tv [untitled] September 2, 2013 11:30am-12:01pm PDT
>> there's no zero yet. you're quite right. [speaker not understood]. >> local power did some of that survey. brighton beach has just given us a draft of another report that was focused on solar projects not behind the meter, but solar projects where we could actually purchase or manage energy. we have data to identify different resources in the city for small projects and there's more we can do. we have a staff of people who do this all day long in one format or another. they look at energy efficiency projects, municipal buildings, or for the airport. there's more we can do. >> do you have some numbers for us? >> no, i don't have numbers right now. i know there are different reports with different numbers
for different kinds of projects. i can get those for you, but i don't have them right now. if we were to buildup 300 megawatts in three years that would be fantastic. >> [speaker not understood] in san francisco? >> it wouldn't be ambitious. it wouldn't be as cheap as the power we could get from solar produced in the desert or hydro produced in yosemite. >> that would be rooftop or that would also include the airport and stuff like that? >> it would include all kinds of sites. the larger the site the more cost-effective it is of course. there are lots of creative financing and leasing and aggregating models with different businesses, solar businesses have been developing that we can take advantage of. >> and have you guys done any
studies on deploying renewables in city and land outside of the city? >> yes, there are some states -- >> [speaker not understood] the second-largest owner of land in california or something -- [multiple voices] >> quoin i don't know it's quite that. noe there is lots of land here. ~ >> yes, there are city-owned sites that are suitable for solar projects. we're also looking -- one type of project i really like is in-conduit hydro. we can develop bucket 1 resources within our existing water system. it's inexpensive and environmentally friendly. >> do you have numbers on how much that could provide? >> yes. i don't have them on the tip of my tongue, but we've done some studies on how much we could do with the existing hetch hetchy system.
>> could you -- are those available to share with us? >> yes. >> and have you also done studies on how much power could be produced on city-owned land outside of sort of the run of conduit projects? >> yes. >> and, so, you could also share those with us? >> i believe so. >> great. i think that would be tremendously helpful because those -- i see no reason why those projects, for instance, couldn't be started tomorrow. they're all controlled by the city, right? >> there is one being constructed right now at university [speaker not understood]. when it's finished, if there is community choice aggreoror will be talking to our colleagues about an mou to be talking about some of that power. >> what's university mount? >> it's an in-conduit hydro power. i believe there is a solar construction there or in the planning stages. ~ they do their projects my colleagues are working on and i hear about them. >> i'm sorry. are those incorporated in your
local buildout? those seem to be things we could -- we talk about how it's all delayed. >> yes, in my local buildout planning, there is consideration of projects that the city has been studying and would like to construct if it had load to serve. and we would get into more serious conversations about development of those projects if we had customers to serve. >> because they wouldn't be profitable just on a stand alone basis? >> no. >> just selling power to the -- >> pg&e? >> -- to pg&e? >> no, pg&e doesn't need bucket 1 renewable resources right now. >> i get it. >> but i didn't do that analysis. i'm telling you what my understanding. >> i have our director would like to say something. i know we have jason freed from lafco. we've got a public that's wait tog comment. because we're coming right up on the limit of our ten-minute
estimated time on this item. [laughter] >> thank you for all of the time you're spending on this. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i did just want to mention that we do have danielle murry in the audience from the department of [speaker not understood] and has done assessment of some in-city potential. if you'd like her to come up now or after public comment. she is a resource for commissioners throughout this discussion. >> maybe during public comment. maybe she can give a public comment or she can decide what she wants to do. >> unless there's -- >> i just have a quick question because i know we spent a lot of time on this. and i don't know if we're missing something. looking forward to want to hear from folks if there is something we're missing, where it is, you know, how we get to the green new deal. but just the basic question from our team because we've got experts at department of environment. you know, we've got some real
experts as this has gone from the evolution from 2007 ordinance to the program adopted by the board that we supported as a commission and department to sitting here today. have the environmental benefits increased or reduced since the program is at the board in the fall? >> are you asking -- >> yes. what should the department -- that's the question to the department. >> i will actually defer that to danielle murry who is our program manager who has been tracking clean power sf for the past couple of years. >> just a simple -- start us with the simple. >> so, i wasn't here 7 years ago, but i will say in the last four years what i've seen is that it's a program that is going to allow customers to
