.

A motion was presented to approve the grant to Green Tech Action Fund; the motion was seconded and

unanimously approved by all directors present. A motion was then presented to approve both the grant

to SAFE grant and the contract to RAP; the motion was seconded and unanimously approved by all

directors present.

Board business Ms. Tierney led a brief discussion about board composition and terms.

Preview of December board meeting Ms. Pera reviewed the schedule of events for the December 16 board meeting.

Adjournment Board Chair Sue Tierney adjourned the regular meeting at 7:48am PST.

Official record



ACTION ITEMS


From: Gretchen Rau, Board Secretary

Re: Status Report on Action Items from September – November 2015


Staff recorded the following action items in the September 9, October 12, and November 12 board

meetings.

Issue Request Status as of November 30

Board Portal Create online portal for

board materials

Staff are developing a home page for the board

on our Dashboard which will be implemented

early in 2016

Grant to New

Venture Fund

Follow up on questions

raised in September 9

board meeting

Discussed with the board in the November 12

teleconference

Staffing Keep looking for ways to

prevent staffing overload

2016 staffing plan will be presented with the

2016 budget; we will update you on efforts to

improve business processes in the CEO Update

session

Lobbying grants Board would like an update

on how lobbying funds are

spent under our 501(h)

election (request in

October meeting)

Staff will provide an update on this topic in the

March 18 board meeting

RCF Funding Board would like to see

ClimateWorks funding to

RCFs in the context of other

funding to RCFs

Preliminary funding information provided

verbally on November 12 call. We will discuss

this in the Budget section of this meeting (see

table on page 90, Tab 5)

Carbon Transparency

Initiative

Board would like to be

updated on utilization and

branding plans for the CTI

(request in November

meeting)

We will present this in a separate CTI session in

this meeting (see Tab 4)


CEO UPDATE



Re: Supporting materials for CEO Update session


This tab includes four documents that support the CEO Update. These are:

1. Memo: Update on 2015 organizational goals

2. Timeline update checklist for the 2015 Coordination Process

3. Management Response to SPR Follow‐up on Baseline Report, with:

Follow‐up on Evaluation Baseline Report Priority Areas (Social Policy Research Associates) 4. Memo: 2016 organizational goals


2015 ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS



Re: Update on 2015 organizational goals


This memo provides an end‐of‐year update on how we have done in meeting ClimateWorks’

organizational goals for 2015. The memo walks through our 2015 goals and answers the question “How

did we do?” for each goal or clusters of goals. We look forward to discussing this update with the board in

our December 16 meeting.

Our five broad goals for the year are to:

1. Help improve the suite of strategies available for philanthropic investment, and coordinate

funding to priority strategies.

2. Continue to evolve the ClimateWorks Funders Table as a unique and valuable forum for donor

collaboration.

3. Continue to evolve our systems & processes.

4. Build and support a high functioning organization.

5. Attract new donors and resources to the ClimateWorks Regranting Network and to climate

mitigation strategies more broadly.

GOAL #1—Help improve the suite of strategies available for philanthropic investment and coordinate funding to priority strategies.

SUBGOALS:

A. Organize and lead discussions within Campaign Funders Groups and other Funders Table forums to

develop new strategies and reaffirm or strengthen existing strategies, in partnership with other

leaders in the field. Find ways to pull existing evaluations and lessons learned into strategy discussions,

even as the Funders Table begins a new cycle of collaborative evaluation.

B. Follow through on coordinated funding decisions for 2015 by making grants from ClimateWorks

resources and tracking 2015 grantmaking across the Funders Table.

C. Develop a funding coordination process for 2015 that is lighter and faster than the 2014 process, but

also helps drive smart shifts in strategies and funding as we look ahead to 2016.

D. Manage the 2015 funding coordination process effectively to ensure that funders who choose to align

resources around ClimateWorks’ Recommended Portfolio are able to make well‐informed, timely


funding decisions for 2016. Engage all Funders Table funders—and other funders where possible—in

strategy and funding discussions with the goal of enhancing funder coordination and strengthening

the collective funding portfolio.

E. Ensure the Regional Climate Foundation and other key grantees receive guidance as to 2016 funding

levels in as timely a manner as possible.

F. Continue to develop and share Global View Function products and assessments to inform strategic

priorities, shape investment decisions, put Funders Table efforts in the context of the global challenge,

help track progress toward goals, and otherwise provide value to funders and key partners.

G. Continue to successfully manage the International Policies and Politics Initiative (IPPI) as a program

administered by ClimateWorks.

HOW DID WE DO?

Broadly, we have executed well on this set of subgoals and made substantial improvements in strategies

and funding coordination compared with last year. More specifically:

We are pleased with the strategy development work we’ve completed this year (Goal 1A) and expect that

staff experience gained this year will help us develop several more strong strategies in 2016. We continue

to take a highly consultative, collaborative approach to strategy development to assure quality and

stakeholder buy‐in. Highlights include:

The board approved our strategy for a new Global Electric Drive Vehicle (EDV) Initiative in September

and we have begun to make grants against that strategy

In our June meeting, the board approved the priorities identified in our Finance Campaign Scoping

Document; we are continuing that work with an initial focus on building out strategies to increase the

uptake and efficacy of green banks (draft strategy to be completed for review by December 21st),

increasing the scale and impact of green debt issuance (strategy draft to be completed for review by

end of February 2016), cut fossil fuel subsidies in select regions (draft strategy to be completed in

March 2016), among others

We continue to lead a multi‐stakeholder effort to develop a strategy and forum (the “RE Forum”) for

translating lessons learned in regions leading the way in renewable power (e.g., California, Germany, a

few others) to other important regions (e.g., China, India). A small set of ClimateWorks‐funded scoping

and design studies will be completed early next year; these will help us and interested partners

determine whether and how to move forward on the RE Forum.

We continue to work with partners to develop a “Western Expansion” initiative to encourage low‐

carbon economic growth, rather than coal‐intensive growth, in China’s Western provinces: we updated

the board on this strategy development effort in June. We plan to have strategies for key elements of

the initiative developed by the end of the year.

We are in the process of developing a few new transnational strategies to advance energy efficiency

(such as increasing energy efficiency in corporate supply chains), some components of which we hope

to bring to the board for approval in the March 2016 meeting.


We plan to complete strategy development for ClimateWorks‐led transnational initiatives in 2016. We are

working on a timeline for bringing strategies in the pipeline to the board for review and approval and will

review this timeline with the board in our December meeting.

We are not yet where we’d like to be in terms of using evaluations to inform current strategy discussions,

although this does happen informally. Campaign evaluations are getting underway and we are about to

hire an Evaluation and Learning Officer, so we anticipate being in a better position to integrate evaluation

findings into strategy development next year.

With respect to Goal 1B, ClimateWorks made all of our coordinated 2015 grants early this year with the

exception that we decided to phase our coordinated grants to LARCI Mexico and LARCI Brazil (now iCS)

this year and have therefore granted some, but not all, of the funding we set aside for LARCI. We will

disburse the balance of the funding shortly. We have been focused on making opportunistic grants in

response to immediate needs and emerging strategies. As we noted in September, thanks to a gratifying

degree of funder enthusiasm for our new ClimateWorks Dashboard, we are now collecting and mapping

all 2015 Funders Table grants to share as part of the Dashboard. This will allow us to readily track actual

shifts in the aggregate portfolio year after year.

Goals 1C and 1D—We made significant improvements this year in the funding coordination process. The

process was more strategy‐oriented, it was faster and lighter for our partners, and we received very

positive feedback (see a few quotes below) from our closest coordination partners at the Packard, Oak,

and Hewlett Foundations. We also made progress this year in engaging more Funders Table participants

in explicit funding coordination: By identifying and convening “funding coordination conversations” of

interested funders around key topics, such as strategic communications and associated funding needs,

we’ve begun to carry funding coordination beyond the crucial Packard‐Oak‐Hewlett‐ClimateWorks

discussions. While foundations are still making decisions about 2016 funding, we see signs that this year’s

process is indeed helping to drive smart shifts in strategies and funding flows. We still have work to do to

make this a lighter process for ourselves, but we succeeded in shifting much of our staff work this year

away from the CEO and to the Planning Team.

A few indicative quotes:

Chris DeCardy: “Fantastic advances last year to this year.” Tom Steinbach: “Getting strategy in front of budget this was year hugely positive. Narrative is strong

and clear, and grounds the budget recommendation. The focus on hypotheses works nicely ‐ let's

continue with them and let them evolve over time.”

Leonardo Lacerda: “Really like how balanced this is, how the campaigns are seeing linkages in the

countries that should be priorities, inventive ideas, where we should build scale. Top notch!”

Walt Reid: “There were terrific strategy discussions around the hypotheses, excellent framing and [Rec.

Portfolio narrative] product.”

We have been mindful all year of the importance of Goal 1E—Ensure the Regional Climate Foundation

and other key grantees receive guidance as to 2016 funding levels in as timely a manner as possible. We

designed the 2015 coordination process to give RCFs more certainty earlier in the year, we maintained


good communication with the RCFs, we regularly reminded funders of our shared intent around this goal,

and we tried to manage RCF expectations since it seemed likely that funder decision timelines could still

create planning challenges for RCFs. To help advance funder discussions, we shared specific

recommendations for RCF funding levels with Funders Table participants as part of the Recommended

Portfolio.

These efforts seem to have paid off. We were able to deliver coordinated 2016 funding plans for Packard,

Oak, Hewlett, and ClimateWorks to the biggest RCFs (EF‐US, ECF, and CLUA) four weeks earlier than last

year. In October, we jointly communicated 2016 budgets from Packard, Oak, Hewlett and ClimateWorks

to EF‐China and for India. These budget discussions were less straightforward than the discussions with

EF‐US, ECF, and CLUA. For EF‐China, this was due to funder concerns about progress on EF‐China’s

Change Action Plan. For India, funders are trying to leave room to coordinate their India commitments

with potential new aligned funders, especially the MacArthur Foundation. This has timing implications for

India. Funders of iCS and LARCI‐Mexico had largely agreed on draft 2016 budgets to iCS and LARCI‐Mexico

last year as part of a two‐year budgeting process. Our proposed 2016 budget (Tab 5) reflects agreed‐on

funding plans for each RCF and for global initiatives.

Tim Larson and his team from Ross Strategic have been helping us identify lessons‐learned throughout

the 2015 process. They are currently interviewing FT and RCF stakeholders to get end‐of‐year feedback

on the 2015 process. The compiled and synthesized feedback will help us make smart adjustments to the

process for 2016.

Our Global View Function work (see Goal 1F), has been focused in recent months on our new Carbon

Transparency Initiative (CTI), which we discussed briefly in September and will discuss in depth in the

December board meeting (see Tab 4). We believe this leading edge, analysis‐focused initiative can make

an important contribution to our own work, climate philanthropy more broadly, and the wider field. After

roughly 18 months of development, we are exploring options for making the most of the CTI. We look

forward to discussing opportunities and options with the board. In addition, our Advisory & Research

Team, which leads our Global View Function work, has been providing funders with custom products for

board meetings and supporting our Campaign Directors as they assess strategic opportunities.

We did a better job of managing expectations and communications with IPPI regarding grants and

contracts administration (Goal 1G) in 2015 than the prior year. However, we didn’t consistently meet the

expectations of lead IPPI staff. We believe that our performance was solid though we did not consistently

meet the tight turnaround time (two weeks) that we had agreed to at the beginning of the year. In

hindsight, we should have looked to reset expectations with IPPI once our Grants Manager became a

member of the Dashboard launch team, which took up a considerable amount of her time. We have

addressed internal capacity gaps with the addition of the Grants and Contracts Assistant. We will take

into account the lessons learned from 2015 in our ongoing work with IPPI and other managed programs.


GOAL #2—Continue to evolve the ClimateWorks Funders Table as a unique and valuable forum for donor collaboration.

SUBGOALS:

A. Organize two successful Funders Table meetings, in March and September.

B. Organize several other forums associated with the Funders Table, including Campaign Deep Dives

and special topic deep dives (e.g., China, India, supply chain strategies, etc.), and ensure they are

high value meetings.

C. Keep current Funders Table participants engaged and supportive by providing valuable services

and maintaining good personal and institutional relationships.

D. Demonstrate that the Funders Table can serve as a center of gravity for broader funder

collaboration and alignment, for example, by continuing to engage non‐Funders Table funders in

specific Campaign Groups.

E. Engage one or two new funders that meet the Funders Table criteria in Funders Table activities

and discussions.

F. Be able to identify significant, concrete examples of Funders Table funders making (or changing)

their investment decisions based on Funders Table interactions.

G. Secure financial support for ClimateWorks from additional Funders Table funders as evidence that

funders are finding real value in the collaboration.

H. Work with stakeholders (Campaign Directors, RCFs, FT Evaluation Advisory Group, Campaign

Groups, and FT participants) and external evaluation experts to ensure that we learn from

collective evaluation and monitoring activities.

HOW DID WE DO?

We have done well with these subgoals. We continue to see strong interest and participation in the

Funders Table and associated activities (Goals 2A, 2B, and 2C). Our two 2015 Funders Table Meetings

were very successful, based on the quality of discussion during the meeting as well as direct feedback

from the meeting participants. The April India Deep Dive was also a strong success, very well received by

participating funders. The May China Deep Dive was also well attended and well received. Additional

meetings and group calls associated with the Funders Table—on strategic communications, cities, India,

campaign‐specific topics, and so forth—have generally been useful and we continue to see strong

participation. We have also seen Funders Table participants take greater ownership of the meetings this

year as well—a positive development. Many of the Funders Table‐related forums we organize include

funders, partners, and other experts from outside the Funders Table (Goal 2D).

We began to work this year with other Funders Table participants and Regional Climate Foundations to

engage leading foundations from emerging markets, particularly Brazil, India, and China. We established a


formal Funders Table protocol for engaging leading funders from emerging markets in June (this protocol

was reviewed by our board and the Funders Table and received unanimous support). Engagement to date

with the Arapyaú Foundation in Brazil and Azim Premji Philanthropic Initiatives in India seems most

promising. Our China Strategist, Ailun Yang, continued to explore the potential of partnering with Chinese

foundations and philanthropists through our China Collaboration Initiative. This Initiative has two goals:

(1) help ClimateWorks and its funding partners expand funding channels for strategic grantmaking in

China, and (2) leverage and align resources from Chinese sources around common strategies.

We did very well on Goal 2E this year. The KR and MacArthur Foundations joined the Funders Table early

this year. The Good Energies Foundation and the Grantham Foundation joined the October meeting, after

over a year of staff engagement and, for Good Energies, considerable board deliberation. This puts the

number of foundations participating in the Funders Table at 14, and strengthens the diversity and value

of the group. It also elevates the need to consider when the group will feel too big to serve its purpose as

a high‐trust, high‐value group of the largest climate funders and plan ahead for how we will address that

issue.

In 2015 we secured new financial support for ClimateWorks from a few Funders Table participants that

had not funded us previously, chiefly the KR Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation (Goal 2G). We

also received a grant from the Tilia Fund to support work in China, including a modest amount to support

ClimateWorks’ overhead. A few other FT participants channel funds via ClimateWorks to support

members of the regranting network (CIFF, Grantham, Tilia). We are still waiting to hear whether our

proposal to Bloomberg Philanthropies ($500,000 for one year) will be successful—Bloomberg staff want

to see our proposal funded and have been working to obtain internal approval. We have been developing

a concept note for CIFF, which we plan to submit soon. This is progress, but not as much progress as we

would like. We will work to attract funding from more Funders Table participants in 2016, building on

groundwork laid this year.

We made progress with Goal 2H this year: We integrated evaluation and learning conversations into the

Copenhagen Funders Table meeting in September and we think there is support at the Funders Table for

a larger evaluation discussion in March, when we will have tangible campaign evaluation plans ready for

discussion. At a campaign level, the Oil Campaign has been modeling learning and knowledge‐sharing

using a recent Hewlett Foundation evaluation of its transportation work. The Oil Campaign hosted

discussions of that evaluation with interested funders and NGOs.

GOAL #3—Continue to evolve our systems & processes.

SUBGOALS:

A. Successfully launch the Phase 1 ClimateWorks Dashboard in Q2, including user training and

support. Scope the Phase 2 release, informed by lessons learned from Phase 1.

B. Develop coordinated internal processes to collect, curate, and communicate (via the Dashboard

and other mechanisms) credible monitoring information to help funders track progress and


impact. This will involve cooperation with the RCFs and other key partners.

C. Implement Fluxx and any other new systems selected to support the Dashboard project.

D. Continue to develop Global View Function products tailored to the Dashboard. Ensure the

information is compatible with other Dashboard inputs and meets the business needs of

ClimateWorks, the Funders Table, and key partners.

E. Modify systems used by the External Relations team as appropriate to manage development

efforts and coordinate with our Regranting Network partners.

F. Launch 3rd party evaluations consistent with the planning completed in 2014 by the Funders Table

Evaluation Advisory Group.

G. Create and implement our 2015 structured learning plan.

HOW DID WE DO?

We did well on these goals, with the Dashboard project standing out as a particularly notable success.

Fluxx implementation is running a bit behind schedule.

The Dashboard work (Goals 3A and 3B) has been very successful this year. We launched the first‐phase

ClimateWorks Dashboard on May 29. Starting in June, we trained ClimateWorks staff, interested board

members, Funders Table participants, and our Regional Climate Foundation partners in the use of the

Dashboard. Reactions have been very positive. We continue to focus on user engagement and adoption

and on maintaining high quality and timely data. In working to scope phase 2, we decided that one or two

“mini‐releases” to add or upgrade features in the Dashboard (such as an evaluation portal) make more

sense in 2016 than a large phase 2 release. We also plan to give attention and development time to

integrating the Dashboard and the CTI in 2016.

We have also begun to use the Dashboard as a tool to monitor impact. We now have two quarters of

qualitative monitoring information posted on the Dashboard, and we have communicated a timeline and

expectations for quarterly reporting in 2016 to our own Campaign Directors and to the RCFs. Our next

step is to work on consistency across organizations in the quality of the information they provide about

initiative progress each quarter, and to work with funders and campaign groups to continuously check

that quarterly monitoring information is useful and usable. We will also start collecting and curating

metrics from our Carbon Transparency Initiative on the Dashboard as soon as this info is ready. This

particular goal is likely to carry over into a 2016 “breakthrough objective” on assessing and

communicating impact (see Tab 2, 2016 organizational goals).

We have an internal team planning for Fluxx integration (Goal 3C). While our schedule for completing the

transition to Fluxx slipped a bit—from the end of this year into early next year—the project is moving

forward well. We expect to launch early next year and expect Fluxx to greatly improve efficiency and

internal communication around grantmaking.

The first round of Dashboard training highlighted strong funder interest in our Global View Function (Goal


3D) and in more training and information on Global View Function products. Our Dashboard team has

been working with our Advisory and Research team to make key global view products available on the

Dashboard and train funders on their availability and use. We had planned to post an update of Global

View Function related materials to the Dashboard in November but, due to competing deadlines, we

decided to postpone. We will instead post a set of products and graphics related to the Global View

Function on the Dashboard by January 7.

The External Relations team has been evolving processes and developing a number of tools to help

manage fundraising, funder outreach, and funder stewardship efforts (Goal 3E). This is an important

aspect of our infrastructure: our networked model implies a complex web of funder relationships within

ClimateWorks, and between ClimateWorks and our partners. State of the art processes and tools, while

not a panacea, represent an important backbone of our coordinated approach. Salesforce continues to be

the core system that helps us manage our development pipeline, proposal opportunities and reporting

requirements. Currently used primarily by the External Relations team, it is undergoing a limited review to

optimize its use within ClimateWorks and with the network partners with whom we are sharing data. We

also completed a review in the fall of the process we use to identify and prioritize development

opportunities, manage proposals, and ensure high quality funder stewardship and reporting. Clearer

guidelines are already creating better coordination between the many stakeholders who are typically

involved in these efforts (programs team, partner organizations, external relations team, grants and

contracts, and executives). We are also enhancing our capacity to gather and document intelligence

about priority prospects.

We are on track with our evaluation planning timeline (Goal 3F). The third party evaluation for the Energy

Efficiency Campaign is underway and we are close to completing evaluation plans for the Non‐CO2, Clean

Power, Cross‐Cutting, and Oil Campaigns. We continue to vet the campaign evaluation plans extensively

with relevant Campaign Funders Groups and RCFs. The evaluation plans are interesting in that each is

unique to each campaign’s context and the way that funders participate in the campaign. In addition, we

discovered a few evaluation needs that cut across campaigns and we are, therefore, jumping on “light

touch” evaluative work opportunistically as needs arise. For example, we are launching a two‐month case

study and literature review of different NGO coalitions in order to inform decisions within the Non‐CO2

campaign and other initiatives. Ross Strategic is supporting this work while we complete our search for an

Evaluation and Learning Director; the unique set of skills required for this position is making it a

challenging search.

We successfully created and implemented our 2015 structured learning plan (Goal 3G), adapting it in

some ways during the year to meet emerging learning needs. Further, we’ve been pleased to see appetite

develop in the second half of this year for structured learning activities that extend beyond ClimateWorks

(involving not only our own staff but also partners). For example, we recently held a joint learning session

with Hewlett program officers and have a follow‐up session scheduled in December. We have a request

from EF‐U.S. for learning support around Key States work. Structured learning continues to play an

important and evolving role for ClimateWorks; as noted above, key Q4 activities include interviews with

Funders Table and RCF stakeholders about the 2015 strategy and funding coordination process.


GOAL #4—Build and support a high functioning organization.

SUBGOALS:

A. Hire all new and open positions; successfully on‐board new staff.

B. Continue to take concrete steps to build an adaptive and motivating work environment and

organizational culture.

C. Implement our new performance management process.

D. Increase organizational capacity through professional development, coaching, and mentoring.

E. Make good use of new corporate communications tools developed by the External Relations team

to better communicate ClimateWorks’ role and strengthen our institutional identity.

F. Continue to perform ClimateWorks' essential functions (e.g., grantmaking, funder reporting,

support to incubated organizations, HR and IT operations, etc.) smoothly.

G. Take appropriate steps to position ClimateWorks to flourish even if attacked by opponents of

climate action.

H. Continue to build and strengthen our external networks, relying on all staff—especially senior

staff—to build and maintain relationships with important partners.

I. Engage the board thoughtfully over the course of the year to ensure ClimateWorks continues to

become a stronger, more effective organization.

HOW DID WE DO?

We’ve made significant progress in building a high‐functioning organization this year. We have done quite

well executing on the subgoals above. At the same time, we have more work to do. Building and

maintaining a high‐functioning organization will require continuous commitment. Our ongoing third‐party

evaluation is helping us identify important focus areas as they shift over time (Tab 2).

Since our last update, we hired and successfully onboarded five new staff (Goal 4A)—two are

replacement hires (External Relations Associate and Controller) and three are new positions (Grants and

Contracts Assistant; Coordinator, Funder Collaborations; and Executive Assistant, Funder Collaborations &

Planning). We filled two of the new positions with people who were working as temporary staff and were

performing very well. Our new Controller is a Certified Public Accountant, with seven years of non‐profit

experience gained through Controller positions at three local universities. The new Controller’s biography

is included as Appendix 2.

We are on track to hire the two remaining open positions before the end of the year – Evaluation

Officer/Director (new) and Sr. Program Associate, Clean Power (replacement). If we are successful in

hiring these last two positions, we will have hired five replacement hires and seven new positions in 2015

(current and projected organizational charts are included in the Board Handbook). This is consistent with


board discussions over the past year and brings our total staff (not including CLUA staff) to 43. Our new

HR Director is interviewing all staff and getting feedback regarding onboarding from staff hired in 2015.

We’ll use the synthesized feedback to identify any needed upgrades to our onboarding process.

We worked on Goal 4B in a number of ways this year, with support from Next Step Partners (NSP) and our

third‐party evaluators, SPR Associates. Steps included, among others, an NSP‐facilitated leadership

retreat for Department Leaders and Campaign Directors in February and our successful staff retreat in

July. We rolled out internal meeting facilitation training and formal tools for decision‐making early this

year and have been working to encourage uptake. We launched new internal tools (intranet, shared

Google calendar) to strengthen internal communication. We continued to offer coaching, via Next Step

Partners, for Executive Team members and select senior staff.

Since our last board meeting, we have engaged Sue Cook, of Spearfish Innovation (the key consultant

involved with the Dashboard launch) to help us upgrade some of our business processes—we anticipate

this work will help us streamline the way we work and help mitigate the heavy workloads that we’re

experiencing. In addition, several cross‐departmental task forces emerged from discussions at our staff

retreat and are following up on leading ideas with support from the Executive Team. These efforts will

advance Goal 4B as well as other organizational priorities. Recently, SPR followed up on its baseline

assessment of our organizational health and effectiveness, interviewing about one‐third of our staff to

test progress in key areas. See Tab 2 for SPR’s Q4 update and our management response.

We implemented our new performance management process in the first quarter of the year (Goal 4C). As

noted above, our HR Director is currently collecting feedback about the performance management

process from staff. She will aggregate this feedback and share it with the Executive Team along with

recommendations for performance management process improvements.

There continues to be strong interest in professional development, coaching, and mentoring at

ClimateWorks (Goal 4D). We continue to offer coaching, via Next Step Partners, for Executive Team

members and senior staff. In addition, a staff task force that emerged from the July staff retreat is rolling

out a pilot mentoring program and plans to share ideas on professional development with all staff.

We took a big step up in our corporate communications this year (Goal 1E). Following the rebranding and

website launch earlier this year, the External Relations Team created a site on the ClimateWorks intranet

that provides core communications and development tools, resources, and highlights of important news

stories for use within ClimateWorks. The External Relations team also engaged a consultant team

(Groundwork/Brotherton) to prepare a report recommending corporate communications strategies for

ClimateWorks over a three‐year timeframe. In early December, and for the first time, we plan to make

public our grantmaking via a web‐based and publicly available grants database. Starting with 2015 grants,

all our grants will now be listed on our website, which puts us in alignment with other leading

foundations, including the Hewlett, Oak and Packard Foundations. We will also provide aggregated

information on our historical grantmaking. We also plan to launch in December a new section of our

website—Insights—which will be a repository of highly curated materials aimed at influencing

philanthropy’s climate investments. The External Relations Team is working to build a targeted editorial


and outreach calendar for 2016 that will continue to re‐position ClimateWorks in the community, in line

with our new identity.

Our essential functions (IT, operations, grantmaking, funder reporting) are generally operating smoothly

(Goal 4F). We completed an IT security assessment and have a plan in place to address recommendations

outlined in the security firm’s report. This will include training all staff in the next two months on how to

minimize security risks in their technology usage. On the IT staffing front, we were able to find a short‐

term solution soon after the departure of our Desktop Support Administrator in October (no small feat, as

past experience has shown this position is difficult to fill). We expect to be in good shape on all

accounting and financial reporting work heading into 2016 now that we have a Controller in place. We

look forward to a full implementation and rollout of the Fluxx grants management system, likely in

January.

To position ClimateWorks to flourish (Goal 4G) even in adverse conditions, we continue to monitor

reputational and legal risks that affect ClimateWorks, and climate philanthropy more broadly, in priority

countries and regions. In particular, over the past quarter, we have monitored and assessed the impact of

two reports from organizations that oppose climate action, one focused on the United States, and one on

Europe. In both cases, building on the “billionaire’s club” narrative, these “reports” sought to undermine

the legitimacy and license to operate of climate philanthropy. Legally baseless and factually inaccurate,

these publications have received limited coverage generally, and virtually no coverage in mainstream

media. Following a rich discussion at the September Funders Table meeting on the topic of reputation

and risk management, we also started engaging with Funders Table participants to evaluate opportunities

for foundations to collaborate on risk and reputation management strategies. We will likely hold a call for

interested foundations during Q1 of 2016.

Staff, especially senior staff, has been deeply engaged in strengthening our external networks and

building or maintaining relationships with important partners (Goal 4H), and our relationships with key

partners remain strong. To extend our networking capacity, we continue to look for opportunities to

support partner relationships in less time‐intensive ways without sacrificing the quality of interaction.

We always look to the board for feedback on whether we’re accomplishing Goal 4I, but we feel we are

making good use of board meetings and calls to get feedback and ideas from board members on

programmatic strategies, organizational development, budgets and grants, board development, and

other key topics. Board members have also been generous with their time between meetings, reaching

out to funders on ClimateWorks’ behalf, helping staff plan and convene funder events, responding to

surveys and interview requests, and more.


GOAL #5—Attract new donors and resources to the ClimateWorks Regranting Network and to climate mitigation strategies more broadly.

SUBGOALS:

A. Help increase total annual giving from Funders Table participants to climate mitigation strategies.

B. Attract and align more funding to priority campaign initiatives, looking outside the Funders Table

for additional resources.

C. Demonstrate that ClimateWorks and other organizations in the ClimateWorks Regranting

Network can collaborate effectively on specific funder engagement strategies.

D. Demonstrate how Funders Table participants can cooperate—and engage their respective

trustees and networks—to help bring new donors to climate mitigation philanthropy.

E. Engage with current and prospective funders to build the foundation for sustained annual

ClimateWorks revenue of at least $50 million.

HOW DID WE DO?

Total annual giving from Funders Table participants to climate mitigation strategies will rise significantly

from 2015 to 2016 (Goal 5A). While we cannot claim much credit for the underlying increases (e.g.,

MacArthur’s decisions to make a big bet on climate philanthropy), we believe the support and services

that Funders Table participants receive directly from ClimateWorks and from being part of the group are

a significant contributing factor.

Each campaign actively engages funders who do not formally participate in Campaign Group discussions

(Goal 5B). With new campaign directors having now been in place for 12‐18 months, we are seeing more

active networking and engagement with a variety of funders. In addition to Funders Table participants

that also engage in campaign‐level discussions, the M.A. Cargill, ClearPath, Doris Duke, Ford, Kresge,

Mitchell, Moore, Pisces, Robertson, Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers foundations are regular

participants in campaign‐level discussions. ClimateWorks also continues to expand its outreach via

targeted events and communications: the oil and energy efficiency campaigns co‐hosted an event on

cities in London with CIFF that brought together 50+ participants.

Our efforts to attract and align more resources around priority campaign initiatives (Goal 5B) in 2016 will

focus on the campaigns that seem to have the most potential for new funder alignment and engagement.

The board‐approved Electric Drive Vehicle strategy is first in line and will serve as a test case of focused

campaign‐level development activities. We expect that aviation, sustainable finance and some aspects of

the energy campaign will also provide productive opportunities for ClimateWorks to help to create

greater funder alignment and coordination.

In regards to our development‐focused collaboration with the re‐granting network (Goal 5C), our energy

is primarily geared toward supporting LARCI Mexico, the recently formed Institute for Climate and Society

in Brazil, and—within the limits of our current operational capacity in India—Shakti. The most promising


opportunity is to help secure funding from two indigenous foundations, the Arapyau institute in Brazil,

and Azim Premji Philanthropies in India. We hosted a representative of Arapyau in San Francisco in

September, and are continuing to support iCS with relevant information and capacity building. We are

also helping to organize a principal‐focused event in Paris, during the COP, which will allow Arapyau and

Premji representatives to connect with other foundations involved in our collaborations.

In addition to our efforts to secure core funding from FT participants (see Goal 2G above), we are also

testing a number of ideas and prioritizing campaign‐level initiatives that have the potential to generate

direct funding to ClimateWorks (Goal 5E). In our new model, we will be in a position to lead on a number

of transnational and cross‐cutting initiatives, and on select regional initiatives that are not supported by

RCFs. We recently selected the board‐approved Electric Drive Vehicle initiative as the first program where

we are going to set development goals and implement a focused development and fundraising strategy,

with the objective of building a portfolio of activities that will be managed (and funded through)

ClimateWorks. Other initiatives that are being considered, but aren’t quite mature enough to launch

development activities, include: aviation; sustainable finance; energy efficiency/supply chain; and marine.

Once we clarify their strategies, business and revenue models, some of the new products and services

that are being developed by ClimateWorks (e.g. the Climate Transparency Initiative) will also provide a

good foundation for development activities.

At the September 2015 Funders Table meeting, all participating foundations agreed to continue engaging

in discussions with ClimateWorks on ways in which they could support our work through core and/or

programmatic contributions. This is a positive step forward, which gives us a mandate to continue

refining our approach and the business and revenue model of the Funders Table and of ClimateWorks

more broadly. We will continue updating the board on our progress.


Timeline update checklist— 2015 Coordination Process

2015 Timeline (Major Milestones)

Note that ClimateWorks has a more granular internal timeline that we’ll use to manage the

process. This timeline focuses on major milestones. For simplicity, it doesn’t include deep dive

dates and other related dates.

Status Timeframe Action

Dec—Jan Solicit a final round of feedback from funders, RCFs, and

ClimateWorks staff to complete structured learning around

2014 funding coordination process.

January 19 week Share draft plan for funding coordination process, including

candidate FT‐level hypotheses with funders and RCFs for

comment, along with memo from Ross Strategic summarizing

lessons learned in 2014.

Jan—Feb Lock in dates for campaign deep dives and deep dives on key

interest areas (e.g., China, India). Test how and when FT

participants use funding landscape data to inform how and

when that data is gathered in 2015. Refine FT‐level hypotheses

based on feedback from funders, RCFs, and possibly other

experts.

February 23 week Have final information on key updates to expected 2016

funding landscape data.

March 23—24 March FT meeting: Among other topics, discuss hypotheses,

things to test and do, and funding flexibility. (Side sessions

planned for March 22 – 27.)

April 10 Budget guidance memo final and disseminated, including

preliminary budget guidance specific to each RCF. Note that

preliminary guidance to RCFs at this stage will be limited. For

example, we may be able to identify which region‐specific


Status Timeframe Action

initiatives FT participants view as mature, healthy, and a

priority for continued funding in 2016.

April 10—June 30 Campaign Groups work together and engage with RCFs and

other experts, including experts from outside the US and EU,

to discuss strategies and priorities, review relevant M&E

information, explore the hypotheses, and develop

recommendations for 2016 funding allocations.

June 30 Campaign Directors submit their recommendations, based on

Campaign Group discussions, for campaign‐specific funding

allocations in 2016, as well as ideas and evidence to support

fundraising efforts.

July 15‐31 ClimateWorks completes the Recommended Portfolio and

distributes it to FT participants and RCFs for discussion and

coordination. Emailed to the FT on Monday, August 3.

August ClimateWorks works with FT participants to provide RCFs as

much certainty as possible about their 2016 funding by late

August. Note again that information may be limited at this

stage. Some funders may need more time to firm up their

2016 funding plans.

Aug 31‐Sept 4 September FT meeting in Copenhagen: Opportunity to discuss

hypotheses, findings and next steps, funding

recommendations, funder plans for 2016, funding

coordination, and other topics.

in

process

Oct – Feb 2016 Campaign Groups discuss next steps, foundations discuss

funding coordination and move to proposals and grantmaking.

ClimateWorks completes and shares structured learning

around 2015 process.

February 2016 Funding projection for 2016 locked after funding coordination

discussions and shared with FT. Projection—in an appropriate

format—might be shared with RCFs and possibly other

partners provided the FT approves sharing the information

with those partners.


THIRD‐PARTY EVALUATION


From: Ann Cleaveland, Director of Strategic Planning, and the Executive Team

Re: Management Response to SPR Follow‐up on Baseline Assessment


In June, the board discussed the baseline assessment report on ClimateWorks’ organizational health and

operational effectiveness, the first milestone of our three‐year third‐party evaluation being conducted by

Social Policy Research Associates (SPR). Since then, we have begun to address the priority

recommendations from the baseline report as ClimateWorks has simultaneously continued to grow and

develop; in early Q4 we asked SPR to take a read on how we’ve progressed since the baseline assessment,

with a focus on the ways in which staff’s viewpoints have evolved on three major issue areas identified in

the baseline report. These areas were: ClimateWorks’ transition to the 2.0 model, strategic niche and

value‐added, and decision making.

SPR’s follow‐up findings from the Q4 “snapshot” are attached to this memo, and our own assessment

(informed by the Q4 snapshot and our own reflections) of our progress toward addressing the original

findings from the baseline report follows in the table below.

Broadly, our sense is that the needle has moved on many of the issue areas identified in the baseline

report, and we’re especially pleased to see that SPR’s Q4 snapshot found that staff agree or strongly

agree that ClimateWorks is headed in a positive direction. The SPR snapshot, which we designed for a

quick turnaround, feels current and decision‐relevant, and its distillation of “hot” priority areas is a helpful

guide as we lay out remaining issue areas to tackle. In conversation about the findings, our SPR evaluator

communicated her sense that very few staff think the “hot” issues are showstoppers; rather, the majority

of staff surveyed for the snapshot think these challenges are the kinds of challenges with which all

organizations must grapple.

Leadership’s perspective is that SPR’s recent findings reinforce – in an additive way – themes we’re

hearing bubble up from other channels such as our structured learning work. The themes of inter‐

campaign and inter‐funder variation, boundaries between our funders and our decision‐making

processes, clear and manageable roles for the campaign directors, and prioritization within our strategic

niche particularly resonate. It surprised us to learn that a significant subset of the staff surveyed for SPR’s

Q4 snapshot disagreed or strongly disagreed that effective channels are in place for candid staff

feedback. In conversation, the SPR evaluator clarified that staff recognize that many channels for

feedback exist, but not all staff feel comfortable using them. This feels like an important finding to jump

on quickly for overall organizational health, and we’ve asked our new HR Director to probe more deeply

and develop a plan. Other tensions raised in the SPR snapshot will require more work and discussion to

address.


Below we list major projects where we have work being launched or already underway aimed at

addressing themes from SPR’s findings.

A project with Spearfish Innovation on Process and Operations. This project is designed to assist with upgrades to ClimateWorks business processes, help us design decision‐making frameworks for new

business opportunities, and to help us better define and track our annual organizational goals around

clear priorities. While SPR's findings suggest that staff has little appetite for further "intervention" on

decision making, we do think the Spearfish Innovation project will help us take a step forward on both

the structural and procedural components of how decisions are made at ClimateWorks.

Two priority ClimateWorks “Breakthrough Objectives” in 2016 ("Launch new, ClimateWorks‐led

programmatic initiatives with strong, board‐approved strategies and support from funders and other

partners," and "Improve the effectiveness of Campaign Funders Groups as a cornerstone of strategy

development and funder collaboration, providing value to all participants"). Although we have not

completed our 2016 goal‐setting process, we expect that in some form, these two objectives will

explicitly target several key themes from the SPR findings, including a better understanding of and

communication around the roles of the campaign directors and improved tactics for managing the

natural inter‐campaign variations that have begun to manifest more strongly this year. As a component

of this objective, management has already begun to work with Campaign Directors to create 2016

plans that clearly communicate strategic campaign priorities and tradeoffs.

Structured learning. As mentioned above, the SPR findings echo similar themes that we also hear from

other channels. Insights about campaign director roles and responsibilities, prioritization of activities

within our strategic niche, and better ways to visualize ClimateWorks' value‐added are emerging from

our structured learning work. We'll use these insights to help develop ideas for changes to our strategy

and funding coordination process and campaign management that would lead to clearer campaign

director roles and a refined understanding of our strategic niche in 2016.

Visual representation of ClimateWorks value‐added. In response to SPR's original baseline findings, the

external relations team is working with Ross Strategic to develop a visual representation of

ClimateWorks value‐added. SPR's Q4 snapshot confirms that the need for this kind of visual

representation has not diminished and that it will be useful for both internal and external

communications.

The table below contains more details on our thinking as of this date compared to our original

management response to each of SPR’s recommendations. We look forward to discussing our progress

and the insights from SPR’s Q4 snapshot with the board.


Baseline Assessment Recommendation

Management Response (May 2015) November 2015 Update

#1: Distinguish between

change management and

transition management

We believe the diagnosis that ClimateWorks has been engaged primarily in change

management versus transition management is overstated ‐‐ we’ve been doing both

change and transition management (as defined by SPR) since late 2012. That said, we

are very open to the finding that there is still work to do to ensure all staff feel grounded

in the new ClimateWorks, and experience ongoing innovation/adaptation at

ClimateWorks as part of our culture rather than as the trailing edge of the 2012‐2014

transition period.

See responses to 1a, b

#1a: Organize a

“transition event”

We think the moment has probably passed for this, but will investigate this internally

before crossing it off the list. Management believes that at least some staff experienced

the launch of our new website as a defining moment and a signal that we had

completed the transition period. Our presumption is that, rather than a transition event,

we need to communicate more explicitly and more often to all staff about how the

organization has evolved, is continuing to evolve, and why that is healthy.

Our thinking hasn’t changed on this

recommendation; we tested with staff

whether we needed a transition event

and decided definitively that we did not.

We should continue to seek

opportunities to communicate more

explicitly and more often to all staff

about how the organization has evolved,

is continuing to evolve, and why that is

healthy.

#1b: Consider best

practices in staff

transition

The “managing the new beginning” column in the table on Page 16 of the report would

be useful to discuss and to act on selectively, with support from SPR. It will be important

to take management’s existing workload into account and be practical about what ideas

we act on so we can do it well.

One important way we can help staff “develop the new identity, experience the new

energy, and discover the new sense of purpose that make the change begin to work” is

to further ground our roles and culture in the day‐to‐day of each team within

We had additional useful discussions

with SPR on this recommendation.

ClimateWorks’ July 2015 staff retreat

was a big step toward managing new

beginnings, including sessions on how

we work better together and

internalizing the brand handbook.




ClimateWorks. We will reinvigorate work with department leaders to develop strategies

to continue to bring the new ClimateWorks to life in each team’s goals, priorities, and

practices.

#2: With support from SPR

and Ross Strategic,

develop a concise

representation of

ClimateWorks’ strategic

niche an value‐added

based on its different roles

We want to dig a bit deeper with SPR to better understand this recommendation and

what they have in mind, but we are supportive of this recommendation to the extent it

helps us address the important issues and reflection questions in the middle of page

eight of the SPR assessment. Our sense is that while our business model is clear, and

we’ve done a lot of work to identify goals and priorities, we need to be more thoughtful

about how we deploy staff time and energy on a daily basis. This recommendation could

help.

Note we are somewhat reluctant to involve SPR too closely in implementing these

recommendations because it is important that SPR— as our third‐party evaluator—

maintains an independent viewpoint over the three‐year evaluation period. Ross

Strategic has a strong understanding of ClimateWorks and our operating environment

and is well positioned to help us follow through on this recommendation.

We are working with Tim Larson from

Ross Strategic to develop a map of

ClimateWorks value‐added, and our

sense is that the needs for such a map

are still strong. The work we have

planned to refine Campaign Director

roles and responsibilities in 2016, and

the discussions underway about

choosing ClimateWorks strategic

priorities for 2016 – and communicating

them with staff and partners ‐ will also

help address this finding.

#3: Integrate evaluation

findings into Next Step

partners’ decision‐making

work stream

There persists a staff perception that we are challenged in our decision‐making, but

leadership is struggling to translate this general feedback into specific issues that we can

tackle (beyond the work we’ve already done with Next Step Partners to establish a

common framework for formal decision‐making processes within ClimateWorks).

With our consultants facilitating, we would like to work through concrete examples to

diagnose past decision‐making and/or current decisions to understand where we have

real bottlenecks. We also hope to better understand whether the challenge is structural

(roles and responsibilities), procedural (process clarity), or cultural (our multi‐

We have used NSP’s decision tool for a

number of internal decisions this year.

We should continue to model the use of

this tool in other appropriate situations.