choose renewable power. and as mr. randolph said, the greenhouse gas impact of that is the same regardless of what the mix s. it's all rps energy renewable power that we supplied for the program. that hasn't changed. ~ the difference may be on the economic side in terms of jobs. also on air quality. so, if we were talking about, say, replacing fossil fuel generation with in-city renewables, that would obviously be a great thing. in this case we of course are not doing that, but we would be adding additional renewable power in a city that is the need for fossil fuels elsewhere in the state or the region so that would actually be us instead of exporting our dirtiness, for once helping other communities green up. but on the whole, the environmental impacts of it have not changed drastically. i think it's more on the economics and on the job's potential impact. >> thank you, danielle, with
the important work that you do for our renewable energy team. i think, though, for the whole gamut of what we do, renewable energy community outreach, environmental justice, all the different kind of components, sum it all together. are we better off today or not? and that's a question for our director. >> i think from the description that we heard tonight, the program has obviously changed and it seems that it's still in flux. my understanding is that the vote next week is really about the not to exceed rates. so, not necessarily the mix of recs and green power that we're directly procuring on the open market. so, i mean, i would just say in response to that, with the information that we have, we know that we want to meet all
of the goals that have been stated here. so, whether it's reducing greenhouse gas emission reductions, serving our communities, creating jobs, creating in-city resources, stimulating the market for renewables, that's what we want out of the program. and i wish i could say with authority that the program that we had sketched out tonight is better or worse than what was proposed last year, i don't think i have enough information to say that for sure. but i do agree that there's multiple goals on the table that we want to make sure all of those goals are met and we don't leave behind our communities, we don't leave behind job creation, we don't leave behind our environmental goals, and that ultimately as department of the environment we're looking at how we can meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that were set by the city. the next goal of which is to reduce our carbon by 25% below 1990 levels. and there's a lot of different strategies that we've looked at about how to get there.
cca has been and continues to be a strategy that could play a role and will play a role if the program is launched to help us get there. certainly not the only one. and the question is, you know, how we will ensure we have a program that meets all of those goals. so, that's where i think we're at. >> commissioner wald. >> i agree with what melanie said with the following friendly amendment. it's fine to say that we want to meet all of our goals, but i think based on what we heard tonight and what we've heard before, we cannot meet all of our goals equally. at least -- thank you, not right now. and i think the challenge --
and i have to say i'm glad it's the puc that really -- [laughter] >> -- that has the challenge and not us. >> a sfpuc commissioner, we happen to have a guest [speaker not understood]. >> it challenges how you balance all those goals. i think we have a big problem here in san francisco because we are so ambitious. >> right. >> because we do have such a huge vision. i love the notion of a green deal, a new green deal. for this program, we poured so much of our hopes and our expectations in it. and i think the reason why we're having such a problem now is we're coming to grips with the fact that we can't do everything to the equal degree at the very beginning of the program. it seems to me the challenge is
not only to strike the right balance, but to construct a program that the majority of us, all the stakeholders, all the elected officials, the puc can say of the program with confidence that at some time definite period, will -- will meet all of those goals equally. i don't know what that program looks like, but i think that we would do ourselves a favor if we acknowledge the problem that we've created for ourselves and the difficult situation that we are in now in terms of moving forward. i don't think anybody here, any of my colleagues to the extent
i understand where we are, wants to abandon this program. as i said, the question, it's not just what the program is going to look like tomorrow or on day one, but what it's going to look like on day 5 20, and how we're going to assure ourselves that we're going to get there ~. and that's hard enough. without -- to acknowledge that and come to grips with it, that's hard enough without thinking that we can be all things to all people all the time. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner josefowitz. >> i'll let commissioner gravanis go first. >> i would ask, commissioner, would it be helpful to hear from mr. freed from lafco
before your comments or would you like to go? >> i just want to say i apologize, i have to leave at 8 o'clock. i never had a meeting go this long and i'm really sorry. i'm eager to hear from the public, however. i just wanted to let you know i share commissioner wald's concern that we get this thing moving. i have a procedural question about having possible action on our agenda when we don't have any draft action or draft resolution in front of us. it's a little bit hard to focus and maybe hard for members of the public to focus when we don't know what the action is. i've heard rumors that a possible action might be to support or oppose something on a puc agenda which we still don't really have and [speaker not understood] very much in flux with us. i'd love to hear from the public. >> can we hear, commissioner josefowitz? >> i can talk after the public. >> sure, absolutely. >> awesome question, though. >> mr. freed from lafco, if you