Several activities are underway that

target other aspects of decision making

(described above). We will keep checking

that these activities add up to a coherent




stakeholder environment encourages a culture that values various inputs and

perspectives). We will also consider whether better internal communication could help

address this concern by illuminating the many decisions ClimateWorks makes efficiently

and well across the organization on a daily basis.

We will work with SPR to further clarify this finding and the most appropriate response.

Next Step Partners’ workstream on decision‐making is largely complete, so acting on

this recommendation will require working with SPR and NSP to define the next phase.

response.

In addition, we may want to take time in

an upcoming staff meeting to review this

topic and the various approaches we’re

using to tackle it. We have not had a

chance since the staff retreat to discuss

as an organization the work that is being

done in this area.

We’ll continue to ask that SPR, Spearfish,

and Ross Strategic share information and

intelligence as useful, and ask them to

suggest next steps from where they sit.

#4: Consider how the

broadened leadership base

on the program side might

be applied to the

operations side

We acknowledge that we have focused more to date on broadening the leadership base

among programmatic staff than we have among operations staff. Excellence in

operations is very important to our success, and we are fortunate to have a strong

finance and administrations team. We will ask NSP to support the finance and

administration team in an exploration of how our decision‐making base might be

appropriately broadened on the operations side. It will be important, in this exploration,

to also identify where decision‐making challenges need to be addressed in a cross‐

functional manner, not just on the operations side.

The finance and administration team has

made two key hires in the past three

months which should open a path

toward broadened leadership – an HR

Director with over 15 years of HR

experience, and a Controller who has

held a Controller role at non‐profits for

the past seven years. In terms of broader

operations, we will explore ways to

further focus on organizational learning

beyond programs in 2016. Furthermore,




working on the project with Spearfish

Innovation on business processes

(described above) and establishing a

“Breakthrough Objective” for excellence

in grantmaking will help us take big steps

forward in operations.

#5: Model additional

structured learning

opportunities after the

recommended portfolio

process; monitor through

an organizational

dashboard

The SPR report seems to conflate learning and adaptation with information sharing (pp

12‐13). These are different and it is important to distinguish between them. We feel we

have done a pretty good job building an organization that has learning and adaptation in

its DNA, and we are confident we can and will build on this. Our goal is to maintain a

deep culture of learning at ClimateWorks through structured learning and less formal

mechanisms.

We are still struggling to share information among staff in a timely and efficient way

without overwhelming each other. We have been trying different methods (our new

Intranet and Google calendar have been important steps forward) and welcome good

ideas from SPR, NSP, and others. We are skeptical that building an organizational

dashboard to track our own structured learning is a good use of time and resources but,

as noted below, will talk with SPR to make sure we understand what they have in mind.

See responses to 5a, b, c

#5a Structured learning

opportunities

We agree that our structured learning work has been invaluable in shaping

ClimateWorks’ adaptive capacity and learning organization skills. Our experience has

been that structured learning works best when applied to practical, specific, focus areas,

and we have prioritized support for the 2015 strategy and funding coordination process,

support for CWF Campaign Directors and 2015 campaign implementation, and

collaboration support around key activities and meetings such as regional deep dives in

1. Leadership/decision making: The

aspects of leadership/decision

making that are relevant to

Campaign Director roles &

responsibilities are being addressed

in our ongoing 2015 structured




our 2015 learning plan. In this work, we will include questions that focus explicitly on

how the leadership/decision‐making base continues to evolve now that the campaigns

are fully staffed. We also think it is a good idea to raise the priority level for structured

learning support on the rollout of the dashboard.

Structured learning opportunities on the roll out of decision‐making tools are

dependent on how we define the next phase (see Management Response to

recommendation #3). As we work with SPR and NSP to further clarify this finding, we

will keep structured learning top of mind as a possible lens to help develop a shared

understanding of our decision making strengths and challenges, and chart a path

forward.

learning work. We may want to

expand this area of inquiry outside

of the Campaigns and into the

organization for 2016.

2. Roll out of the Dashboard: We have

established a structured learning

process for the Dashboard roll out,

and are using it with the Dashboard

team.

3. Roll out of decision making tools:

We will consider adding this to our

structured learning scope of work

for 2016.

#5b: Organizational

dashboard

We will explore with SPR more precisely what they mean by an organizational

dashboard; we think we have begun some practices that might already be addressing

this point, such as the use of our new ClimateWorks intranet site and development of

internal metrics.

SPR received a tour of our Organizational

Learning page on the ClimateWorks

intranet and the CW Dashboard.

Following that meeting they concluded

that getting the structured learning

scope of work and timeline up on the

intranet would largely take care of this

issue, possibly along with a similar

timeline for the 3rd‐party evaluation. We

aim to post timelines by the end of the

year.




We also have a project underway with

Spearfish Innovation (discussed above)

to improve the way we define and track

our annual organizational goals.

#5c: Lively learning

lunches

We like this idea – we can build upon the cross‐functional information sharing that we

are already doing to strengthen staff’s understanding of our work across the

organization.

We have not put lively learning lunches

into place, mostly due to bandwidth,

though we note that the External

Relations team has been successfully

modeling this idea with its XR lunches

(which pre‐dated the evaluation

findings). Our new HR Director now has

this topic on her radar as part of

organizational learning – with a focus on

activities that transfer expertise or

establish a baseline of knowledge across

the organization.

The rows below respond to a few other items in the SPR report, not put forward as formal recommendations.

A. HR Director We will seek SPR’s recommendation on whether there is anything further we can do to

mitigate the negative impacts of the slow hiring process for the HR Director position.

SPR recommended some steps for

mitigation, but we believe the time has

passed for mitigation steps. We will

concentrate our efforts on supporting

our new HR Director and making sure

she is set up for success.




B. Funder/grantee

orientation balance

We will work with SPR to design internal conversations to address the question of

funder/grantee balance. Put in one way, the question raised is: Are we paying too much

attention to our funder partners at the cost of neglecting our grantees? This theme was

raised in several places in the SPR report.

In our new model, it is clear that funders are our primary “customer.” We will explore

the question of funder/grantee balance in that context. This may be an area where our

transition management (see above) lagged changes in our model.

We hear this theme from other channels

including structured learning work. We

have an explicit ClimateWorks goal to

build out the CW‐led campaign initiatives

in 2016, and will focus on our role as a

grantmaker as part of this objective.

C. Resource development In response to the discussion in the “Resource Development” section, it would be

helpful to communicate to staff where we are in the process of preparing a

development plan and expanding our development efforts. We might also communicate

to staff that few organizations have stable, long‐term funding (and neither will we) but

they thrive anyway (and so will we). Generally speaking, we have a strong base of

funding and commitments for the next few years, have recently received new

commitments, and have strong pipeline as well as plans to further expand our funding

base. We agree with the need to develop a clearer picture of our overall development

plan, and to communicate the progress we are making toward those goals.

This is a relatively simple idea to put in

place, and Charlotte included comments

about the long‐term financial health of

the organization at ClimateWorks staff

retreat in July. It is likely time for another

funding/development update, either at

an upcoming staff meeting and/or as a

recurring update that we do once a

quarter.


1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: (510) 763-1499 • Fax: (510) 763-1599 • www.spra.com

S O C I A L P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H A S S O C I A T E S

To: ClimateWorks Foundation (CW) Date: November 11, 2015 From: Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) Subject: Follow-‐up on Evaluation Baseline Report Priority Areas _____________________________________________________________________

Over the last two weeks, SPR conducted interviews with 15 ClimateWorks staff members (about 36% of total staff) working in diverse areas. The objective was to take a temperature reading on three areas highlighted as priorities by staff in SPR’s baseline evaluation report earlier this year. These areas were: ClimateWorks’ transition to the 2.0 model, strategic niche and value-‐added, and decision making. Staff were asked to complete a short online set of rated survey questions, as well as to reflect on open-‐ended questions, in order to determine the extent to which these priority areas are still “hot” and how they have evolved over the past several months.1 This memo provides highlights of the staff interviews. As revealed by the summary visual below, while transition and decision making have cooled as top priority areas, strategic niche remains hot with a number of key sub-‐topics.

TRANSITION

1 The survey scale was: 1-‐strongly disagree, 2-‐disagree, 3-‐agree, and 4-‐strongly agree, or can’t say. All medians and averages

reported in this memo were calculated after excluding “can’t say” responses, which ranged in number from 0-‐5.

Median Average

After two years of organizational transformation, ClimateWorks’ transition to the 2.0 model has been completed effectively. 3 2.86

Staff members have clarity on their day-‐to-‐day roles in the ClimateWorks 2.0 model. 3 2.80

ClimateWorks’ culture embraces continuous learning and adaptation. 3 3.33

There are effective channels in place to secure candid staff feedback on how things are going.

3 2.50

Overall there is a sense in the organization that ClimateWorks is heading in a positive direction. 3.5 3.43

SUMMARY TEMPERATURE READINGS

HOT TOPICS:

• Grant maker role

• Campaign/funder variation

• Prioritization & sustainability

• Function-‐level assessment

TRANSITION STRATEGIC NICHE

VALUE-‐ADDED

DECISION MAKING


2


“We’ve started to execute on new definitions and communicated them to partners. We’re starting to hit a more natural rhythm of new activities consistent with a new structure and model.”

Most staff members (13 out of 15) agreed or strongly agreed that there is a sense within ClimateWorks that the organization is heading in a positive direction2, and most (10 of 15) agreed or strongly agreed that the transition to the 2.0 model had been completely effectively.

Staff members were asked to indicate the markers of a successful transition, or how they knew the ClimateWorks transition had been completed effectively. The most common response was that the old model was no longer being referenced or talked about, particularly with the infusion of new staff who had never even experienced ClimateWorks 1.0. Other cited indicators were:

(1) New staff who had now been in place for a meaningful amount of time;

(2) Concrete milestones (e.g., externally-‐facing milestones that had also improved internal clarity such as the website, brand handbook, and revised mission statement);

(3) The rollout of the dashboard; and

(4) A major grant award and secure funding for the next few years; and

(5) Repeated execution of 2.0 activities/processes that are allowing for the 2.0 model to settle in, hit a natural rhythm, or “stick” (e.g., recommended investment portfolio process, Funders Table meetings, working with an increased number of funders and grantees).

A few staff members also highlighted the fact that the 2.0 model—fully implemented this past year—has been well-‐received with no major challenges or questions about whether CW should be engaged in any of its current roles. Rather CW is “going into 2016 with ideas about improving the model but not tossing out anything.”

Even staff who agreed that the transition had been completed often described important areas for attention that are further discussed in the next section, such as how to: better focus and prioritize CW’s roles/work; best define funder engagement given varying levels of interest; address outstanding uncertainty from grantees and external audiences on CW’s role; and improve strategies for making decisions about emerging opportunities.

Among the staff members who disagreed or strongly disagreed that the transition had been completed effectively (just over 25%), their ratings were based on the need for ClimateWorks to: repeat key 2.0 processes in an improved and/or more efficient manner; address outstanding confusion or lack of acceptance on the value of campaigns and the role of campaign staff in relation to program officers; and realize more efficiency in the key decision makers and processes involved in “delivering on all of ClimateWorks’ roles.”

2 This was the highest rated item on the survey component overall. It was the only survey item to have a median value between

agree and strongly agree, and only one of two items to have an average rating between agree and strongly agree. It was also the item with the largest number of “strongly agree” ratings (7). Another survey item within the transition section (“ClimateWorks’ culture embraces continuous learning and adaptation”) had the second-‐largest number of “strongly agree” ratings (6).


3


“Staff feedback channels have not been as effective as one would expect. [We] need to make more clear that there are venues that can be used to grapple with issues.”

Most staff (11 out of 15) agreed or strongly agreed that staff members have clarity on their day-‐to-‐day roles in the ClimateWorks 2.0 model. In reflecting on how and why this clarity has changed over the last several months, staff members pointed to both specific interventions (e.g., the campaign director roles and responsibilities document and NSP’s decision making tool, discussed more in the last section) as well as to the straightforward accumulation of experience and lessons learned (knowing what to expect for their roles the next time).

Several staff discussed the roles and responsibilities document but with differing opinions on its value. For example, a few staff talked about its limited value in light of the fact that it was not read or absorbed fully at the PO versus FT level, or because it quickly became outdated due to evolutions and lessons learned on the program side, or because—while helpful as a starting point—the memo does not account for the unique factors at play for each campaign and its funder group dynamic.

Close to one-‐third of staff talked about the challenges of clear and manageable roles for campaign directors in particular, given: (1) their multi-‐faceted role, activities, and stakeholders they are engaged with; (2) the variation between campaigns in terms of funder interest and interaction; (3) a highly dynamic program/campaign context; and (4) the question of how to prioritize among many activities and roles and how that fluctuates depending on where CW is at during its yearly cycle. A few staff members also raised the challenge of defining a clear role for program staff in relation to Funders Table staff (e.g., campaign directors’ ability to interact more directly with funders, and the larger program team’s support of FT meetings).

Forty percent of staff (6 out of 15) disagreed or strongly disagreed that there are effective channels in place to secure candid staff feedback on how things are going. The most common explanations were that there is a reticence and/or discomfort among staff to speak up and provide candid feedback in large group settings (e.g., staff meetings, staff retreats) or within a “nice” organizational culture, and that it is not always clear which type of feedback should go to whom (e.g., HR director, VP of Programs). Further, staff may not always take advantage or be prompted to take advantage of regularly scheduled check-‐ins to share candid feedback with supervisors and peers.

“I would say our senior campaign staff are really defining their roles in a dynamic context; they are often reinventing themselves [and] redefining what it means to be a successful campaign director at ClimateWorks.”


4


STRATEGIC NICHE

Staff feedback in this area was mixed. Most staff members (12 out of 15) agreed or strongly agreed that CW’s services are well-‐aligned with the needs of the philanthropic community it serves.3 Most also agreed (11 out of 15) that CW has a clear sense of its strategic and value-‐added niche in the climate change landscape which guides its role, planning, and activities. However, close to half of staff disagreed or strongly disagreed that CW’s different roles are manageable (7 out of 15) and that CW has a clear sense of the limits of its scope and niche (6 out of 15).4 Just over a quarter of staff (4 out of 15) disagreed or strongly disagreed that CW’s roles are clear.5

In their open-‐ended reflections, staff often felt that they had an improved understanding of CW’s strategic niche given accumulated experience in the 2.0 model (learning by doing), or because of other specific learning experiences or vehicles (e.g., working on the dashboard, Pipeline Committee, inter-‐departmental task forces, external communications work). However, staff also expressed strong opinions on critical areas for clarification and/or improvement. The most prominent themes here were:

• Clarifying ClimateWorks’ role and process as grant maker. Forty percent of staff (6 out of 15) highlighted the need to increase staff’s understanding about ClimateWorks’ role as a grant maker in 2.0 and/or to improve the grant making process for the upcoming year. More specifics and guidance are needed on CW’s mission, focus, and strategy in this role (e.g., filling gaps, seeding new areas, the specific role of the reserve grants), as well as on process (e.g., how to work and communicate with a broader set of grantees, how to improve the thoughtfulness,

3 This was the only rated item in the strategic niche area that had both a median and average rating over 3 (agree). It was also the

survey item with the third-‐largest number of “strongly agree” ratings (5). 4 Two additional staff chose “can’t say” on the question of manageable roles, and 3 additional staff chose “can’t say” on the question

of clear limits of scope and niche. 5 Two additional staff chose “can’t” say on the question of clear roles.

Median Average

We have a clear sense of our strategic and value-‐added niche in the climate change landscape which guides our role, planning, and activities. 3 2.85

We have a clear sense of the limits of our scope and niche.

2.5 2.42

Our different roles are clear. 3 2.62

Our different roles are manageable. 2 2.31

ClimateWorks’ services are well aligned with the needs of the philanthropic community we serve.

3 3.07


5


timeliness and formal documentation/follow-‐through of the grant making process, and ensure that the finance team has what it needs to work with the greater volume of grants being made).

• Managing inter-‐campaign and inter-‐funder variation. At the core of many staff observations was the issue of strong variability between campaigns and funder engagement. Not only do campaigns naturally vary in terms of focus area and regional concentration, but also substantially in terms of individual funder interest and engagement (which can also vary considerably between FT principal and PO levels). While some staff simply felt this was an inevitable tension to be managed (e.g., by empowering campaign directors to adapt and find their own recipe, or by standardizing core campaign products and communicated offerings), an equal number perceived a level of disorganization and/or implications to be addressed. For example, some staff members felt that the substantial variation in interest is due in part to the fact that POs/funders are still seeing climate change issues more from their own perspective rather than from the value-‐added perspective and recommendations lent by ClimateWorks. Funders—particularly POs6—also vary in where exactly they see ClimateWorks’ value-‐added, which has implications for the clarity of roles and prioritization of services.

• Focusing on prioritization and implications for sustainability. Prioritization was a hot topic and key word used frequently by staff interviewees. This appears to be in line with earlier survey findings that close to half of staff disagreed or strongly agreed that: CW’s different roles are manageable and that CW has a clear sense of the limits of its scope or niche. With regard to limits, while there was some acknowledgment that these are extremely difficult to define given the complexity and evolving nature of the issue, others voiced concern that limits are elusive because CW’s niche is to meet funder needs. In their

reflections, staff concentrated on the need to prioritize CW’s different roles and functions in order to realize important benefits for stretched staff, as well as stronger potential for model sustainability and “scaling up” engagement from a greater number of funders. A few staff members explicitly stated that CW’s current model is not sustainable without some degree of prioritization of roles and activities, particularly for program staff, so they are not attempting to

do everything equally. Possible inputs into this prioritization process include a staff retreat exercise (where program staff mapped time required to their 2016 plans); a revised annual goal-‐setting process that will allow organizational goals to be used by staff as more of a daily guide for prioritization; a recently defined scope of work by consultant Sue Cook to look for business

6 The disconnect between POs and FT principals was observed in various contexts—e.g., in absorption of the campaign director roles

and responsibilities document, and in the perceived value-‐added of ClimateWorks’ services.

There is a clear need to prioritize. I think ClimateWorks is still about the five

different roles of 2.0, but with different emphases and sizing them for staff

capacity.

This is the year where we really just have to show that we can be focused and strategic about these things and clearer about what’s important for ClimateWorks to do and not do.


6


process efficiencies; and a process for prioritizing unanticipated opportunities for CW in relation to its documented roles.

• Considering refinements based on a business function/service-‐level review. When asked about any needed refinements to the ClimateWorks 2.0 model, only two staff members fundamentally questioned the soundness of the model (e.g., its operating assumptions and/or value-‐added). One-‐third of staff (5 of 15) felt that the most helpful next steps would be to reflect on and reassess the value and cost of CW’s key components or services—including the recommended investment portfolio process, deep dives, and different roles of campaign directors—to determine whether all should continue and, if so, whether they might be simplified or improved.

DECISION MAKING

As discussed in SPR’s baseline report earlier this year, decision making was perceived by staff as a top priority item (rated very important to ClimateWorks success but rated low in terms of current strength). This priority has since cooled though considerable concerns remain. During the staff retreat in summer 2015, staff were allowed to “vote with their feet” in terms of joining different discussion groups. The decision making group had relatively few staff members join. For SPR’s fall 2015 check-‐in, staff members were specifically asked to rate the item: “Decision making should currently be a top priority area for ClimateWorks to address.” The median and average level of agreement with this statement fell below “agree” (2.5 and 2.75 respectively).

There were two additional items in the decision making area that had median and average levels of agreement that both fell below the “agree” level:

Median Average

There is a strong level of clarity on staff’s decision making responsibilities. 3 2.50

The right people are involved in the right decisions. 3 2.71

There is an appropriate level of delegation and decentralized decision making at ClimateWorks.

2 2.38

Staff at various levels are appropriately enabled to lead in areas of their expertise. 3 2.86

There are appropriate boundaries between our funders and our decision making processes.

.

2 2.10

We have an effective system in place to manage and coordinate staff across activities.

staff across activities.

3 2.50

Decision making should currently be a top priority area for ClimateWorks to address. 2.5 2.75


7


• There is an appropriate level of delegation and decentralized decision making at ClimateWorks.

• There are appropriate boundaries between our funders and our decision making processes.7

In conversation, staff tended to focus on the first statement above. Forty percent of staff described significant challenges with delegation and decision making, though many acknowledged progress (e.g., increased awareness of and attention paid to decision making, use of the NSP decision making tool, a change in tone or signaling by the Executive Team with regard to decision making) and generally had little appetite for further “intervention” or tools (as opposed to letting things have a chance to evolve/progress).

For those who described considerable delegation and decision making challenges, perceived underlying causes can be summarized as follows:

• The need for CW to reconsider how much more delegation and shared decision making can take place now, and how much more “outward facing” leadership should be now, given its stage of development (i.e., past transition “survival mode”).

• A perception that leadership is reluctant to delegate or let go of some decision making and/or oversight responsibilities.

• An organization without a clear decision-‐making chain of command (with clear layers between the Executive Team and the company at large).

• A “nice” organizational culture not always equipped to handle conflict and tension in a productive way, which challenges decision making as well as candid and sometimes difficult communication about decision making.

• A tension between CW’s autonomy and need to make hard decisions, and its need to build consensus with funders.

NSP’s decision making tool (and specific examples of its use) were frequently cited by staff, with value assessments ranging from neutral to positive. At the least, the tool has raised awareness and provoked people to think about different decisions in a helpful framework. At the most, the tool has been “taken up in pockets” of the organization, though a few staff expressed the need for more guidance on when and how to use this tool, and for further documentation of use and effects to gain momentum and avoid falling back on the comfort of old ways. A few staff members also expressed reservations about the tool’s ultimate value without a broadening of staff members empowered to make decisions.

SPR looks forward to hearing CW’s thoughts and reactions to this memo, and how it might help inform next steps for the evaluation, as well as for other important scopes of work currently ongoing at the Foundation.

7 This particular item had the highest number (5) of “can’t say” responses of the entire survey component.


2016 ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS



Re: 2016 organizational goals


Many ClimateWorks staff members are struggling to manage roles that have a large scope and a number

of moving parts. A strong theme emerged in internal discussions and our third‐party evaluation this year:

How can we better manage workloads and make the most of our talented staff by becoming more

effective in how we prioritize work on a daily basis? And a subtheme: How can we better use the

organizational goals we set each year to guide ongoing prioritization? Our 2015 organizational goals made

sense, but we’ve learned they haven’t been very helpful to staff in setting daily priorities and managing

the multiple demands on staff time. Further, because many of our most important processes and

deliverables require cross‐department collaboration, alignment of priorities and workstreams across

departments is critical to managing individual priorities and workloads and to our performance as an

organization.

Recognizing this, we are modifying our approach to how we develop and use organizational goals for

2016. Our purpose is to make our organizational goals, and the processes we use to develop them and

track how we’re doing, more useful to staff across the organization. In particular, we hope a strengthened

goal‐setting process will improve alignment and communication and make the goals of greater practical

use as departments and individuals prioritize tasks throughout the year.

Following a structured planning process recommended by ClimateWorks consultant, Sue Cook, and used

by a number of companies, we will split our 2016 goals into two buckets: (1) Breakthrough Objectives and

(2) Business Fundamentals. Both are, of course, equally important for the success of the organization, and

we will report regularly to the board on both. The Breakthrough Objectives will target

needs/opportunities for a step change in how we do our work in a particular area, where achieving that

step change will be significant for the strength of the organization as a whole. We will identify Business

Fundamentals, which include many of the processes used in the day‐to‐day running of the organization,

by department. We expect the Breakthrough Objectives will require more cross‐department coordination

and innovation than the Business Fundamentals.

We were working through our normal goal development process when we decided to modify the

approach for 2016. We will be in the midst of developing Breakthrough Objectives and Business

Fundamentals when we meet in December, but will not have completed the process. We’d like to use our

time in the board meeting to solicit board feedback on our initial cut at Breakthrough Objectives and

share the templates we’ll use to plan and track progress.

We intend to complete this process by January 31 and bring a refined set of 2016 “organizational goals”


to the board in February. We are also scheduling quarterly internal review meetings to make room for

team reflection, discussion, and collaboration as we pursue these objectives.

We look forward to your feedback on this approach and our draft Breakthrough Objectives.

2016 BREAKTHROUGH OBJECTIVES—DRAFT LIST (and lead owner)

1. Launch new, ClimateWorks‐led programmatic initiatives with strong, board‐approved strategies

and support from funders and other partners. (Charlie)

2. Improve the effectiveness of Campaign Funders Groups as a cornerstone of strategy

development and funder collaboration, providing value to all participants. (Charlie)

3. Take Funders Table meetings and conversations to the next level to ensure they continue to

provide high value to all participants. (Mary)

4. Strengthen funding coordination. (Ann)

5. Strengthen ClimateWorks’ capability as a grant maker by launching a new, integrated FLUXX,

grants management, and budget management system. (Brian)

6. Assess and communicate impact to key audiences, including the collective impact of Funders

Table philanthropy on climate outcomes and the specific impact of ClimateWorks’ own efforts.

(Charlotte with Surabi and others)

7. Raise more money in a way that sets up durable, replicable funding streams for the future. (Jean‐

Louis)

8. Tangibly improve staff experience. (Negar)

BUSINESS FUNDAMENTALS (by department)

1. Advisory & Research

2. Executive Office

3. External Relations

4. Finance & Operations

5. Funder Collaborations

6. HR

7. IT

8. Planning

9. Programs


EXAMPLE FORMATS (TABLES) FOR BREAKTHROUGH OBJECTIVES AND BUSINESS

FUNDAMENTALS


POST‐PARIS DEBRIEF


From: Charlie McElwee, Vice President, Programs

Re: Debrief on the Paris COP with Jennifer Morgan


The 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21), also known as the Paris Climate Conference, will be held in Paris

from November 30 through December 11, 2016. This is an important moment for our work at

ClimateWorks. Jennifer Morgan, our Visiting Director for International Policies and Politics (seconded to

ClimateWorks by WRI) has been playing a key role in the run‐up to COP 21, working with leaders in civil

society, government, and philanthropy to make the Paris COP a turning point in the global effort to

combat climate change. Jennifer will join our board meeting via videoconference for half an hour to

debrief on the Paris negotiations and what they might mean for the future.

As a warm‐up to this session, we have included in the board packet a short note prepared by the

Rhodium Group titled “On the Path to Paris, a Steep Final Ascent.” The Rhodium Group is on contract

with ClimateWorks and regularly advises us on global trends in climate and the economy. The note

provides a readout on where things stand, with two weeks to go before negotiations begin.


ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES

On the Path to Paris, a steep final ascent All eyes are on Paris. As the French government reels after the horrific attacks last week, Foreign Minister Laurent Tubiana has announced that the climate summit will proceed as planned, though without the usual fanfare and celebrations. With only two weeks until the negotiations commence, we’ve seen a final volley of meetings and high-level announcements aimed at providing a successful way forward to agreement in Paris. In this note we provide a readout from the final preparatory meetings held over the last week and developments on one central issue: the ambition of global efforts. We also provide insight on how the French Presidency hopes to avoid some of the missteps of Copenhagen by leveraging the political will of world leaders in the early days of the summit. Finally, we provide some insight into a final opportunity to insert additional momentum before Paris as a group of countries make one last push for fossil fuel subsidy reform.

G20 AND PRE-COP MEETINGS HIGHLIGHT REMAINING DIVISIONS

Yesterday, Group of 20 (G20) leaders wrapped up meetings in Turkey, where climate change remained a priority despite other pressing needs in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. In the past, leaders’ statements have helped push forward key elements under consideration in the UN climate negotiations. In 2009, the G8 introduced the aim of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius, a goal that was included in the Copenhagen Accord later that year and adopted by the UN in 2010. In 2013, the G20 called for hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) to be addressed under the Montreal Protocol, an effort that is only now starting to gain steam. While they are rare, such statements are a sure indication that a compromise has gained sufficient traction to resurface again under the UN negotiations.

This year’s G20 leaders’ communiqué, however, failed to deliver any new momentum on key issues. Beyond a bland commitment to work together toward a successful outcome in Paris, it appears that even a reaffirmation of the 2 degree goal was hard won, with India and Saudi Arabia initially resisting its inclusion lest it prejudge the Paris outcome. The EU proposal to include a provision calling for a review mechanism to regularly assess national and collective progress and ratchet up efforts over time, also opposed by India and Saudi Arabia, failed to materialize in the final G20 communiqué.

There appeared to be more progress at last week’s final preparatory meeting of climate ministers hosted by the French, this year’s President of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change. The so-called “pre-COP” meeting, attended by over 60 nations, has traditionally been an opportunity for the Presidency to engage a wide range of countries, build political momentum for an agreement, and attempt to lock-in potential compromises on key high-level issues. With regard to the three contentious issues under debate (i.e., ambition, equity, and finance), French Foreign Minister Lauren Fabius called the meeting “a major step forward”, citing a “large consensus” and “increasingly wide-ranging support” for their proposed

November 17, 2015 Kate Larsen +1.510.500.9526 [email protected] Pete Ogden +1.212.532.1157 [email protected]


http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/last-meeting-prior-to-cop21-62-ministers-in-paris-from-around-the-world

compromises. This should not be taken as an indication that the agreement is in the bag, however, as reflected by the lingering disagreement on an issue of particular importance to the French: ambition.

It will be difficult for the French Presidency to claim success in Paris without adequately addressing the issue of ambition. A UN report on the collective ambition of the 150+ “intended nationally determined contributions” that have been submitted to-date estimates that planned efforts deliver only half the reductions necessary to stay on a path to limit warming to 2 degrees. The EU, US, and many other progressive countries have called for a periodic review of national commitments, in light of global goals, in order to ratchet up efforts in subsequent commitment periods. It appears that this may have set off alarm bells for several developing countries that see periodic review as a way to push countries beyond their “nationally determined” efforts. Countries like India and China see climate action as a national prerogative—one they are fine reporting to the UN—but that they would not subject to international scrutiny or modification.

Recent French statements seem to indicate more movement on ambition among key developing countries than may be the case. The French pre-COP summary described “a large consensus for a periodic review of the national contributions,” though a few days later at the G20 meeting this proposal was roundly rejected by several countries.

China may also be more hesitant than recent French statements may suggest. On November 1, after a meeting of President Hollande and President Xi, the press picked up a jubilant announcement by the French that “an historic” agreement was reached on 5-year review of countries’ commitments that "laid down the conditions for success" in Paris. The joint statement reads: “They support taking stock every five years and in a comprehensive manner of overall progress made toward reaching the agreed long-term goals. The results of this stocktake will inform Parties in regularly enhancing their actions in a nationally determined manner.” A close reading of this language reveals less progress than the press have reported: the review, as described, could merely apply to collective efforts to meet long-term goals (of limiting warming to 2 degrees C by century’s end), not individual efforts to meet short-term national commitments. It also makes clear that the results of a review would not immediately or automatically ratchet up countries targets, but would be considered an input to national-level decisions about any subsequent efforts.

USING LEADERS’ LEVERAGE TO FULL ADVANTAGE

Lingering divisions among countries on major issues is not unusual even two weeks before the start of the COP. The lack of consensus among G20 leaders, while worrying, is not necessarily indicative of where countries will land once the negotiations begin. The French Presidency will now have to focus on the process for bringing reluctant countries on board.

The 2009 Copenhagen summit infamously ended with the regular negotiating order ground to a complete halt. Leaders from around the world—expecting to arrive in the final days to bless an already agreed text—found themselves instead locked overnight in a small room directly negotiating the language of what became the Copenhagen Accord. Part of the reason for the breakdown was the large divergences in positions that required high-level political authority to overcome. The very fact that countries knew that leaders would be arriving in the final days provided a disincentive to compromise until the issues were finally elevated all the way to the top.


http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/de7a31b6-8c55-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3rhBIPqTZ

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/02/china-and-france-say-paris-climate-pact-should-have-5-year-reviews

The French very much want to avoid a Copenhagen redux, so they will be trying a different approach: invite leaders to attend the opening of the conference. By front-loading their participation, the French are seeking to a) provide leaders with a stage, as there is tremendous political desire by countries to have a visible role in Paris; b) give leaders the opportunity to provide sufficient political direction that bridges differences at the outset; and c) remove from negotiators’ calculations the option of relying on leaders to secure greater gains for their position at the 11th hour.

We will be able to judge how successful this approach is by watching what comes out of the first weekend itself. The French have expressed interest in producing a high-level statement from leaders that would provide political guidance to the negotiators but would not, as in Copenhagen, wade into the textual negotiations themselves. Will that statement materialize? And, if so, will it succeed in providing meaningful direction (e.g., on a long-term GHG reduction goal or on finance) or simply gloss over the key differences?

But much will play out behind the scenes too and, even in the absence of a strong leaders’ statement much could in theory be done to pave the way for a more orderly process than in Copenhagen. We should watch the President’s schedule closely for bilateral meetings with India, China, and other key countries where private understanding could be reached. If this strategy doesn’t work out and the negotiators again find themselves stalemated two weeks later, you can expect there will be calls from the public for leaders to return to Paris to rescue the process and deliver a deal once again.

CAN COUNTRIES SCORE ANY BIG FOSSIL SUBSIDY VICTORIES IN THE REMAINING DAYS BEFORE PARIS?

While the run-up to Paris has already spurred historic levels of action in countries around the world, one of the biggest structural challenges to addressing climate change has in large measure remained intact: the approximately $500 billion spent annually on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. While India and Indonesia have taken some commendable steps, the lack of major progress on this issue has been all of the more frustrating to climate advocates because low oil prices reduce the demand for consumption subsidies, providing a political window to reform them before prices climb and pubic demand again surges.

The international meeting calendar, however, fortuitously presented two prime opportunities to make progress in this space in the final two weeks before Paris: the G20 Summit and the meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Export Credit Agencies. The first, this week’s G20 Summit in Turkey, provided countries the occasion to demonstrate progress on their collective 2009 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The G20 deserves some credit this year for continuing to keep the issue on the agenda (which is not a given in this forum, where unfulfilled commitments slip off as the years go by) and acknowledging its ongoing relevance in the outcome document. But no significant material progress was made. That said, China—which has been undertaking its own efforts at energy pricing reform—will be hosting next year’s G20, so the prospects for this staying on the agenda for another year are good.

On the other hand, today’s meeting of country representative of the OECD’s Export Credit Agencies had a big diplomatic success in agreeing to new restrictions on the use of export credit for new coal plants overseas. This is an issue that the Obama administration has championed since 2013, when it adopted the policy of ending domestic support for new overseas coal plants except in the world’s poorest countries under rare circumstances. Since then, the World Bank, the UK, France, and a number of other countries have adopted similar policies, but the world’s largest provider of public


assistance for new coal plants overseas – Japan – had, until now, resisted diplomatic pressure.

That is until a breakthrough was achieved between the US and Japan, which submitted a joint proposal to the OECD last week that would phase out public support for new coal plants overseas based on size and efficiency starting in 2017. It was this approach that carried the day in the OECD. The focus will now turn to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), of which a number of OECD countries are members, to consider restrictions on its own support for new coal plants. If this effort is unsuccessful, countries will need to consider how to prevent the AIIB from backfilling the projects that the OECD countries are no longer taking on. In all however, the OECD agreement provides much-needed momentum in the critical weeks before Paris.

FROM COPENHAGEN TO PARIS: HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?

The path from Copenhagen to Paris has been marked by both big setbacks (e.g. the failure of US domestic cap and trade legislation) and major wins (e.g., the US-China joint announcement of their post-2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets). We will know in two and a half weeks a great deal about what these six intervening years have meant in terms of laying the groundwork for an internationally binding climate agreement, but we will not know everything. Copenhagen was followed by a year of very intensive negotiations to lock down its gains in the UNFCCC. And even a successful adoption of a legal outcome in Paris will leave an enormous amount of work for negotiators in the years to come—fleshing out remaining technical details, implementation, and possibly even ratification—so we may in fact not be able to judge the ultimate success of Paris for some time.

DISCLOSURE APPENDIX

This material was produced by Rhodium Group LLC for use by the recipient only. No part of the content may be copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without the prior written consent of Rhodium Group.

Rhodium Group is a specialized research firm that analyzes disruptive global trends. Our publications are intended to provide clients with general background research on important global developments and a framework for making informed decisions. Our research is based on current public information that we consider reliable, but we do not represent it as accurate or complete. The information in this publication is not intended as investment advice and it should not be relied on as such.

© 2015 Rhodium Group LLC, 5 Columbus Circle, New York, NY 10019. All rights reserved.


CARBON TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE


From: Charlotte Pera, President & CEO, and Surabi Menon, Director of Advisory and Research

Re: Carbon Transparency Initiative


This board meeting includes a discussion our new Carbon Transparency Initiative (CTI). We touched on

the CTI in prior board meetings; we would like to go deeper with the board in our December meeting.

At the center of the CTI is a model, developed by ClimateWorks, which uses an indicator‐led methodology

to reveal progress toward building a low‐carbon economy. The methodology is based on fundamental

analysis of the drivers that shape emission trends, and it offers results by country and sector. A two‐pager

describing the model follows (pp 73 –74). The model has been peer reviewed; initial reactions from our

funder partners have been enthusiastic, and we have begun to assess a variety of options for how to

make the most of this valuable new tool.

In our December meeting, we want to give you an overview of the model and its capabilities, share with

you some of the opportunities we see for using the CTI to advance our mission and enhance our

reputation, and get your feedback and insights on several topics, including:

1. While much of our work focuses on supporting and coordinating with large climate funders and

the Regional Climate Foundations, the CTI offers value beyond these circles. We are interested in

the board’s sense of how much emphasis to put on “sticking to our knitting” versus being more

expansive in our outreach and engagement as we explore how to make the CTI as valuable as

possible in the fight to contain climate change.

2. We have begun to evaluate and compare different options for how to take the CTI forward,

taking into account a number of factors, such as mission alignment, resource requirements,

funder interest, brand implications, and so forth. We want the board’s feedback on how we’re

evaluating options. Are we considering the right factors? What specific feedback does the board

have on our current assessment of opportunities (see slides, pp 77‐82)? What else should we be

thinking about as we consider CTI‐related opportunities?

3. We believe the CTI gives us new opportunities to enhance our brand and be more visible in some

circles. We also believe the CTI may help us attract new funding to ClimateWorks. What advice do

board members have as we think about the CTI from the standpoint of ClimateWorks’ brand and

visibility? From the standpoint of funder outreach?

While we aren’t asking the board for any formal decisions on the CTI, this discussion is linked to two


decision‐items in this meeting. First, we’ll ask the board to review and approve our 2016 budget, which

includes a new line item for the CTI. You will find a more detailed breakdown of the CTI budget line item

on page 75. Second, we’ll ask the board to approve a grant to the Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification

(MRV) Trust Fund, which has implications for the CTI. We’ll discuss the grant in the afternoon, after the

CTI discussion.

We look forward to discussing all of this with you on December 16.


SummaryThe Carbon Transparency Initiative (CTI) is a project of

ClimateWorks Foundation that seeks to reveal progress toward

building a low-carbon economy through an indicator-led

methodology. This methodology is based on a fundamental

analysis of the drivers that shape emissions pathways (see

reverse side for a list of metrics). The CTI creates a transparent

and granular Current Development Scenario that is based on

policies, decarbonization trends, and energy related investments.

This allows for analysis of long-term decarbonization, sensitivity

analyses based on policy and technology shifts, and identification

of macro trends and how regional targets compare. An annual

analysis will examine these driver metrics, track their year-to-year

changes, allow for cross sector and country comparisons, and

show progress toward emissions targets. Thus far, models have

been developed for China, the EU, India, Mexico and the USA

with plans to expand to other countries in 2016 with our partners

from the Climate Action Tracker.

Partners ClimateWorks coordinates with a consortium of organizations to

produce the CTI. This allows for leveraging of global insights and

the analysis of crucial data.

CTI research partners include:• Bloomberg New Energy Finance• Climate Action Tracker • Energy Foundation - China• Energy Foundation - US• European Climate Foundation• International Council on Clean Transportation• International Energy Agency• Latin America Regional Climate Initiative• McKinsey & Company• World Resources Institute

Advisory partners include:• Institute for Sustainable Development & International Relations• The World Bank

Peer reviewers include:• California Environmental Associates• Council on Energy, Environment and Water• Grantham Institute• Instituto Nacional de Ecologia y Cambio Climatico• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory• Stockholm Environmental Institute

Phase OnePhase Two

TransparencyAn annually updated dashboard, maintained by ClimateWorks, will

display key driver and outcome metrics. The methodology used

in the model will be outlined in a report that we expect to publish

online in 2016. Models cover the time period of 2005 to 2030 with

year over year projections.

MethodologyThe CTI presents analysis on driver metric statistics by sector. It

uses these metrics to both determine future emissions trajectories

out to 2030 and benchmark current decarbonization performance.

This allows for comparisons across sectors and countries. Country

models developed through the CTI for the first phase include

China, the European Union, India, Mexico and the United States.

Additional analysis for the other G20 countries will be completed in

2016. These phase two analyses are dependent on data availability

but could include: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia,

Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey.

The CTI’s methodology is to:

• Use historical emissions trends to estimate past

rates of decarbonization;

• Use leading indicators to forecast current rates of

decarbonization that link today’s policies and market projections

to future emissions while assessing the fulfillment of policy

targets that are part of INDCs.

For more information about the CTI contact:

Surabi Menon, Advisory & Research Director

[email protected]

Carbon Transparency InitiativeHighlighting progress toward building a low-carbon future


Leading Indicator Approach: Sector level driver metricsThe CTI tracks leading indicators or driver and outcome metrics at the sector level for each country. This approach helps to establish

transparency in the global debate on decarbonization.