can give us some thoughts, and we're going to go straight to public comment. we have to. >> jason freed, laugh key staff. you're aware lafco is a local agency commission. it's chaired by john avalos, vice-chaired by david campos, supervisor breed and supervisor mar also serve on this commission as well as members of the public from [speaker not understood] and lee pimentel. the board of supervisors gave us [speaker not understood] to help the puc figure out how to get this program up and running many years ago actually before the current members or lafco, that's how long lafco has been working on this particular project. so, i wanted to address a few of the things [speaker not understood] how things have changed. one of things to keep in mind that has changed in this program, when the board approved this program in september of last year, it was 5% bucket 1. we're now talking about 25% bucket 1 in the current mix. that has gone up a lot. as ms. malcolm mentioned during her comments, the rest of it is coming from bucket 2 and bucket
3. you want to talk about confusing people, try explaining the difference between a bucket 2 and bucket 3 rec. it becomes a heck of a lot harder so we've done a lot to improve the program in that one aspect. there is a lot more of the bucket 1 and we're lowering the price. to talk about recs actually creating stuff, [speaker not understood] which has a cca program which has a good example of where a rec has come forward to help produce new localized renewable energy and a farm that had a choice between doing their own generation. fossil fuel or renewable small hydro project. ~ marin because recs existed, they were able to price it out in a way that allowed them to do the small hydro instead of relying on fossil fuels to generate their own electricity for their farm. that is a perfect example of how recs can be used in a good wow. the other thing to keep in mind everyone is looking at this program on day one. we should look at where this program is at in year 10 and year 20. the goal is not to be 75% recs
in year 10 or 20. the goal is to getting to commissioner arce's green deal. it might not be as quick as some people want, but to start building it and owning our own generation which is coming more and more from that bucket 1 although to some degree the city does depend a lot on large hydro through hetch hetchy. that is not considered state renewable. any hetch hetchy we are able to roll you have to put a rec on top of t. but i don't think a single person at least from the government perspective would say that that's not a good source of energy for us to be using and that requires recs. shell looking to figure out how do we bring in some other types of hydro into our mix and putting recs on top of it. that is all greenhouse gas free. some people, there are some environmental groups out there that will debate whether or not that is or not. but i also wanted to talk about the financing of the buildout. as to why we can't go out and buildout all these things. it's about financing. we need to get customers in our rolls. we need to start serving those customers. that gives us a credit rating. it gives us the ability to start financing and building these things out.
it takes a year or two to get its own credit rating. one of the things the city said this program has to survive on its own. it can't rely on any other part of the city to survive. there has been start up money to help it get started. once with you get past start up you don't get that. i had a couple comments on city policy but since my time is up i will -- >> is it the heavy hitting you got, the stuff that's going to just put this over the top? >> yes. >> you do? >> i think so. i hope so. [laughter] >> the key thing to keep in mind -- >> because everything you said we didn't hear from the sfpuc. >> i hear you. that's why i am here to speak today as well. the thing i would say keep in mind, this is a long-term project. it's not a day one and that's it. that's what the program looks like for the rest of its life. we're only doing a 4-1/2 year contract. anyone who knows energy market street knows you do 20-year contracts with people because you want to have a stable structure in place. we're only doing 4-1/2 years so we can get to our own development and our own build
outs and our own program. that's where that green deal comes in, commissioner. it's that not day one, but, you know, the years going out. that's how we get to all the -- getting rid of all those fossil fuel based products. that's how we do this program. and i do want to give a little bit of credit to ms. malcolm, commissioner arce. when you were getting on her case about lobetionv l hire, remember she recently started. local hire was the policy. she doesn't understand what it was before local hire. she is going to be following local hire in all of the practices. that is the rule now of the city. so, i understand that you get frustrated and i know how much time and effort you put into that. >> the good faith. i have so many other -- >> i know that, but keep in mind she doesn't understand what life was like before local hire. she is only going to be able to implement local hire. i hope that calms you down on that front. i suggest how are enterprise department of the puc, kim malcolm is part of that. there are a lot ever questions you're asking she has knowledge of,
but they have more experts in place that can answer those questions. you might want to have a broader based discussion with them. >> all right. >> what's it called? >> power enterprise department. ?e and her staff could help broaden discussion about a lot of other things they're looking at. >> thank you. and as this was the body that was the first to weigh in during the pinker debate when everyone said impossible and director jared bloom enfeld said no, we're not doing new dirty power plants, it's never too late, i think we're going to have the opportunity to help say it's not too late. let's go to public comment and let's -- you've been waiting a long time. so, take the full three. we have a single card from liz clebener and then if you want to go ahead. what have we done in the past? just kind of get ready to come up. we don't need to do standing up. just come on up.
we're talking about alternatives. that would be evaluated in the e-i-r. evaluated per contract that the city would sell to provide the majority of the products from rec. another alternative is a product that would be comprised under green energy. these are in an e-i-r we have decision-makers that know what the city is setting up for. so, just for a moment i'd like to shift the focus of the discussion from the very complex regulatory scheme that we've been discussing today, which is the [speaker not understood] renewable energy in the state and to c-e-q-a. c-e-q-a is concerning an action passed on the ground. it asks a very simple question. it asks the action that will be
taken in results of the physical impacts of the environment. i'm here to explain -- >> if you can just summarize because that's another brown act thing. if you can briefly conclude your remarks. sure. in short, c-e-q-a discussion actions sub poed to be carried out by public agencies. [speaker not understood] reasonably foreseeable change in the environment. it what made abundantly clear by the discussion today the rate structure that will be adopted by the city is intended -- will result in [speaker not understood] in the foreseeable impact. >> okay. get it. if i ask a question, can you just conclude in one summary sentence? just because you've been here so long. we'll do the same for anyone else if you need that little piece. thank you for the additional time, commissioner. we are asking you to not support this project, to urge the commission to ask the puc
to comply with c-e-q-a before any action is taken. [speaker not understood] because of the impact of the environment. lastly i just wanted to say that -- the decision to -- excuse me, may i finish? >> the last couple words there, please. mr. brown passed this law in 1953, believe it or not, he still watches all this stuff. i have very much respect for mr. brown. very quickly i wanted to say a review may not be deferred at some point in the future. >> okay, got it. thank you. thank you so much. >> can i ask a clarifying question? >> yes, commissioner wald. >> either this speaker or ms. malcolm, and that is do i understand from your remarks correctly that the puc has decided not to prepare an e-i-r? may i answer the question first and then perhaps allow others to comment? so, the puc has discouraged
environmental review until a future date. they have determined the contract is not subject to c-e-q-a. the contract with shell energy. and we disagree with that legal position. >> thank you very much. counter point from ms. malcolm. >> public comment. is there any other public comment? >> actually, commissioner king has served with distinction to quadruple quintuple the time. we might ask for the counter point at the end. >> yes, just to dot flow if it's okay. we should wait until public comment is through. okay, next speaker. thank you. [speaker not understood]. i'm karen huggins, [speaker not understood] a lot of other groups that you know about. but to the commissioner wald, i firmly agree with you. when it comes to the green deal, come to public housing.
we're ready for it. the building up in hunters point, it would be an excellent time to put some windmills up there because a lot of the residents up there are paying over $100 in pg&e bills. a lot of residents are paying pg&e and a lot of residents are not. we need to address that problem. i went verbally to the housing authority commission and suggested we put in charging stations in our public housing developments, hiring a security guard to guard them during the day. that was on deaf ears. i've been talking about windmills being put up in our parks that are right next to public housing, selling the energy to the public housing development, selling the rest if we have more to the city. it's a win/win deal. and also it would be where residents could actually see something happening and that's what we want. and it's a long-term deal when it comes to jobs. and i'm so glad that you're pushing for local hiring.
stay on the good foot because we need local hiring and we need them to be union. and a lot of what's happening is people want to bring in nonunion workers, pay them fees, and we're out of luck coming and going. so, you're doing a good job. thank you. >> next speaker. good evening. good evening, commissioners. eric burks, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization of our city, and i'm also the grassroots organizer that has worked the most hours over the last decade to promote this program and get it to be successful. i would strongly urge you once i reach the three-minute mark if i have not made my point, to please ask questions because i have the basic answer to your question.
first of all, i have to say that this program has become much closer, much closer to the vision that you are fighting for and demanding. since director kim malcolm came on board. before that, it was a struggle with the sfpuc power enterprise to get the buildout on the table. since ms. malcolm showed up, we've got the rates down. they're going to be competitive with pg&e, without which competitive rates, there would be no buildout because there would be no customers. since ms. malcolm came on board, much more of the local power analysis that you saw in a presentation a couple months ago from local power that shows how we can get thousands of jobs within the next ten years building hundreds of local renewables in efficiency, much more of that vision although not all of it has struggled to materialize under ms. malcolm so she deserves a lot of credit. so, the main thing i wanted to
do is clear up a major misconception that i'm seeing this evening that will help you understand what we're talking about with renewable energy credits, with the shell contract, and how we're going to get to the buildout, the green new deal and union labor. and you may know that i'm sure all of you got the sierra club letter that said we are going to insist that this program be anchored to maximize union labor through project labor agreements, et cetera. you should know that the entire grassroots coalition that's working for clean power sf also recently voted to adopt that same position. this must be a local jobs union green new deal project with thousands of jobs available. the misconception that i want to make sure that we correct here is the idea that the shell program, the shell contract is the program. it is not. the shell contract is 4%, less than 4% of the energy that