Sector Driver Metrics Outcome Metrics

Overarching Population - 5 scenarios GDP - absolute and per capita – 5 scenarios

Carbon intensity of GDPEmissions per capita Total emissions

Power Fraction of technology in mix - % of capacityNew build capacity - per technology and fuelCapacity factor - per tech and fuelAuxiliary consumption, transmission and distribution losses Carbon intensity of generation by fuelEstimated cost of MWh

Total power sector emissionsAverage carbon intensity of generationEmissions per capitaTotal electricity generatedTotal electricity per capita

Transport Size of vehicle fleet and car ownership per 1000 peopleAverage distance driven per vehicle/ per capitaPassenger kilometers traveled by modeInternal combustion engine efficiency - fuel economyElectric vehicle penetration rate - fleet % and new sales # Modal freight and passenger split

Total transport sector emissionsCarbon intensity - emissions per passenger kmCarbon intensity - emissions per vehicle kmTransport emissions per capitaPublic transport penetration rate

Oil & Gas % of gas extracted, vented and/or flaredCrude oil refined, exported or importedShare of conventional and unconventional productionTotal volume extracted

Total emissions for Oil & Gas sectorEmissions intensity of extractionEmissions per BOE extracted, distributed, and processed% of emissions from upstream, midstream, and downstream

Buildings Total square meter building area per capita (res. and services)% of total energy by major usage category% of building area by efficiency standard type (pending)% of building area by new versus legacy asset class% of direct energy use by fuel typeElectric efficiency factor

Total emissions from buildings sectorDirect energy per square meter building area (res & serv)Electricity per square meter building area (res & serv) Emissions per square meter building area ( res & serv)

Industry - iron & steel % of EAF and BOF% of coal/natural gas/renewables/oil for direct energyElectric efficiency factor

Total emissions from iron & steel sectorEmissions per ton generatedEmissions per capitaTotal tons of steel generated

Industry - cement % of coal/ natural gas/renewables/oil for heat generation% of Dry vs. Wet Clinker generation% of Clinker SubstitutionElectric efficiency factor

Total emissions from cement sectorEmissions per tons generatedEmissions per capitaTotal tons generated (and per capita)

Industry - chemicals % of coal/natural gas/renewables/oil for direct energyElectric efficiency factor

Total emissions from chemicals sectorEmissions per unit GDP generatedAdded value per capitaTotal economic added value of sectorVolume and % of emissions from F-gases

Industry - other % of coal/natural gas/renewables/oil for direct energyElectric efficiency factor

Total emissions from other industry sector% of emissions from top three highest emitting sectorsEmissions per unit GDP generatedEmissions per capita

Agriculture Number of Animals (absolute)Meat consumption per capitaFraction of managed manure facilities with biodigesterEfficiency of nutrient use (crop yield/N fertilizer)

Total emissions from agriculture sectorEmissions from agriculture per capitaEmissions share of livestock, fertilizer, and otherEmissions share of Methane, N20 and CO2Emissions per Ha agricultural land

Forests Net changes in protected areas (all IUCN categories)Total land forest & peat land area

Net emissions from forestry sectorMean carbon content per Ha

Non-CO2

Share of diesel vehiclesShare of waste incinerated% of gas extracted vented and/or flared

Emissions of methane, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, and f-gases

Waste Amounts of solid waste generated per capita% of collected waste recycled% of collected waste incinerated% Methane recovered from landfills

Total emissions from solid waste & wastewater sectorEmissions per capitaEmissions per ton of waste


Carbon Transparency Initiative (CTI) - Projected Spending

Dollars in Thousands

CTI Budget 2016 Budget

Core - Project costs (data updates and peer review) $ 350

Core - Model development 150

Core - Outreach 50

Core - IT services (web site + graphics support) 150

Brazil + Germany 200

Health-related indicators 50

Communications 130

Dashboard implementation 200

Other / contingency 120

Total Budget $ 1,400

Not in Budget (Requires Additional Fundraising) 2016 Additional

Climate Action Index $ 400

Additional EU countries if Germany build out is successful 150

Core support to work proactively with regions (includes additional staff time) 300

Total Additional $ 850


Carbon Transparency InitiativeCTI Alternatives – ClimateWorks Board Presentation

16 December 2016

CTI Opportunities ‐ SummaryOptions Alternative levels of investment CWF position

Core – continue CTI development and rollout for core CWF regions as part of the GVF; focus on use with campaigns and funder decisions

+ Build models for Brazil, Germany

+ Model additional EU countries

+ Proactive engagement with regions on use and development

In plan for 2016

Not in plan–fundraising opptnty

Not in plan—instead provideresponsive/selective engagement with regions when interest is high

MRV Trust Fund — grant recommendation included in December board packet

+ Invest staff time to join donor advisory board and influence direction

+ Take co‐leadership position in integrating CTI into the working group methodology and influencing direction

Staff recommends and requests Board input

Climate Action Index + Maintain current level of involvement and engagement

+ Take co‐leadership position increating a Climate Action Index and integrating CTI with the index

In plan for 2016

Not in 2016 budget; requesting Board input

Evaluating CWF opportunities

3

• Mission/Role Alignment• Fit with Strategy priorities and overall portfolio

• Resource Requirements – including all impacts to ClimateWorks, partners, multi‐year

- Incremental funding required- Budget, Headcount - Most constrained, least constrained

• GVF Impact – support global landscape of opportunities and trends for alignment of metrics

• Programs impact – how does this support philanthropy investment decisions, strategy development and progress tracking

• Funder interest

• Brand Implications

• Funding Sources – for ClimateWorks, partners, multi‐year

• Alternatives – what happens if we don’t do this

• Risks

MRV Trust Fund – for Board Discussion

4

Implications Alternative levels of investment

Value Proposition

CWF is a trusted partner and subject matter expert on impact of climate change initiatives, policies and sectoral methodologies (CTI). CWF brings expertise, collaborators, a specific model architecture, and funding support to the collaborative MRV effort, focused on improving the quality of country level impact projections and tracking; provides opportunities to design stronger country commitments post COP 21.

Value to CWF(and FT)

Provide direct program value through a global system for MRV, driving compliance and results. Better and consistent methodologies for tracking and accounting of INDCs (new climate policies) at national and sub‐national levels including beyond ClimateWorkscurrent regions. Accumulated knowledge about impact works to drive better investment decisions for philanthropy and attract donors to contribute

Brand + Highly visible for CWF execs involved in trust fund; use of CTI methodology extends CWF org visibility to new audiences and potential stakeholders‐ Additional scrutiny on CTI methodology and CWF role, especially if model produces results that are counter to country internal projections

Risks MRV unable to gain traction or produce approaches that can be broadly adopted by developing countries; UN does not endorse methodology; consumes significant time of scarce CWF resources

Exit Options CWF not in lead role, with option to act either as quiet partner and funder or more visible role. Could assess after 1‐2 years for role change or exit. Trust Fund working group lead takes co‐ownership of CTI (likely Verified Carbon Standard).

Climate Action Index – for Board Discussion

5

Implications Alternative levels of investment

Value Proposition

CWF is a trusted partner and subject matter expert on the impact of regional climate change initiatives and policies. CWF offers it's own modeling work (CTI) and provides leadership for creating a broadly applicable index for progress tracking. CTI is transparent, with regular data updates to support others developing the index. Theadditional list of countries covered through the index and a strong network of policy tracking experts allows CWF (and GVF) to have a more global perspective.

Value to CWF(and FT)

Under the consortium, a composite climate action index would look to include finance indicators as well to produce a better picture of climate action for rating agencies. This is important in a networked carbon world as one values assets. This work will benefit the Cross‐cutting campaign's finance component and we've discussed coordinating our work here.

Brand + CWF brand reinforced by company it keeps; Extends external visibility, including as "global" partner. ‐ Some risks due to uncertainty and lack of control over way Climate Action Index conclusions are framed; "rankings" creates political risks

Risks Failure to gain traction; Composite index used for ranking or incorrectly by others in a way that negatively impacts CWF image

Exit Options Independent non‐profit oversight organization (that acts as Secretariat) funded by Foundation. Assess progress in 2016, then reassess involvement and financial commitment.

Implications for CTI

6

Core – Always! MRV Trust Fund Climate Action Index

Model CWF own & retains for use; evolve with region and peer inputs (Core partners keen to use CTI)

+ Collaborates with CWF, may be interested in using CTI, but not determined as yet

+ Collaborates with CWF and co‐publishes results, CTI ownership will be retained by CWF and can evolve with peer inputs

Data CWF maintains and updates data for CWF geographies

CWF can provide CTI data to MRV Trust Fund in countries for which the model exists and benefit from more robust results for countries not in our geography

+ Additional country data available through the consortium strengthens GVF/CTI

Users CWF, some RCFs, consultants who work with campaigns; FT program officers

+ UNFCCC and MRV Trust Fundcommunity of experts

+ Consortium that is part of the Climate Action Index

Distribution In‐depth results via dashboard, models made available to network; some results published on CWF website

+ CWF supports CTI model use in benchmark countries that are part of the Trust Fund (e.g. Vietnam, Colombia, Kenya) allowing for scale up of model to other countries through the Trust Fund

+ Data published on a website that is not CWF controlled; Model not distributed to consortium

Governance CWF in control, needs to decide how model may be shared with core partners.

CWF will be on a donor advisory board with CIFF, Germangovernment and other donors

As co‐founder with the WorldBank, CWF stays on a steering committee

2016 BUDGET


From: ClimateWorks Executive Team

Re: 2016 Budget


In our December board meeting, we will ask for board approval of our 2016 budget. We will separately

request board approval of grants over $500,000, including those to regional climate foundations (RCFs),

as described in Tab 8. We will also propose a change in our approach to approvals for certain grants to

subsidiaries (CLUA and LARCI) as described on page 85. This memo outlines our budget recommendation.

Our programmatic budgets reflect the work we’ve been doing throughout the year with our Funders

Table partners to coordinate 2016 funding to priority strategies and key grantees. Programmatic budgets

are described in more detail below. Note that the revenue budget includes $9.4 million in anticipated

core support and no additional program support from Packard Foundation. In 2015, we received $10.0

million in core support and $24.0 million in additional program funding from the Packard Foundation. We

anticipate Packard will provide additional program support to ClimateWorks in 2016, as well, but we have

excluded it from the budget until we receive a more certain signal from Packard.

Our operating budget for 2016 incorporates the four new staff positions we discussed on our November

12 board call. A list of these new positions and their placement in the organization is included in the

Board Handbook for reference.

Updates since November 12 board call The following page has updated figures in the format that we shared on the November 12 board call.

We fully reconciled 2015 figures as part of a revised 2015 forecast completed since the board call. The

net impact was a reduction in the 2015 ending cash balance of $900,000, with $1.0 million of adjustments

shown in the “other adjustments” line offset in part by over $100,000 of funding received through a small

core support grant and interest income.

Going from the top to bottom of the table, the changes to the 2016 figures are as follows:

$100,000 added to funding for 2016 Tilia core support and interest income. $300,000 added to RCFs allocation; this funding will be allocated after MacArthur makes its final

decisions regarding 2016 India funding. $2.1 million removed from ClimateWorks’ programs allocation – this was a mistake in our November

12 materials due to an error in translating ongoing multi‐funder coordination discussions into our own

preliminary budget. Upon further review, we found this spending would come from anticipated

additional program support from Packard Foundation rather than core funding.

A more precise functional split of operating expenses in place of the previous high‐level estimates.


ClimateWorks Foundation2015‐2016 Projected Allocations

($ millions)2015

Baseline1Adj.

2015

Updated

2016

PrelimAdj.

2016

Updated

Funding available

CWF 1.0 Funding $ 26.5 $ (6.5) $ 20.0 $ 30.0 $ 6.5 $ 36.5

Oak Foundation (2014 Carryover) 1.3 ‐ 1.3 ‐ ‐ ‐

Oak Foundation 15.6 ‐ 15.6 15.6 ‐ 15.6

Packard Foundation 10.0 ‐ 10.0 10.0 (0.6) 9.4

Hewlett Foundation 9.0 ‐ 9.0 9.0 ‐ 9.0

MacArthur Foundation 1.0 ‐ 1.0 1.0 ‐ 1.0

KR Foundation 0.5 ‐ 0.5 0.5 ‐ 0.5

Other ‐ 0.1 0.1 ‐ 0.1 0.1

Funding ‐ total2 $ 63.9 $ (6.4) $ 57.5 $ 66.1 $ 6.0 $ 72.1

Projected programmatic funds allocation

RCFs and programs ‐ total3 $ 18.9 $ ‐ $ 18.9 $ 14.0 $ 1.3 $ 15.3

CWF programs ‐ total 7.1 ‐ 7.1 7.1 2.2 9.3

Grant reserve 20.0 (4.7) 15.3 16.0 ‐ 16.0

Other programmatic 3.4 (0.3) 3.1 2.4 1.7 4.1

Carbon Transparency Initiative ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.4 1.4

Evaluation 2.0 (1.5) 0.5 2.0 (0.8) 1.2

Projected programmatic funds allocated ‐ total $ 51.4 $ (6.5) $ 44.9 $ 41.5 $ 5.8 $ 47.3

Operating expensesPrograms $ 8.6 $ 8.6 $ 9.1 $ 0.2 $ 9.3

Fundraising 1.4 1.4 1.4 (0.2) 1.2

Management & Administrative 2.4 2.4 2.5 0.8 3.3

Operating expenses ‐ total $ 12.4 $ ‐ $ 12.4 $ 13.0 $ 0.8 $ 13.9

Total projected expenses and allocations $ 63.8 $ (6.5) $ 57.3 $ 54.5 $ 6.6 $ 61.2

Net increase/(decrease) in carryover $ 0.1 $ 11.6 $ (0.6) $ 10.9

Other adjustments to ending cash balance $ (0.4)

Ending cash balance4 $ (0.3) $ 13.6 $ (0.6) $ 12.8

Overhead %56.0% 6.6% 7.2% 7.4%

Operating expenses as % of FT climate funding6 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2%

1Baseline excludes additional program support of $24.0M received from Packard Foundation.2Funding based on existing commitments.3See table in "2016 Grants to Regional Climate Foundations" section of this memo for more information regarding RCF funding.

5Overhead = Fundraising + Management & Administrative expenses.6Funder table climate funding: $410M in 2015, $440M in 2016.

2015 2016

4Additional $2.0M cash at end of 2016 from Hewlett Foundation ($20.0M received in 2014, $18.0M funding for 2015‐2016), with payment of

$6.8M scheduled for 2017.


Budget Overview The following sections present more detailed budget information, in our standard format.

The ClimateWorks revenue budget for 2016 is $42.9 million, with $35.6 million of support for the core

budget and $7.4 million in incremental restricted funding. The core support budget consists of funding

from Oak Foundation ($15.6 million), Packard Foundation ($9.4 million), Hewlett Foundation ($9.0

million), MacArthur Foundation ($1.0 million), KR Foundation (roughly $500,000), and other sources

($100,000). Incremental restricted funding includes $4.0 million for the Climate and Land Use Alliance

(CLUA), $1.8 million for iCS (Brazil), and $1.6 million for LARCI (Mexico).

We anticipate additional revenues will be secured during the course of 2016 and will bring budget

revisions to the board as needed (budget overages require approval if they meet the board‐approved

criteria outlined in the Board Handbook). In the instances when new revenues are restricted to support of

ClimateWorks’ two subsidiaries (CLUA and LARCI), we propose to eliminate the step of having the board

approve the resulting grants from ClimateWorks to those subsidiaries, starting in January 2016. These

subsidiaries are “disregarded entities” such that ClimateWorks grants to them don’t get reported on the

tax return. An example of such funding from 2015 is the $3.6 million grant from Hewlett Foundation for

support of CLUA that we’re asking the board to approve at the December meeting.

The $68.6 million total expenditure budget for 2016 includes the following (listed below in the “loading

order” we have discussed with the board for prioritizing ClimateWorks’ spending):

Operating expenses ($13.9 million)

ClimateWorks programs ($15.9 million), which consists of ClimateWorks global and transnational

initiatives ($9.3 million), other programmatic expenses ($4.1 million), the new Carbon Transparency

Initiative ($1.4 million; see Tab 4 for further details), and programmatic evaluation ($1.2 million)


2016 Budget

(Core)

Expected

Incremental

Restricted

Funding

2016 Budget

(Total)

Total Revenues and Support 35,575$ 7,368$ 42,943$

Total Regional Climate Foundations and Programs 15,320$ 7,368$ 22,688$

Total ClimateWorks Foundation Programs 9,285$ ‐$ 9,285$

Grant Reserve 16,000$ ‐$ 16,000$

Other Programmatic Expenses 4,100$ ‐$ 4,100$

Carbon Transparency Initiative 1,400$ ‐$ 1,400$

Evaluation 1,150$ ‐$ 1,150$

Total Operating and Capital Expenditures 13,947$ ‐$ 13,947$

Total Expenditures 61,202$ 7,368$ 68,570$

Net Cash Flow (25,627)$ ‐$ (25,627)$

Ending Cash 12,784$

ClimateWorks Operations ‐ Projected Year‐end Headcount 47


Grant reserve ($16.0 million)

Regional climate foundation and programs ($22.7 million, including $7.4 million in expenses coming

from the equivalent amount of incremental restricted funding noted above)

As noted on the November 12 call, we are rolling forward $6.5 million in programmatic expenses

allocated from 2015 funding. Overall, we have budgeted a $25.6 million decrease in cash in 2016, which

reflects utilization of part of the two‐year, $66.1 million grant received from Packard in mid‐2014, and a

cash balance at the end of 2016 of $12.8 million.

We discuss the operating budget in more detail immediately below, then provide more detail on

programmatic budgets.

Operating Expenses

The 2016 budget for ClimateWorks’ operating and capital expenditures is $13.9 million, $1.5 million (12

percent) higher than the 2015 forecast of roughly $12.5 million, with increases in compensation and

office, occupancy, IT, and other expenses partially offset by a decrease in consulting.

Salaries and benefits

The salaries and benefits budget of $8.3 million reflects an increase of $1.6 million (23 percent) from the

2015 forecast. This increase includes over $430,000 for four new budgeted positions per our discussion

on the November 12 board call (India Strategist, Programs/External Relations Assistant, Accountant, and

Desktop Support Specialist); $380,000 for the additional cost of the full year of salaries on the new

positions hired in 2015, about $230,000 for the additional cost of the full year of salaries on replacement

positions hired in 2015, and approximately $310,000 for market‐based salary adjustments for all staff

(which includes a 3 percent cost of living adjustment). Finally, we anticipate an increase of $100k resulting

from charging less to LARCI for accounting and grants/contracts administration in 2016, with the new

Brazil organization (iCS) fully independent as of January, and a new Mexico entity we anticipate to be fully

independent by July.

Travel and meetings

The travel and meetings budget is slightly higher than the 2015 forecast, by $44,000 (or 3 percent). This

Dollars in Thousands 2016 Budget 2015 Forecast

2016

Incr/(Decr.)

over 2015 % Change

ClimateWorks Foundation Operating and Capital Expenditures

Salaries and employee benefits 8,299$ 6,736$ 1,563$ 23%

Travel and meetings 1,698 1,654 44 3%

Consulting and professional service fees 2,100 2,669 (569) ‐21%

Office, occupancy, IT, and other 1,707 1,284 423 33%

Capital expenditures 143 123 20 16%

Total Operating and Capital Expenditures 13,947$ 12,466$ 1,481$ 12%


small increase reflects travel for additional 2015‐2016 staff. We will review our 2015 travel costs and

2016 plans and identify strategies to ensure we keep overall travel costs relatively flat.

Consulting and professional service fees

Consulting and professional service fees are expected to decrease by $569,000, 21 percent, to $2.1

million in 2016. This decrease is in part due to staff assuming work previously done by consultants/temps

and is thus partially offset by increased compensation costs. We also anticipate lower recruiting costs in

2016 now that we have filled the HR Director position. Significant program contracts to support the build

out of new campaign strategies, the Carbon Transparency Initiative, and evaluation are included under

ClimateWorks Programs in the programmatic (not operating) portion of the budget. Notable consulting in

the operating expense budget include those for dashboard development (over $500,000); evaluation and

learning support (over $250,000); and communications support, including reputation management

(about $250,000). Other expenses in this category include Global View Function research, management

consulting (such as the business process review, strategic support, and organizational development),

editorial support, fundraising research, legal, recruiting, coaching, employee training, audit, tax, and

temporary staffing.

Office, occupancy, information technology, and other

The office, occupancy, information technology, and other budget of $1.7 million reflects a $423,000

increase over than the 2015 forecast. Excluding the one‐time property tax refund of about $219,000 we

received in 2015, the increase is $204,000 (14%). This increase primarily covers additional licensing and

support costs relating to the dashboard and the Fluxx system.

Capital expenditures

The capital expenditures budget of $143,000 is $20,000 higher than the 2015 forecast (16%). About half

of this budget is for updates to our server room, where we have seen an increase in computer equipment

failing due to insufficient cooling.

Expenses by Function

Total functional expenses (excluding capital expenditures) are budgeted to be $13.8 million, with

overhead expenses (the combined total of fundraising and management & administrative expenses) of

roughly 7 percent of total expenses. The relative split between the three functional areas remains

essentially the same as our 2015 budget.

Dollars in Thousands 2016 Budget

% of Total

CWF

Expenses

% of Total

Operating

Expenses

By Functional Area

Programs 9,346$ 14% 68%

Fundraising 1,165 2% 8%

Management & Adminstrative 3,293 5% 24%

Total Operating Expenses 13,804$ 20% 100%


Staffing

The detailed staffing plan for the 2016 budget is included in the Board Handbook for reference. As

mentioned above, it includes two new programs positions (one shared with External Relations), and two

management & administrative positions (accounting and IT). Note that we do not split headcount

reporting across functional areas. For example, the CEO is included in management and administrative

headcount even though she spends considerable time on program and fundraising activities.

Programmatic Expenses Overview

At Dec 31 2015 At Dec 31 2016

Staffing

Programs 26 28

Fundraising 4 4

Management & Adminstrative 13 15

Total ClimateWorks Operations 43 47


2016 Budget

(Core)

Expected

Incremental

Restricted

Funding

2016 Budget

(Total)

PROGRAMMATIC EXPENDITURES:

Regional Climate Foundations and Programs

Energy Foundation (U.S.) 3,030$ ‐$ 3,030$

European Climate Foundation 2,050 ‐ 2,050

Energy Foundation China 3,200 ‐ 3,200

India Regional Programs 600 ‐ 600

Institute for Climate and Society (Brazil) 90 1,820 1,910

Latin America Regional Climate Initiative (Mexico) 80 1,570 1,650

Climate and Land Use Alliance 6,000 3,978 9,978

Other (Unallocated) 270 ‐ 270


ClimateWorks Foundation Programs

Global and transnational Initiatives:

Clean Power Campaign ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Energy Efficiency Campaign 1,400 ‐ 1,400

Oil Campaign 2,200 ‐ 2,200

Cross‐cutting initiatives ‐ Finance 2,100 ‐ 2,100

Cross‐cutting initiatives ‐ IPPI/CBS/Other 1,725 ‐ 1,725

Non‐CO2 Campaign 1,860 ‐ 1,860


Grant Reserve 16,000$ ‐$ 16,000$



Evaluation 1,150$ ‐$ 1,150$

Total Programmatic Expenditures 47,255$ 7,368$ 54,623$


Overall, we recommend program expenditures of $54.6 million in 2016, consisting of $24.6 million in

program support for the grants and strategies outlined below, $7.4 million in additional restricted

funding, $16.0 million in grant reserve, $4.1 million in other programmatic expenses, $1.4 million for the

Carbon Transparency Initiative, and $1.2 million in programmatic evaluation.

Expected incremental restricted funding consists of Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF, $1.1

million) and Hewlett Foundation ($750,000) for iCS; CIFF ($1.1 million) and Hewlett Foundation

($500,000) for LARCI‐Mexico; and M.A. Cargill ($3.1 million), Ford ($100,000), and Moore (about

$830,000) Foundations for CLUA.

We will retain $16.0 million in a grant reserve fund for expenditure over the course of 2016 to allow us to

respond to threats and opportunities that arise during the year. This includes $5.0 million subject to

approval of the Oak Foundation’s trustees.

Coordination with Other Funders

Our programmatic budget recommendations are based on this year’s recommended investment portfolio

and funding coordination process. As the board knows, this was again an intensive process, driven by

Funders Table “strategic hypotheses,” that provided a strong foundation for ClimateWorks’ 2016

programmatic budget. As a general proposition, ClimateWorks has allocated its resources to strategies

where we believe important gaps in funding remained after consideration of where the other Funders

Table funders intend to allocate resources in 2016.

In most cases, the strategies and initiatives supported by the grants and program budgets recommended

below are being co‐funded by the Packard Foundation. In many cases, they will also receive funding from

the Hewlett and Oak Foundations. In a smaller (but still significant) number of cases, they will receive

support from other Funders Table participants. Our grants to the Energy Foundation (EF), European

Climate Foundation (ECF), and CLUA will also leverage funding those organizations receive from funders

that don’t participate in the Funders Table, as shown in the table below.

2016 Grants to Regional Climate Foundations We are recommending large grants to the Energy Foundation (U.S.), Energy Foundation – China (EF‐

China), ECF, and CLUA. We are also recommending smaller grants to the Latin America Regional Climate

Foundation (LARCI ‐ Mexico) and the Institute for Climate and Society (iCS ‐ Brazil), and a budget to fund

India regional programs. These grants support regional efforts across all of ClimateWorks’ five big

campaigns and cross‐cutting strategies. More detail on campaign‐specific initiatives and cross‐cutting

initiatives by region can be provided upon request.

The following table puts our recommended RCF grants in the context of anticipated granting to RCFs by

other funders in 2016.


Given the extensive coordination needed with other funders and each Regional Climate Foundation to

finalize grant budgets, we are targeting February 2016 to receive RCF proposals and complete the

internal paperwork necessary to support these grants. We are asking the board to approve RCF grants in

our December board meeting, contingent on completion of our internal due diligence. This will ensure

our regional regranting network partners do not have cash flow issues in early 2016—issues that could, in

turn, affect many of their grantees. We are confident that this year’s funding coordination process

provides ample support for the RCF grant recommendations in this docket, and we will complete needed

paperwork and perform our other due diligence processes before these grants are written.

Energy Foundation (U.S.)

The U.S. is vital to global climate progress, as it is: (a) the world’s second largest emitter, (b) a lynchpin to

international agreements, and (c) a key driver for technologies and policies that accelerate global

markets. Despite recent progress, there are storm clouds on the horizon as incumbent industries and

their political allies dig in their heels. The 2016 elections create significant risk for EF’s work at the state

and federal levels. Work across all of Energy Foundation’s programs in the U.S. in 2016 will attempt to

2016

ClimateWorks

Funding

2016 Combined Oak,

Packard, Hewlett,

ClimateWorks

Funding

2016 Total

Estimated

Budget

(FT & Non‐FT)

2015 Total

Estimated

Budget

(FT & Non‐FT)

Energy Foundation ‐ US 3.03$ 26.24$ 77.13$ 77.50$

European Climate Foundation 2.05$ 21.34$ $ 35.09* 43.57$

Energy Foundation ‐ China 3.20$ 20.26$ 32.23$ 38.65$

Shakti** $ 0.6*** 4.65$ 5.40$ 7.79$

ICS 0.09$ 2.05$ 3.10$ 3.60$

LARCI ‐ Mexico 0.08$ 0.98$ 1.94$ 2.50$

CLUA**** 6.00$ 13.70$ 15.70$ 19.70$

Other (Unallocated) 0.27$ 0.27$ 0.27$ 0.27$

Totals 15.32$ 89.49$ 170.86 ***** 193.58$

** In both 2015 and 2016, Shakti's budget includes core funding from the Funders Table, along with an expected $0.5m from the

Rockefeller Foundation and $0.25m from the Good Energies Foundation. In 2016, there is also the potential for up to an additional

$1m from Packard, unknown additional funding from Good Energies, and unknown possible funding from the MacArthur

Foundation ‐ these potential grants are not included here.

****It will appear that CLUA funding is decreasing from 2015 to 2016. However, core funding from Hewlett, Packard, and

ClimateWorks will remain level; the apparent decrease is only due to an irregularity in the dispersal of multi‐year funding from

Aligned CLUA funders. CLUA has been in continuous coordination with the Aligned CLUA funders about their grant timing and has

not indicated a need for increased Hewlett, Packard, or ClimateWorks funding in 2016.

***** In addition the Hewlett Foundation is holding back a portion of its 2016 funding for later deployment. It is possible that some

of this funding would be awarded to one or more Regional Climate Foundations.

* Current best estimate. This total will be updated following conversations with ECF.

***ClimateWorks funding listed here is for India Regional Programs and is directed only to non‐Indian grantees and contractors.

ClimateWorks is currently blocked from making payments to all Indian organizations.


capture every opportunity to advance climate action in the last year of the Obama Administration and set

the stage for the next crop of federal and state policymakers to support clean energy progress. In

addition, the Energy Foundation sees an opportunity to expand strategic communications efforts in 2016

– an opportunity that ClimateWorks has endorsed in the 2016 Recommended Portfolio.

The Energy Foundation is playing a leading role in most, though not all, of the campaign strategies in the

U.S., and we are recommending a grant of $3.03 million.

Energy Foundation China

The potential for meaningful impact on climate mitigation in China remains compelling for Western

philanthropy. Emissions‐reduction opportunities across the campaigns are substantial, and government

commitments to and interests in addressing both air quality and carbon emissions mitigation create a

dynamic environment conducive to policy progress. Environmental pollution—especially the severe air

pollution found in many Chinese cities—continues to be an important driver of government policy,

including policies that are good for the climate.

At the same time, EF‐China is engaged in an urgent institutional evolution to transition into an

organization that is more structurally and culturally Chinese, and is engaged in finding the right

leadership, sharpening key strategies, and getting the right staff in place. ClimateWorks, in coordination

with other key EF‐China funders, has signaled continued commitment and partnership to EF‐China but is

recommending a decrease in ClimateWorks funding to EF‐China in 2016 while it puts key pillars of its

Change Action Plan in place. We recommend a $3.20 million grant to EF‐China for work across all

campaigns and China‐relevant cross‐cutting strategies.

European Climate Foundation

We are recommending a grant of $2.05 million to ECF for work across the five campaigns and E.U.‐

relevant cross‐cutting strategies. ECF will continue to work to link a climate and clean energy agenda to

positive narratives about economic growth, competitiveness, and energy security – concerns that loom

large in the politics of the European Union and important Member States. This grant would also support

emerging initiatives aimed at the private sector, including industrial innovation and advancing financing

reforms that facilitate more private sector investment in renewables and energy efficiency in Europe.

Climate and Land Use Alliance

Our Forest and Land Use Campaign is led by CLUA, a funder collaborative consisting of the Packard,

ClimateWorks, Ford, and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundations (along with the Margaret A. Cargill

Foundation as an aligned donor). Working together, these foundations seek to catalyze the potential of

forested and agricultural landscapes to mitigate climate change, while benefitting indigenous peoples and

protecting the environment.

ClimateWorks is recommending $6.00 million to fund CLUA’s strategies, which are currently organized


into four geographically focused initiatives (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Central America, and the United

States) and one global initiative focused on relevant public and private sector policies and finance that are

international in scope. The resolution seeking approval of funding to CLUA includes the incremental

funding listed in the table of programmatic expenditures on page 88; more detail can be found in the text

following the table.

Latin America Regional Climate Initiative

The Latin America Regional Climate Initiative (LARCI) was created by four foundations: ClimateWorks

Foundation, The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, The Oak Foundation, and The Hewlett

Foundation. Its initial mandate was to significantly influence climate change decision‐making in Latin

America by encouraging governments, the private sector, and society more broadly to adopt and achieve

ambitious carbon mitigation goals.

As of 2015, LARCI has split into two distinct entities: the Institute for Climate and Society (iCS) based in

Brazil, and LARCI‐Mexico. Given the higher mitigation potential in Brazil, more collective resources have

been shifted to the Brazil initiative. The form and focus of the Mexico Initiative are currently being

worked out with the relevant funders of LARCI (set forth below).

Institute for Climate and Society

iCS has identified three priority strategy areas: Climate Policy (Cross‐cutting Strategies), Waste1, and

Transport (Oil Campaign), and an emerging priority strategy area in Energy Efficiency. We are

recommending $90,000 of support that we anticipate will be used primarily to support operations in

Brazil.

LARCI‐Mexico

LARCI‐Mexico has also identified three priority strategy areas: Climate Policy (Cross‐cutting Strategies),

Power & Decarbonization (Clean Power Campaign), and Transport (Oil Campaign). We are recommending

$80,000 of support that we anticipate will be used primarily to support operations in Mexico.

The resolution seeking approval of funding to iCS and LARCI‐Mexico includes the incremental funding

listed in the table of programmatic expenditures on page 88; more detail can be found in the text

following the table.

Budget for India regional programs

We are recommending a budget of $600,000 to fund India regional programs. We anticipate this

$600,000 will be directed only to non‐Indian grantees and contractors given that ClimateWorks is

currently blocked from making payments to all Indian organizations.

1 Efforts to reduce emissions from wastes are currently not covered by one of the big five campaigns or priority

cross‐cutting strategies, but are a priority of the Oak Foundation.


ClimateWorks Programs In addition to these grants, we are asking for approval of program budgets. The program budgets

represent amounts we propose to earmark in 2016 for transnational or global strategies. In many cases

these strategies are under development (with ClimateWorks leading the development process), and we

have not yet identified the grantees that will execute on these strategies when they have been finalized.

By approving these budgets, the board would allow grants to be written from these budgets during the

course of 2016. In keeping with our normal practice, any single grant exceeding $500,000 would also

come to the board for individual approval even for board‐approved strategies.

Campaign Expenditures—Global and Transnational Initiatives

We are recommending a total global and transnational grant budget of $9.29 million. Our projected

spending by campaign is shown in the table of programmatic expenses on page 88, though we will retain

the flexibility to move funds between campaigns. Below, we describe global and transnational initiatives

within four of the campaigns and cross‐cutting strategies. (Note that the global initiatives for the Forests

and Land Use Campaign are described above in the recommendation for CLUA.) As noted above, in many

cases, ClimateWorks is driving the development and implementation of these strategies and will be

conducting direct grant‐making to support the work. In other cases, our partners are driving

implementation of all or parts of these global and transnational strategies.

These very modest budgets reflect:

1. A more limited emphasis on global or transnational strategies relative to region‐specific

strategies.

2. The fact that, while we have identified a number of promising global or transnational initiatives

with our Funders Table partners and we have made some initial grants toward these initiatives in

2015, in many cases we have more work to do to develop detailed strategies for these initiatives,

identify the right suite of grantees, and refine initiative goals and budget needs.

3. We already have, or anticipate having, funding partners for these global and transnational

initiatives.

Note that we have not allocated any of the global and transnational budget to the Clean Power

Campaign. As detailed strategies for the most promising global and transnational initiatives come into

focus in Clean Power and other campaigns, we will continue to look to the grant reserve budget to

supplement the budgets shown below as warranted.

Energy Efficiency

A number of venues for energy efficiency advocacy are global, including supply chains, international

finance, and city and corporate coalitions. Our work seeks to identify global sources of power and

influence on energy efficiency, and to develop strategies where coordinated global action adds value to

regional work. The initiatives below build on 2015 work and have been prioritized by their potential to

effect significant change. We expect to bring strategies for elements the first three initiatives listed below


to the board for review and approval during 2016.

Supply chains: This emerging initiative would support campaigns to target multinational companies and

public bodies that are significant buyers of goods manufactured by suppliers with a high carbon footprint

(including iron/steel, consumer electronics and apparel). Components of this work would include

supporting the Carbon Disclosure Project to lead the first ever ranking of corporate supply chain energy

and carbon performance and supporting public mobilization along the lines of narratives such as “Stop

using polluting factories to make my stuff.”

Finance: We will support the Energy Programs Consortium to lead a feasibility study into the

securitization of energy efficiency retrofit loans in various ClimateWorks regions. Working with Climate

Advisors, we will explore a campaign to make foreign aid energy efficient, with an initial focus on the AIIB

(Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank).

Energy productivity: In 2016 we will continue to support a global campaign to double energy productivity.

This includes supporting the Global Alliance on Energy Productivity; a new EP100 (energy productivity

100) initiative from the We Mean Business Coalition, to get 100 of the world’s leading business to commit

to double energy productivity; and exploration of opportunities to support India and Brazil to develop

national and or state level policy roadmaps to double energy productivity. We will also be supporting

CERES to run a series of shareholder resolution campaigns on energy productivity.

City leadership on Energy Efficiency: Subject to the outcomes of discussions with our Funders Table

colleagues on cities strategies, we will support C40 to lead a global project on building energy data and

disclosure. As evidence emerges about the positive links between building energy use reductions and

data and disclosure, this project will leverage the lessons from the significant philanthropic support for

such work in the U.S.

Oil

The Oil Campaign currently encompasses four transnational initiatives:

Global electric‐drive vehicles (accelerate alternatives): Our board‐approved Global Electric‐Drive Vehicle

(EDV) Initiative works within and across the largest and fastest‐growing auto markets globally to

overcome key barriers to rapid electric‐drive vehicle sales growth. This, in turn, will unlock economies of

scale and enable a growing global EDV market to—we envision—reach a tipping point beyond which

market forces will enable continued market growth consistent with the 2° C goal. The EDV strategy does

this by 1) improving accessible and actionable information and 2) increasing the ambition, coordination,

and action among governments, NGOs, industry, and academia. On the first, ClimateWorks will support

the development and implementation of model policies and advocacy coalitions, assess infrastructure

strategies and the role of utilities (in coordination with the Clean Power Campaign), and advance

consumer awareness efforts globally. On the second, ClimateWorks will support multi‐jurisdictional

initiatives, convene market leaders, support coordination among advocacy coalitions, and promote


increased commitments from companies.

Oil TRAIN (broaden support): The Oil TRAIN (Transportation Research and Intelligence Network) is an

initiative with three purposes. First, to serve as a clearinghouse and translator of the latest industry and

market developments and public attitudes towards oil and clean transportation solutions. Second, to

provide analysis and scenario planning for funders and grantees to inform strategic and tactical shifts in

the campaign. And third, to support communications across the field using evidence‐based messaging

and tactics. These purposes are accomplished through a combination of products, including monthly

strategic discussions/webinars, intelligence briefings, workshops, and polling. We have been receiving

positive feedback from funders on Oil TRAIN information and activities.

Global Aviation (increase efficiency): Aviation is the most carbon‐intensive form of transport. The sector

globally produces carbon emissions nearly equal to those of Germany. Given the rapid growth in air

travel, especially in developing countries, carbon emissions from aviation could grow 300‐700% by 2050.

Unless abated, emissions from the sector will make up 12% of all allowable emissions under a 2° C

scenario. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the UN body that regulates international

aviation, is planning to set during its next triennial full assembly meeting in September‐October 2016 the

rules for a market‐based measure (MBM) to cap net international aviation emissions at the 2020 level.

The objective of the Aviation initiative is to ensure that the MBM developed and adopted by ICAO meets

the highest standards of environmental integrity through inside game technical analysis and education

measures as well as an increased focus on outside game pressure on airlines and ICAO council members.

Maintaining momentum prior to and following the September 2016 ICAO Assembly meeting during which

the MBM is likely to be adopted is crucial.

Emerging trends in mobility (sustainable cities): The rapid growth in car‐share, ride‐share, and transit

applications, and the potential for autonomous and electric vehicles used in these applications has the

potential to transform urban mobility. Some models suggest these trends and technologies, especially

when combined, have the potential to dramatically reduce GHG emissions by 90% or more per mile

driven. The campaign partners are funding some research and activity related to this topic in 2015 and

intend to develop a strategy for this initiative in 2016.

Cross‐cutting

Sustainable Finance: Sustainable finance work in 2016 will support the primary strategy areas identified in

the Finance Campaign Scoping Document the board approved in June of 2015.

Primary strategy areas are:

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in ClimateWorks regions through a consortium of global and local

NGOs. This work will focus primarily on producer subsidies but will also address consumer subsidies,

and will be co‐funded by a coalition of FT funders.

Developing a global Green Bank Network to increase the effectiveness of existing green banks and encourage the development of green banks in select new venues


Developing a greenhouse gas rating system for green bonds

Creating a Program Related Investment (PRI) working group of major foundations to encourage more

climate impact investing (we are exploring needs and options in this area, including investments

designed to help unlock private capital for off‐grid and micro‐grid renewables in India.)

Secondary strategy areas are:

Developing a clean investment ratings agency

Establishing intermediaries to better link investors with clean financing opportunities (energy,

infrastructure, innovation)

Supporting more judicious climate‐friendly approaches to public finance of international energy

projects (e.g.; through development finance institutions and export credit agencies)

Continuing momentum in the disclosure, divestment, and engagement space

Initial scoping of possible intervention points in the reform and establishment of financial regulations

and norms

Climate Communications: Cross‐cutting climate communications funding supports the work of all of our

campaigns and initiatives. These programs are more likely to succeed if policymakers and key

constituencies are well informed about basic climate change impacts and solutions. Grantees create

overarching narratives that promote climate action and, by influencing the political and media debate,

provide the public pressure and political space for ambitious policy proposals. Our priorities include

promoting accurate, clear communication of climate science (including anticipating and responding to

attacks from climate change deniers) and shifting the narrative about climate impacts, drivers and

solutions.

The work in different regions may emphasize different themes—such as the trustworthiness of climate

science, the creation of green jobs, or the health and economic benefits of moving away from fossil

fuels—but the goal of climate action and use of strategic communications practices remains consistent.

Efforts include using both unbranded and branded communications strategies to reach key audiences

with convincing messages from credible spokespeople. This program has significant history in the U.S. and

Europe and we have recently expanded the work to Brazil, India, and China. In each region, we have

worked with partners, most prominently with ECF’s GSCC, to put capacity in place to advance low carbon

narratives in the media with both proactive and reactive activities.

In 2016, key themes will include: countries’ plans to operationalize the climate commitments made in

Paris; the continued decarbonization of developed countries’ energy supplies; and progress towards

meeting increased energy demand with clean energy in developing countries. Communications efforts

that support specific campaign initiatives at the regional level are supported through the grants to the

Regional Climate Foundations.

International Politics and Policies/Climate Briefing Service: The main objective of the International Politics

and Policies Initiative (IPPI) has been to identify and pursue opportunities to strengthen both national‐


level ambition in key countries as well as global ambition for effective international climate policy. While

IPPI’s efforts extended beyond the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC), the 21st

Conference of the Parties (COP‐21) held in Paris in 2015 is an important moment in which the potential

for an ambitious international climate agreement may be realized. As of this date, we do not know the

outcome of COP‐21 or the future of IPPI in a post‐COP‐21 world. The funders supporting IPPI (CIFF, Oak,

and ClimateWorks) will meet shortly after COP‐21 to determine the future of IPPI (with the disbanding of

IPPI being an option).

The Climate Briefing Service was created by and coordinates closely with IPPI. It consists of a network of

politically connected individuals in many geographies that are key to the success of COP‐21. We are

exploring, through work being performed by Kathleen Welch and Jennifer Morgan, how the existing CBS

infrastructure could be used to increase our political intelligence in key geographies going forward.

Given the uncertain nature of the future of IPPI and CBS, we have budgeted funds to maintain their

operations through March 2016 – when we should have a better idea of their longer‐term function. We

have also budgeted roughly $500,000 for post‐March work of these entities, and will use our reserve

grant fund to support any identified needs above this amount.

Non‐CO2 Mitigation

The goal of the non‐CO2 Mitigation campaign is to dramatically reduce the emissions of short lived

climate pollutants (methane, black carbon and F‐gases) before 2030. To accomplish that goal, the

campaign has a range of global and regional initiatives. Some of these are managed by ClimateWorks via

retail grants; the rest are handled by our re‐granting partners in the U.S., Europe, India and China.

In 2016, the campaign will focus most of its resources on:

diesel soot controls for on‐road vehicles and off‐road machines;

methane leakage from oil and gas operations;

multi‐pollutant strategies for international shipping (including CO2), and

regional F‐gas interventions that increase the likelihood of a global agreement to phase down the

production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Although we call the campaign “Non‐CO2” the actual frame of reference varies by nation and by sector.

For both black carbon and methane, “air quality” or “Arctic protection” are better entry points. Similarly,

for F‐gases, there’s an emerging emphasis on energy efficiency for space cooling versus talking only about

the chemicals used for air conditioning. These shifting frames offer several opportunities for cross‐

campaign collaboration which we intend to explore in 2016. The most powerful linkages (and the ones of

most interest to our funders) are those which accelerate decarbonization while simultaneously achieving

other social goals.


ClimateWorks Board of Directors 16 December 2015 98ClimateWorks Board of Directors 16 December 2015 98

GRANTS


From: Charles McElwee, Vice President, Programs

Re: Grants


We are recommending approval of two grants. The first grant is to the Monitoring, Reporting, and

Verification (MRV) Trust Fund in the amount of $1 million to be paid out of the 2016 grant reserve fund. A

consistent component of ClimateWorks funding in the international space for the past four years has

been to support civil society efforts to review and monitor the implementation of individual country

commitments enshrined in the agreements concluding the yearly COPs, and quantify the gap between

those commitments and the carbon mitigation needed for a 2° trajectory. The MRV Trust Fund will

continue and enhance this work for the pledges made at the Paris COP. The second grant reflects

incremental funding of $3.6 million received from the Hewlett Foundation to support the Climate and

Land Use Alliance (CLUA).

Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) Trust Fund – Support ClimateWorks’ participation as a donor to the Trust Fund: $1,000,000

ClimateWorks has been invited to join the Donor Oversight Committee (DOC) of a Trust Fund established

by CIFF and German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear

Safety (BMUB) that is focused on Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV). The MRV Trust Fund will

be managed by United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), and will be launched either in Paris

during COP 21, or early 2016. The Trust Fund was created to address capacity gaps and allow for greater

quality, transparency, trust and ambition for climate policies worldwide. It is also designed to be aligned

with the MRV requirements coming out of the Paris agreement such that it is supported and endorsed by

the UNFCCC.

Under the proposed Trust Fund, the DOC will contribute to the joint work program of the MRV and will

oversee the governance of the Trust Fund. UNOPS and UNFCCC representatives will also serve on the

DOC. Fifteen leading MRV experts will form an advisory committee that will advise the DOC on strategic

decisions and overall direction of the MRV initiative. The two pillars of the Trust Fund currently include

one on Policy and Action/MRV Architecture and another on MRV Capacity building led by Verified Carbon

Standard and the United Nations Environment Programme ‐ Technical University of Denmark Partnership

(UNEP ‐ DTU), respectively.

ClimateWorks’ contribution will support three main objectives that are either already part of the Trust

Fund or would be incorporated based on our funding:

a) Integration of national and sub‐national initiatives (cities and/or business coalitions) related to

climate policy support or implementation;


b) Building capacity for GHG accounting in benchmark countries (those with good emissions data

and strong climate policy support from the government) that can serve as role models in their

respective regions through knowledge sharing of sectoral methodologies and tools;

c) Bringing civil‐society perspectives to bear through transparency of data and methods that can

hold governments accountable on policy implementation and raise ambition level where needed.

ClimateWorks’ participation in the Trust Fund will align well with our mission, support programmatic and

Global View Function (GVF) objectives, and help us scale the Carbon Transparency Initiative (CTI) beyond

our geographies. Through our role as a partner in the DOC, we would be able to help drive compliance

and results through use of this global system for MRV, ensure the use of better and consistent

methodologies for tracking and accounting of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions at

national and sub‐national levels, and help scale the use of CTI sectoral methodologies beyond those

regions we have currently modeled. The accumulated knowledge through this participation can help drive

better investment decisions for philanthropy.

CIFF and BMUB have committed approximately $10 million over four years to the Trust Fund.

Climate and Land Use Alliance, LLC – program support grant: $3,600,000

In August, ClimateWorks received $3.6 million from the Hewlett Foundation, which was payment in full

on a one‐year grant to support CLUA programs. Prior to this year, as a member of CLUA, ClimateWorks

set aside funding as part of its contribution to CLUA‐aligned strategies in an amount roughly equivalent to

the other CLUA participants. In 2015, with less money available for grant making, the traditional

“ClimateWorks contribution” to CLUA was funded by ClimateWorks, Hewlett, and Packard (in addition to

Packard’s separate contribution to CLUA‐aligned strategies). This $3.6 million from Hewlett represents its

funding for this contribution. These resources support CLUA activities generally across the core

geographies where it operates and its global initiatives.

As noted in the 2016 Budget memo in Tab 5, we are asking for board approval to dispense with this step

in the approval process starting in January 2016.


ANNUAL GOVERNANCE REVIEW


From: Gretchen Rau, Board Secretary

Re: Annual Governance Review


In this meeting we will conduct the following governance activities:

1. Elect a Board Chair and Vice Chair

2. Reelect an Audit Committee member

3. Consider and approve the annual budget

4. Complete a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement for the coming year

5. Approve the compensation of the President & CEO (in executive session)

6. Review the annual schedule of best governance practices

Annual budget ClimateWorks’ proposed annual budget is presented in Tab 6 and will be reviewed with the board in this

meeting.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement In accordance with ClimateWorks Foundation’s good governance practices, we respectfully request that

each board member, staff member, and committee member complete an annual Conflict of Interest

Disclosure Statement. The statement requests disclosure of actual and potential conflicts during the past

year (2015) and the coming year (2016). The form is attached following this memo, and hard copies will

be available in the board meeting. Please return your completed forms by 31 December 2015, either in

person or via one of the following methods:

Mail: Gretchen Rau, ClimateWorks Foundation, 235 Montgomery St., Suite 1300, San Francisco, CA 94104

Email: [email protected]

Fax: 415.398.2327

Chief Executive Officer compensation review The CEO’s performance and compensation are reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors

annually. In addition, in accordance with California’s Nonprofit Integrity Act, the Treasurer’s

compensation is reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors unless the compensation increase also

applies to substantially all employees (our cost‐of‐living adjustments would not require board approval,

for example). The CEO’s performance and compensation will be discussed in executive session during this

meeting.


Board governance best practices The following table outlines the governance best practices and annual governance calendar that the

board has established.

Frequency Task Who Scheduled Meeting

This meeting

Annual review (at last meeting of the fiscal year)

Review organization’s mission, organizational goals, and programs

Board December 1

Consider and approve annual budget

Board December

Complete Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement for coming year

Board December

Approve CEO, President, and CFO/Treasurer compensation packages (by law, at the time when the officer is hired and when compensation is modified, unless the modification applies to substantially all employees)

All Board except CEO

December

Annual review

Elect directors Board At first meeting of the year or as needed

n/a

Review Policies: ‐ Compensation policy ‐ Authority matrix ‐ Conflict of interest policy

All other policies reviewed internally on annual basis and with Board as‐needed

Treasurer, legal counsel, and Secretary report to Board

4th quarter or as needed

Review annual audit results with auditors and management

Audit committee

2nd quarter n/a

Review and approve audited financial statements

Board 2nd quarter n/a

Review and approve form 990 Board 3rd quarter n/a

1 ClimateWorks’ mission was reviewed and updated in February 2015. In this meeting we will provide high‐level objectives and a review of ClimateWorks programs and budget for 2016. A more detailed report on 2016 organizational objectives will be provided at the end of January 2016.


Frequency Task Who Scheduled Meeting

This meeting

Periodic review

Review for compliance: ‐ Briefing from appropriate

parties (legal and tax counsel regarding compliance issues)

‐ Ensure compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations

‐ Review of organizational and governing instruments for consistency with annual filings

‐ Ensure maintenance of tax exempt status

Treasurer and legal counsel report to Board

n/a

Review for appropriate board size, structure, and effectiveness

Board n/a

As needed Elect officers Board

Conduct comprehensive orientation and effective, systematic education process for board members

Board n/a

Policy Review ClimateWorks staff performed an internal review of ClimateWorks’ conflict of interest policy,

compensation policy, and expenditure authority matrix; and determined that no revisions are necessary

at this time.

Board member and committee elections As a reminder, our bylaws specify that board directors are divided into two classes: Funder Directors and

At‐Large Directors. A first term for each director (excepting the ex officio director) is three years, with the

possibility of one additional consecutive three‐year term. Directors hold office until the expiration of their

respective terms and until a successor has been elected and qualified.

For this meeting the following board election issues are noted (refer to the overview table below; the

current Board Handbook contains greater detail):

Jamshyd Godrej’s terms as a director will expire in February 2016, leaving a vacancy on the board

Susan Tierney is up for reelection as Board Chair in this meeting

Pamela Matson is up for reelection as Board Vice Chair in this meeting

John Natoli is up for reelection as a member of the Audit Committee in this meeting


Board Directors Date of election(s) Term expiration (term)

At‐Large Directors

Mr. Jamshyd Godrej

8 December 2008

9 February 2011

30 August 2013

9 February 2016 (final)1

Dr. Pamela Matson 12 April 2011

12 April 2014 12 April 2017 (2nd)

Dr. Susan Tierney 15 May 2013 15 May 2016 (1st)

Mr. John Podesta 4 June 2015 4 June 2018 (1st)

Funder Directors

Mr. Larry Kramer 15 May 2013 15 May 2016 (1st)

Ms. Carol Larson 15 May 2013 15 May 2016 (1st)

Other Mr. William Reilly

Emeritus Chair Appointed 9 May 2013 9 May 2016

Ms. Charlotte Pera

Ex officio director

Effective as of hiring date

October 1, 2012 No term limit

1 On 30 August 2013, the board passed a resolution allowing an exception to the bylaws and appointing Mr. Godrej to an additional two‐year

term.

Officers of the corporation Officer terms are determined as “at the pleasure of the Board”; reelection is not required for

ClimateWorks Board officers. We recommend that the President and CEO (Ms. Charlotte Pera), Treasurer

(Mr. Brian McCracken), and Secretary (Ms. Gretchen Rau) remain in office. Any concerns about officer

positions should be directed to the Board Chair.


RESOLUTIONS OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION

The directors present at a meeting of the ClimateWorks Foundation, a Delaware nonstock, nonprofit

corporation (the “Corporation”), held on 16 December 2015, adopted the following resolutions:

Executive Compensation RESOLVED: that the Board of Directors met in executive session, reviewed

relevant compensation data, and approved compensation for the President and CEO to

be effective 1 January 2016;

Approval of 2016 Budget RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed $13.95 million budget for ClimateWorks

Foundation’s 2016 operating expenses and capital expenditures has been reviewed and

is approved by the Board of Directors;

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed $68.57 million budget for ClimateWorks

Foundation’s total expenditures as illustrated in Exhibit A has been reviewed and is

approved by the Board of Directors;

2016 Grants to Regional Climate Foundations

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed grant of up to $3.03 million to the

Energy Foundation (for the U.S. Program) has been reviewed and is approved by the

Board of Directors, contingent on completion of our internal due diligence;


Energy Foundation (for the China Program) has been reviewed and is approved by the

Board of Directors, contingent on completion of our internal due diligence;


European Climate Foundation has been reviewed and is approved by the Board of

Directors, contingent on completion of our internal due diligence;


Climate and Land Use Alliance has been reviewed and is approved by the Board of

Directors, contingent on completion of our internal due diligence;


RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed $1.91 million grant to the Institute for

Climate and Society (Brazil) has been reviewed and is approved by the Board of Directors,

contingent on completion of our internal due diligence;

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed $1.65 million grant to the Latin America

Regional Climate Foundation (Mexico) has been reviewed and is approved by the Board

of Directors, contingent on completion of our internal due diligence;

Approval of ClimateWorks Program Budgets

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed $9.29 million budget for global and

transnational initiatives has been reviewed and is approved by the Board of Directors;

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed $600,000 budget for work that supports

strategies in India has been reviewed and is approved by the Board of Directors;

Approval of Grants RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed grant in the in the amount of $1.0

million to be paid out of the 2016 grant reserve fund to the Monitoring, Reporting, and

Verification (MRV) Trust Fund, has been reviewed and is approved by the Board of

Directors;

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the proposed grant in the in the amount of $3.6

million to the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA), which reflects incremental funding

received from the Hewlett Foundation for support of CLUA’s programs across its core

geographies and global initiatives, has been reviewed and is approved by the Board of

Directors;

Board Business RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the Board of Directors hereby elects Susan F. Tierney to

serve as Chair of the Board of Directors for a term of twelve months (through 31 December

2016);

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the Board of Directors hereby elects Pamela A. Matson

to serve as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors for a term of twelve months (through 31

December 2016);

RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the Board of Directors hereby re‐elects John Natoli to

serve a second three‐year term on the Audit Committee, effective 11 December 2015;

General Authority RESOLVED, FURTHER: that the officers of the Corporation are authorized and

directed to execute such other documents and take such further actions as may be

necessary or advisable to carry out the purposes of the foregoing resolutions, including the


filing of these resolutions with the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors of the

Corporation.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolutions were duly adopted by the Board of

Directors of the ClimateWorks Foundation at the meeting of the Board held on 16 December

2015.

Date: _______________

Name: Gretchen Rau

Title: Secretary


RESOLUTIONS

OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OF

CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION

_______________________________________________________________________

EXHIBIT A

CLIMATEWORKS 2016 BUDGET OVERVIEW


Budget Overview


2016 Budget

(Core)

Expected

Incremental

Restricted

Funding

2016 Budget

(Total)

Total Revenues and Support 35,575$ 7,368$ 42,943$



Grant Reserve 16,000$ ‐$ 16,000$



Evaluation 1,150$ ‐$ 1,150$

Total Operating and Capital Expenditures 13,947$ ‐$ 13,947$

Total Expenditures 61,202$ 7,368$ 68,570$

Net Cash Flow (25,627)$ ‐$ (25,627)$

Beginning Cash 48,661$

2016 Support included in Beginning Cash (9,000)$ (1,250)$ (10,250)$

Ending Cash 12,784$

ClimateWorks Operations ‐ Projected Year‐end Headcount 47


EXTERNAL RELATIONS UPDATE


From: Jean‐Louis Robadey, Director of External Relations

Re: Development Priorities


The purpose of this memo is to update the board on where we stand, broadly, in our development efforts

and to tee‐up a strategic, board‐level dialogue on ClimateWorks’ development priorities.1 We will not

have a development‐focused session at the upcoming board meeting: this memo frames strategic

questions we are exploring and plan to discuss with the board in the first quarter of 2016, during the

February call and then during the March meeting.

State of play

Resource mobilization, at scale, in support of ClimateWorks, of our partners and of the sector is an

important element of our model and mission. Work done over the past 18‐24 months gives us a good

foundation to support this goal: a value proposition and collaborative model that values resource

mobilization; exciting campaign strategies and initiatives—some mature, some emerging or in

development—to engage existing and new funders; and an extensive network of relationships that can be

mobilized in support of development activities.

Some promising results have been achieved already: ClimateWorks has been able to attract new “core”

funders, and is in active conversations with others; numerous foundations are engaged with

ClimateWorks at the campaign level; and we deepened or started building relationships with high

capacity funders that have the potential to contribute significant resources to mitigation activities—some

already investing in climate with the potential to do more and in a more coordinated way (e.g. Rockefeller

Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, JPB Foundation), and others that do not yet invest in climate and

could contribute new resources to the fight for a safe climate (e.g. Bertarelli Foundation, Arapyau

Institute or Azim Premji Philanthropies. In the process, we have also established a foundation of

development‐oriented collaboration with regional climate foundations, Funders Table (FT) partners and

others. The ClimateWorks Board itself is already playing an important role in support of this agenda.2

We know that this is only the beginning. We need to do more, and we need to do it faster. The purpose of

the memo is to start laying out our thinking as we look to next year and beyond.

1 Please refer to the Update on 2015 Organizational Goals in Tab 2 for a general update on external relations activities. 2 The tables included in the Board Handbook provide a more granular overview of ongoing development priorities.


Strategic questions

Two main strategic questions guide our reflections as we prioritize our development efforts:

What are the most effective strategies to catalyze FT‐scale resources for ClimateWorks and for the

field?

Which ones will make the best use of our resources—staff, board, funder and grantee partners?

We will use Q1 2016 as a moment to further examine these questions, clarify our priorities, and engage

the board in the process. Three core elements of our development approach will be further refined in the

process – WHAT we are “selling” (product), WHO we are selling it to (prospects), and HOW are we are

doing it (development strategies).

What we are "selling". Even prospects that can get behind an overall vision need something concrete and

actionable—a program, product or service that aligns with their goals and that they can ultimately

support, financially. Building from ClimateWorks strategic plan, we have made reasonably progress over

the past year refining, detailing and building proof of concept of the core elements of the ClimateWorks

value proposition—campaign strategies and initiatives, roles we play, services we offer, and ways in which

we engage within the broader ecosystem of foundations and grantees. We have an opportunity to take

this work to the next level: ClimateWorks is well positioned to engage large funders on programmatic

opportunities where ClimateWorks has room to lead (e.g. the board‐approved global electric drive vehicle

initiative or sustainable finance initiatives), or on value‐added roles we play and services we offer (e.g.

research and insights/CTI, collaboration/FT model, or re‐granting services). We also have an opportunity

to further refine how we position ClimateWorks in the process—as the lead organization, partner in

fundraising, or general ambassador for the sector at large.

Prospect prioritization. Funder cultivation, especially at the scale at which ClimateWorks operates, is a

long‐term, relationship‐based process. While there are a finite number of foundation and funders who

can operate at a scope and scale that supports our mission and objectives—and we have done some

preliminary work mapping and prioritizing them—there are still more opportunities than we can

effectively support and pursue. Hence, we need to be strategic and prioritize funder prospects, and

mobilize our staff, Board and network of partners behind the ones with the highest likelihood of success.

Funder capacity, relationships, commonality of interests (existing or potential), values alignment—these

are some of the criteria we are using to “screen” prospects and opportunities

Strategies to approach prospects. There are numerous methods for nurturing prospects—gatherings, 1:1

meetings, thought leadership activities, trustee events, etc. Aware that there are more opportunities, and

more ways to pursue them, than ClimateWorks can support, we propose to establish a plan that is

targeted, strategic, and makes the best use of our relationships.

Where next

With these questions as backdrop, we propose to use Q1 2016 as a moment to flesh out a more


systematic development plan, one that will identify, for the next 12‐18 months, the best alignment

between our goals, opportunities, prospects and approaches, and will help us optimize how we use our

staff (in particular executives and directors), board members, as well as network and foundation partners.

A number of development activities are already in the works: this development plan is additive, and will

help ensure we target our efforts to pursue the highest value activities.

Specific next steps in the first quarter of 2016 will include:

Portfolio prioritized for development: Building from campaign strategies and scoping work done to date,

we will identify programs and services that we will prioritize for development, including programmatic

initiatives with board‐approved strategies as well as emerging initiatives that are still under

development (e.g., the Carbon Transparency Initiative, specific initiatives being developed under our

board‐approved sustainable finance strategy framework);

Key prospects: We have a reasonable understanding of the range of prospects we can prioritize‐‐

established foundations and emerging philanthropies that can operate at the scope and scale we need.

Based on research done to date, I estimate that there are 15‐20 top‐tier funders for us to pursue. We

will use the next quarter to further prioritize this list of prospects, screened based on relevant factors,

e.g. giving capacity, network relationships, strategic alignment, likelihood of fundraising success);

Action plan: Over the past 12‐18 months, we have launched a tested a number of strategies for

reaching new funders, e.g. Board and FT referrals, senior staff relationships or partner engagement.

Building from knowledge and insights gained from these efforts, we will prepare an integrated plan

which includes recommended strategies, staff and board roles, as well as calendar‐based milestones.

Board review and input: We will bring the draft development plan to the board for review and approval.

The plan will include recommendations for how board members can support its execution via board‐

level engagement in outreach, relationship‐building and direct fundraising where appropriate. Staff will

solicit board input in the course of developing the plan.

Development is as much art as it is science. We recognize the opportunistic nature of development work.

We also know that we operate in a complex ecosystem, where prioritization and finding the best ways to

organize our network is an ongoing challenge: the intention with this plan is to help organize our work

and mobilize our resources toward high return opportunities and facilitate “planned serendipity.”


SUZANNE GREVA, CPA

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco, CA

University Controller – November 2014 to June 2015

Manage the accounting and financial reporting activities of the university. Responsible for training, developing, and coordination the work of the accounting staff. Prepare for, attend and support the Audit Committee meetings of the Board of Trustees. Coordinate and oversee the annual close of the university’s books. Prepare for the annual financial statement and A-133 audits. Work collaboratively with the Office of Contracts and Grants to ensure proper post-award grant accounting. Work collaboratively with the Development and Treasury Departments to ensure proper gift and endowment accounting. GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY, San Francisco, CA Director of Financial Services and Controller – November 2010 to November 2014

Manage the overall direction, coordination, and evaluation of the Financial Services Department. Oversee all aspects of student financial transactions. Assist CFO with preparation for and attend the Finance & Operations, Audit, and Investment Committee meetings of the Board of Trustees. Coordinate annual audit activities. Develop, improve, and maintain an effective cost accounting model to ensure equitable allocation of overhead and indirect costs to each school. Manage commercial banking relationships. DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, San Rafael, CA

Director of Financial Services and Controller - February 2008 to October 2009

Develop, plan, implement and administer departmental policies and procedures. Assist and participate in preparation, implementation, and control of the annual budget. Review, evaluate, and recommend improvements to internal control systems and procedures. Coordinate annual audit activities. Serve as advisor and agent for University departments to implement efficient accounting and financial policies and procedures. Account for and prepare reports on University investments. Establish and coordinate banking services. Manage preparation of reports required by regulatory agencies. Manage cash flow.

JACKSON ENTERPRISES, Santa Rosa, CA

Senior Accountant (corporate office) – August 2005 to March 2006

Vineyard Accountant – October 2003 to May 2005

Responsible for month-end close. Prepare monthly financial report book for management. Assist in the supervision of staff of six. Prepare analysis for Tax Department.


mailto:[email protected]

SUZANNE GREVA, CPA

TISCORNIA ESTATE COMPANY, Petaluma, CA

Accounting Manager – April 1999 to March 2003

Responsible for all General Ledger functions through Trial Balance. Supervise small accounting staff for Real Estate Investment Company. Design Procedures and Controls for all accounting functions. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, San Francisco, California

Staff Accountant, Audit – July 1994 to July 1996

Test Procedures and Internal Controls at mortgage lender, manufacturing, and winery client work sites. Supervise First Year Staff at beverage manufacturing and winery clients. Audit clients’ accounting records for compliance with GAAP, including auditing inventory and costing procedures.

EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Bachelor of Science in Business Administration – Accounting

COMPUTER SKILLS Banner, Oracle, Colleague, Microsoft Office, Great Plains, FRx, PowerCampus, JDEdwards, Lawson, FAMOUS, Lacerte, and Peachtree.

CERTIFICATIONS

Certified Public Accountant, Active


mailto:[email protected]

Total revenue forecast of $68.0M vs. budget of $61.9M Cash balance forecast of $48.7M vs. budget of $39.6M

Total programmatic exp. forecast of $85.7M vs. budget of $87.7M Total operating exp. forecast of $12.47M vs. budget of $12.47M

57,174Operating Exp.

9,24074% of Annual Budget

Programmatic Exp.

65% of Annual Budget

Cash Balance83,553

as of September 30, 2015

2015 FINANCIAL DASHBOARD - thru Sept.Dollars in thousands, cash basis

Revenue65,720


Expenses66,414


- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Q1(Actual)

Q2(Actual)

Q3(Actual)

Q4(Forecast)

Revenue Forecast

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Q1(Actual)

Q2(Actual)

Q3(Actual)

Q4(Forecast)

Programmatic Exp. Forecast

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Q1(Actual)

Q2(Actual)

Q3(Actual)

Q4(Forecast)

Operating Exp. Forecast

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Q1(Actual)

Q2(Actual)

Q3(Actual)

Q4(Forecast)

Cash Balance Forecast


Q2 2015 office includes $218K property tax refund

Q3 2015 payroll includes $258K of CLUA payroll reimbursed in Q4 2015

2015 FINANCIAL DASHBOARD - thru Sept.

2015 Programmatic funds rolled forward into 2016 as discussed on November 12 board call ($6.5M total -- $4.7M grant reserve, $1.5M evaluation, $0.3M other programmatic) excluded from forecast

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

RCF

CWF Programs

Grant Reserve

Other Programmatic Expenses

Evaluation

OpEx

Spending + Commitments as % of Forecast -- thru Q3 2015

Spent Committed Approved Remaining Forecast

5,266 5,328

1,115 1,062

1,909 1,954

907 1,186

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Actual Budget

Operating Expenses - thru Sept.

Compensation TravelProfessional Services Office, IT, Etc.Capital

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015

Operating Expenses by Quarter

Compensation Travel

Professional Services Office, IT, Etc.

Capital


Q1 (Actual)

Q2 (Actual)

Q3 (Actual)

Q4 (Forecast)

Forecast for 12/31/2015

Programs 20 22 23 26 25External Relations 3 3 4 4 4G&A 12 12 12 13 13

Total 35 37 39 43 42

Q3 Hires

ProgramsSr. Program Associate, Sustainable FinanceExecutive Assistant, Funder Collaborations & Planningnote: Program Associate, Clean Power left in September

FundraisingExternal Relations Associate

G&AHR Directornote: Accounting Manager left in July

Q4 Hires (Forecast)

ProgramsEvaluation OfficerCoordinator, Funder Collaborations (hired)Sr. Program Associate, Clean Power (replacement)

G&AController (hired)Grants and Contracts Assistant (hired)note: Interim Desktop Support Administrator left in October

HEADCOUNT

Headcount at 9/30/15

37

Projected 12/31/15 Headcount

42


2015 Profit and Loss Statement - thru September

Accrued Basis

Dollars in thousands Results to DateTotal 2015

BudgetResults to Date as %

of Total Budget Results to Date

Total Revenues and Support 65,720$ 61,878$ 106% ## 48,801$ Income

Programmatic Expenditures

Regional Climate Foundations and Programs# Energy Foundation (U.S.) 5,950$ 6,000$ 99% 5,950$ # European Climate Foundation 5,955 5,955 100% 5,955 # Energy Foundation China 11,895 11,895 100% 11,895 # # # India Regional Programs 159 1,863 9% 361 # # # Latin America Regional Climate Initiative 1,969 4,740 42% 3,119 # Climate and Land Use Alliance 14,267 14,415 99% 14,242

Total Regional Climate Foundations and Programs 40,195$ 44,868$ 90% 41,522$

ClimateWorks Foundation ProgramsGlobal and transnational Initiatives:

# Energy Efficiency Campaign 1,675$ 3,340$ 50% 2,104$ # # # Oil Campaign 345 1,840 19% 560 # Cross-cutting initiatives - Finance 453 1,554 29% 640 # # # 380 Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other 3,537 6,326 56% 4,732 # Non-CO2 Campaign 4,971 3,540 140% 5,176

Total ClimateWorks Foundation Programs 10,981$ 16,600$ 66% 13,212$

SWG Grant Reserve 3,616$ 20,800$ 17% 3,631$

# Other Programmatic Expenses 2,327$ 3,400$ 68% 2,768$

# Evaluation 54$ 2,000$ 3% 182$

Total Programmatic Expenditures 57,174$ 87,668$ 65% ## 61,315$

ClimateWorks Foundation Operating and Capital ExpendituresSalaries and employee benefits 5,266$ 7,255$ 73% 5,123$ Travel and meetings 1,115 1,344 83% 1,213 Consulting and professional service fees 1,909 2,154 89% 1,826 Office, occupancy, IT, and other 907 1,575 58% 1,189 Capital expenditures 43 138 31% -

OpEx Total Operating and Capital Expenditures 9,240 12,466$ 74% ## 9,351

Total Expenditures 66,414$ 100,134$ 66% ## 70,666$

Net Cash Flow/Income (695)$ (38,256)$ (21,865)$

Encumbrance Spending (9,729)$

Cash at Beginning of 2015 93,977$ 77,890$ Cash at Reporting Date 83,553$ Projected Cash at End of 2015 39,634$

Cash Basis

NOTE: Primary differences between cash basis and accrued basis are: (1) higher cash-based revenues due to payments on grants awarded in prior years, particularly Oak ($15.6M), Cargill ($3.6M), and (2) higher accrued-based programmatic expenses due to grants payable.


Strategy Grantee Short Project Title Board BOD Meeting DateGrant Term

(months)Amount

ApprovedPaid thru Q3 2015

Regional Climate Foundations and Programs:

Regional Climate Foundations - U.S. Energy Foundation for support of Energy Foundation's U.S. programs Board 12/17/2014 12 5,950,000 5,950,000 Regional Climate Foundations - China Energy Foundation for support of Energy Foundation China Board 12/17/2014 12 11,895,000 11,895,000

Regional Climate Foundations - EuropeStichting European Climate Foundation

for promoting climate and energy policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Europe Board 12/17/2014 12 5,955,000 5,955,000

CLUA Climate and Land Use Alliance, LLCto support CLUA’s work to catalyze the potential of forested and agricultural landscapes to mitigate climate change Board 12/17/2014 12 3,675,000 3,675,000

CLUA Climate and Land Use Alliance, LLCto support CLUA’s work to catalyze the potential of forested and agricultural landscapes to mitigate climate change Board 12/17/2014 12 10,380,000 10,380,000

Regional Climate Foundations - India Regulatory Assistance Projectto promote state- and national-level policy changes that accelerate the deployment of clean energy in India Discretionary 12/10/2015 12 98,070 49,035

Regional Climate Foundations - Latin America

Latin America Regional Climate Initiative, LLC

for promoting climate and energy policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Mexico and Brazil Board 12/17/2014 12 2,175,000 975,000

Regional Climate Foundations and Programs - Total 40,128,070 38,879,035

Global and Transnational Initiatives:

Energy Efficiency Campaign Alliance to Save Energy to establish the Global Alliance for Energy Productivity, a collaboration between business, policy, and opinion leaders

Discretionary 6/4/2015 11 200,000 200,000

Energy Efficiency Campaign C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Inc.

for a scoping study to analyze building energy performance data to ensure that emissions reductions are driven by effective and targeted policy interventions

Discretionary 9/9/2015 5 145,000 145,000

Energy Efficiency Campaign Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program

to improve and increase the stringency of appliance energy efficiency Board 3/25/2015 24 1,000,000 750,000

Energy Efficiency Campaign Monash University to increase the uptake of energy efficiency in industry by highlighting its financial value to investors

Discretionary 12/10/2015 8 192,000 192,000

Energy Efficiency Campaign Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program

to develop an interactive procurement and market research platform to organize India's off-grid appliance market

Discretionary 9/9/2015 14 250,000 250,000

Energy Efficiency Campaign The Climate Group, Inc. to develop and implement a process for collecting and analyzing energy efficiency data to identify opportunities for further action by regions and states

Discretionary 12/10/2015 9 135,000 62,500

Cross-cutting initiatives - Finance Oil Change International to advance discussion of reforming fossil fuel production subsidies Discretionary 12/10/2015 6 265,000 265,000 Cross-cutting initiatives - Finance PRIME Coalition, Inc.

to support exploration of a new organization whose mission will be to unlock long-term capital for investment in clean energy technology innovation and deployment

Discretionary 12/10/2015 10 125,000 62,500

Cross-cutting initiatives - Finance Coalition for Green Capital to support the establishment of state-level green banks in the U.S. Discretionary 9/9/2015 12 250,000 125,000 Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Stichting European Climate

Foundationto ensure accurate and compelling science-based communications are understood and embedded in the approach to COP 21

Board 2/15/2015 12 700,000 700,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Stichting European Climate Foundation

to support Indian journalists' participation in a clean energy workshop in Germany Discretionary 12/10/2015 4 32,000 32,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Christian Aid to assist with African countries' participation in UNFCCC negotiations Discretionary 12/10/2015 8 48,000 33,600

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Libélula Comunicación Ambiente y Desarrollo SAC

to provide strategic advice to Peru in climate negotiations to achieve a substantive outcome at COP21

Discretionary 12/10/2015 6 50,000 35,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Ateneo de Manila University to support negotiators in the UNFCCC process leading up to COP 21 in Paris Discretionary 12/10/2015 9 50,000 40,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Consorcio de Investigación Económica y Social

to strengthen participation of the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean in UNFCCC negotiations

Discretionary 12/10/2015 8 40,000 24,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Stichting European Climate Foundation

for research on ex-ante provisions of international agreements and treaties related to the COP 21

Discretionary 12/10/2015 3 30,000 30,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other SouthSouthNorth to provide technical advisory services to the South African negotiating delegation and Green Climate Fund to achieve ambitious climate finance outcomes from COP 21

Discretionary 12/10/2015 8 70,000 56,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Utgard AS to support thought-leadership activities, strategic communications, and partnerships to help shape the post-COP 21 discussion around Southern leadership

Discretionary 12/10/2015 9 150,000 -

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Jubilee South Asia Pacific Movement, Inc.

to increase the media, communications, and mobilization capacity of Asian organizations working toward an ambitious 2015 climate agreement

Discretionary 12/10/2015 7 50,000 37,500

Grant Awards -- Through September 2015



(months)Amount



Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Instituto de Estudos da Religião to support qualitative research and meetings related to climate change and religious denominations in Brazil

Discretionary 9/9/2015 4 31,350 28,125

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other China Dialogue Trust for communications efforts to advance low-carbon narratives in China Discretionary 9/9/2015 12 181,512 181,512

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Vasudha Foundation to increase the quality and quantity of climate-related media coverage in India Discretionary 6/4/2015 13 120,000 120,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Partnership Project Inc. to provide U.S.-focused public opinion research on climate in the context of international negotiations

Discretionary 6/4/2015 12 181,500 181,500

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other 350.org to support organizing efforts for worldwide mobilization related to the COP21 UN Climate Talks

Discretionary 6/4/2015 12 200,000 180,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Oxfam America to support African civil society in the lead up to COP21 Discretionary 6/4/2015 10 75,000 56,250

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Climate Action Network International

to promote renewable energy and phasing out of fossil fuels as goals of COP 21 Discretionary 6/4/2015 10 400,000 280,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Global Call for Climate Action to support the China Tree Desk, an online network dedicated to promoting positive discourse on climate change

Discretionary 6/4/2015 11 50,000 35,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Climate Analytics GmbH to provide negotiating support to Least Developed Countries in the UNFCCC process Discretionary 6/4/2015 12 65,000 32,500

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Greenovation Hub to enhance Chinese civil society’s engagement and advocacy for ambitious climate action domestically and in the UNFCCC process

Discretionary 9/9/2015 8 55,000 33,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Fondation Institut de Recherche pour le Développement Durable et les Relations Internationales (IDDRI)

to produce a report on climate finance in the context of an international climate agreement and disseminate its findings

Discretionary 9/9/2015 9 40,000 12,000


to strengthen the E.U. as a strategic player in international climate negotiations Discretionary 9/9/2015 9 24,500 17,150

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Green Renewable Independent Power Producer

to support ambitious climate finance action and INDC delivery by the Philippines and other Asian countries

Discretionary 9/9/2015 10 30,000 22,500

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other U.S. Climate Action Network to promote and protect the U.S. contribution to the Green Climate Fund in 2016 Discretionary 12/10/2015 3 48,000 43,200


for a meeting to develop a shared understanding and narrative among high-level representatives of leading think tanks on COP21 and climate governance

Discretionary 12/10/2015 3 42,916 38,624

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other Independent Diplomat Inc. to assist the Republic of Marshall Islands and the Association of Small Island States in climate negotiations

Discretionary 9/9/2015 12 175,000 122,500

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other U.S. Climate Action Network to coordinate the U.S. NGO community around a climate agreement at COP 21 Discretionary 9/9/2015 12 40,000 30,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other World Resources Institute to support administration of the International Policies and Politics Initiative (IPPI) Discretionary 9/9/2015 7 175,000 52,500

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other World Resources Institute for continued support to develop tailored, in-depth assessments for select countries of specific climate-related policies and measures and address any obstacles related to their implementation

Discretionary 9/9/2015 9 250,000 125,000

Cross-cutting initiatives - IPPI/CBS/Other World Resources Institute for continued support of ACT 2015, a consortium researching and analyzing the 2015 climate agreement

Discretionary 9/9/2015 9 156,000 117,000

Non-CO2 Campaign Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. (DUH) to continue the "Soot Free for the Climate" campaign in Europe Board 12/17/2014 12 700,000 700,000

Non-CO2 Campaign Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, Inc.

for work to strengthen the Climate and Clean Air Coalition Discretionary 6/4/2015 13 200,000 200,000

Non-CO2 Campaign Energy Foundation to fund advocacy for pending regulations to reduce methane leakage from oil and gas development

Board 2/9/2015 12 1,500,000 1,500,000

Non-CO2 Campaign Environmental Investigation Agency

to advocate for Montreal Protocol amendments to phase down HFCs Board 12/17/2014 12 500,000 500,000

Non-CO2 Campaign Environmental Investigation Agency

to support expeditious phasing out of hydrofluorocarbons in India by including them under the Montreal Protocol

Discretionary 12/10/2015 12 70,000 70,000



(months)Amount



Non-CO2 Campaign Climate and Health Research Network

for applied research on methane and black carbon Discretionary 9/9/2015 11 491,888 491,888

Non-CO2 Campaign Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. (DUH) to support full enforcement of E.U. F-gas directives for stationary and mobile sources Discretionary 6/4/2015 12 100,000 100,000

Non-CO2 Campaign Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. (DUH) to reduce wood burning black carbon emissions in the E.U. Discretionary 6/4/2015 12 200,000 200,000

Non-CO2 Campaign Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. (DUH) to pursue methane control policies in Europe Discretionary 6/4/2015 12 100,000 100,000

Non-CO2 Campaign International Council on Clean Transportation

for work to reduce black carbon emissions from marine vessels and within ports Board 12/17/2014 12 625,000 625,000

Non-CO2 Campaign NABU e.V. to address the issue of black carbon and other air pollutants from container ships passing through Europe or the Arctic

Discretionary 9/9/2015 12 300,000 300,000

Oil Campaign Energy Foundation to engage California policymakers in the UNFCCC process Discretionary 12/10/2015 4 26,500 26,500

Global and Transnational Initiatives - Total 10,936,166 9,561,849

Grant Reserve:

Grant Reserve Environmental Investigation Agency

for lobbying in support of the Lacey Act Discretionary 9/9/2015 8 40,000 40,000

Grant Reserve American Security Project to link national security and climate change in making the case for assertive action in the UNFCCC process

Discretionary 9/9/2015 7 22,000 22,000

Grant Reserve Climate and Health Research Network

to reconstruct brick kilns in Nepal to a cleaner, more efficient and stable configuration Discretionary 12/10/2015 8 50,000 50,000

Grant Reserve Partnership for a Secure America, Inc.

to produce a strong bipartisan statement supporting international action on climate change

Discretionary 9/9/2015 6 20,000 20,000

Grant Reserve Partnership Project Inc. to support education and outreach efforts to build support in the U.S. for an international climate agreement

Discretionary 9/9/2015 10 50,000 50,000

Grant Reserve Strategies for the Global Environment, Inc.

to build support within the U.S. business community for the Paris climate agreement Discretionary 9/9/2015 10 50,000 50,000

Grant Reserve Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. (DUH) to conduct rapid propane tests to reopen the appliance safety conversation in Europe Discretionary 12/10/2015 5 50,000 50,000

Grant Reserve Climate Central, Inc. for outreach, research and planning efforts for the launch of the World Weather Attribution program

Discretionary 12/10/2015 12 200,000 200,000

Grant Reserve Health Care Without Harm to build a platform to mobilize and engage philanthropy at the intersection of health and climate and to expand health funders' investment in climate actions

Discretionary 12/10/2015 12 200,000 -

Grant Reserve Energy Foundation for legal and technical analysis and outreach efforts in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan

Board 6/4/2015 6 1,400,000 1,400,000

Grant Reserve International Council on Clean Transportation

to support planning and coordinating efforts as the secretariat of the Zero Emission Vehicle Alliance

Discretionary 12/10/2015 9 100,000 100,000

Grant ReserveClimate and Land Use Alliance, LLC

to build a partnership among government, business, and civil society to transform the palm oil sector in Indonesia

Discretionary 9/9/2015 13 500,000 500,000

Grant Reserve Stichting European Climate Foundation

to promote support for a broad and strict divestment policy on coal for the Norwegian Government Pension Fund

Discretionary 9/9/2015 6 100,000 100,000

Grant Reserve GreenFaith to link the Pope's upcoming ecological encyclical with support for solving the climate crisis by diverse faith and secular communities

Discretionary 9/9/2015 8 209,750 209,750

Grant Reserve Stichting European Climate Foundation

to ensure climate change is a major topic for discussion at the G7 summit in Germany in June 2015

Discretionary 9/9/2015 9 70,000 70,000

Grant Reserve Sierra Club Foundation to encourage decision-makers and the general public in the U.S. to support assertive action on climate change in the lead-up to COP21 in Paris

Discretionary 9/9/2015 10 50,000 50,000

Grant Reserve - Total 3,111,750 2,911,750

Total - All Grants 54,175,986 51,352,634


Audited Actual Actual ActualDec 31, 14 Mar 31, 15 Jun 30, 15 Sep 30, 15

AssetsCurrent assets:Cash and cash equivalents 93,977$ 80,276$ 90,898$ 83,553$ Contributions receivable, net (current) 21,389 76,324 22,169 20,951 Note 2Prepaid expenses and other current assets 277 634 371 933 Note 3Total current assets 115,643 157,235 113,439 105,437

Long-term assets:Property and equipment, net 2,422 2,282 2,133 2,030 Contributions receivable, net (long-term) 57,190 39,446 40,446 40,708 Note 4Deposits and other assets 375 378 379 380 Total long-term assets 59,987 42,106 42,958 43,119

Total assets 175,630$ 199,341$ 156,397$ 148,556$

Liabilities and net assetsCurrent liabilities:Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 2,703$ 3,096$ 3,415$ 2,710$ Contributions returnable to donor 515 515 515 515 Note 5Grants payable, net (current) 10,554 15,867 6,132 6,439 Note 6Total current liabilities 13,772 19,478 10,062 9,664

Long-term liabilities:Grants payable, net (long-term) 997 1,000 1,000 26 Deferred rent and other liabilities 930 892 862 802 Total long-term liabilities 1,927 1,892 1,862 829

Total liabilities 15,699 21,370 11,924 10,492

Total net assets 159,931 177,971 144,473 138,064

Total liabilities and net assets 175,630$ 199,341$ 156,397$ 148,556$

Notes:1. Statement reflects ClimateWorks Foundation only (not consolidated with CLUA, LLC or LARCI, LLC).

3. Additional shared services were due from CLUA LLC at 9/30/15.4. Consists of Oak 2017-2018 ($30.0M), Hewlett 2017-2018 ($10.0M), MacArthur 2017 ($1.0M), less discounts.

6. Payable on 2015 grant awards at September 30 was $3.0M, with additional $3.5M payable on older grants.

Balance Sheet Comparison

2. Q3 reductions: payments from Tilia ($60K) and CIFF ($900K). Q3 additions: Tilia ($120K).

5. Amount likely to be returned to Swiss Development Cooperation (India support).


ClimateWorks Board of Directors 2016 Calendar

Month & Year Teleconference

or Live Location

Meeting date

Meeting time

2016 1st Quarter

January 2016 Teleconference TBD

February 2016 Teleconference February 8 Tuesday

0830‐0930 PST 1130‐1230 EST 1730‐1830 CET

March 2016 Live meeting San Francisco – ClimateWorks’ offices (Same week as FT meetings)

March 18 Friday

0900‐1630 Local

2016 2nd Quarter

April 2016 Teleconference TBD

May 2016 Teleconference TBD

June 2016 Live meeting SF Bay Area June 7 Thursday

0900‐1630 Local

2016 3rd Quarter

July 2016 Teleconference July 13 Wednesday

0800‐0900 PDT 1100‐1200 EDT 1700‐1800 CEST

August 2016 Teleconference August 18 Thursday

0800‐0900 PDT

1100‐1200 EDT

1700‐1800 CEST

September 2016 Live meeting Spain September 27 Tuesday

0900‐1630 Local

2016 4th Quarter

October 2016 *No meeting*

November 2016 Teleconference November 1 Tuesday

0800‐0900 PST

1100‐1200 EST

1600‐1700 CET

December 2016 Live meeting SF Bay Area November 29

Tuesday

0900‐1630 Local


235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel 415.433.0500 Web climateworks.org

climateworks foundation - wikileaks

Documents