tv [untitled] May 8, 2014 11:00am-11:31am PDT
commit because we haven't had that discussion. we have a meeting next week and that is going to be one of the items on the agenda to have the discussion whether or not we could fund once we have a better idea of the exact costs would be on this program. >> and then are there any other approvals in addition to the ordinance that we are passing potentially at the board? are there any other approvals to allow us to be able to go and do this feasibility study? [multiple voices] >> i would have to yield to the city attorney or to the city process because as a lafco representative, i don't represent the city on this step. i would yield to them to say what the process is. my understanding is this would go through the board process. depending how many votes it gets, the mayor's approval or not approval, that would be the [speaker not understood]. it would still have to come bag before any program is launched. [speaker not understood]. it would go through the board and the sfpuc would have to at that point both agree to do -- moving a program forward if we were to go down this model. but the feasibility study would give us an idea of what it would take to actually do that. >> um-hm.
and so, then, in terms of the marin side, was there any sort of approval that has to take place on their part for us to be able to do the feasibility study? >> i would yield to the representative from marin to answer that part. >> our board has not yet set policy for how we might expand to community the size of san francisco. we do have policy and a process set for communities that are within 30 miles of our jurisdiction and have a customer base of 40,000 or less. and we have a couple of pending [speaker not understood] from surrounding communities including the county of napa, city of albany, [speaker not understood] for membership along those lines. that process is pretty well defined and clear, but our board has not yet set a process for what we are calling special consideration communities, which are communities that would be further than 30 miles away from us and have a customer base larger than
40,000. our board knishates the discussions about what types of -- what type of process would be used and if there would be any different parameters applied to a community of that size. in order to do so, i think our board is waiting until there is a formal request from the community to do that, to spend time and do that exploration. i think that -- i can tell you how we handle a request for an affiliate member because that process defined. typically what happens is we receive a letter from the governing body of the city or county and then he we -- our board considers whether expansion to that community would allow us to achieve our, our objectives of greenhouse gas reductions, renewable installations, renewable, energy efficiency. and if that threshold is met, then we ask
the board to approve the membership request subject to a quantitative analysis. after that's approved by the board we enter into a contract with the city or county to pay for the cost of the quantitative analysis so that that is not impacting our existing customer base. the cost of that quantitative analysis is with the city of richmond, for example, was 40,000. for a community the size of san francisco it would likely be substantially more than that and there may be many other factors that need to be considered. but that's a reference point for the city of richmond. after that study is done, really, the goal of that study is inward looking study for [speaker not understood] to determine if the condition that of community would be net positive tim or net negative, how it would be impacting customer base, allow reduction or create a rate increase. based on that information if the quantitative study comes back looking net positive, then we proceed with adding the community.
and already action needed at that point is for the community to ask the required cca ordinance watching the cca program and requesting formal membership in the program. we'd need to revise our implementation plan to add the new community and the signature page and we formally add a new director to our board of directors from that community so that they can sit on the board and participate in decision making and policy setting going forward. so, that's the process that's set up for affiliate members. i should also mention at the point for that membership occurs there are no other costs that the community is asked to pay for. at that point m kirk kerkorian -- mce takes care of all the marketing procurements, reserve cost of all those costs recovered by mce after membership occurs. so, i just want to emphasize that i spelled out the process for smaller communities. the process for a larger community may be different, may be more costly, but that's
something that our board would likely be willing to take up if a formal request was made. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay, we'd like to open this item up for public comment. i have two speaker cards. jed holtz man and haley peterson. thank you, chair breed and members of the board ~. i'm here today representing 350 san francisco, local grassroots climate advocacy organization as well as san francisco clean energy advocates who has been working with folk on the board as well as in lafco on getting a strong clean power [speaker not understood]. i'm also an environmental scientist. i'm frustrate that had i've lived here since 1999 and i've heard about cleanpowersf for i believe 10 years now and that we still don't see a clean energy program in the city.
so, i'm very glad to see the board looking at pursuing all means of moving this program forward. clearly we need to offer power to san francisco citizens that is cleaner than pg&e at the same price or cheaper and marin has shown that that's imminently possible. however, san francisco's program has long had a primacy on new generation and local generation. so, i think as we go forward, we just want to ensure that san francisco has local control of the parameter of our program so that we can accrue the co-benefits like thousands of local jobs that we have seen from previous planning documents. particularly in light of the legislation which president chiu just pushed forward in the previous item, as you are
funding strategy for the next five years, a coherent plan for all workforce services, we're talking about a large local build out of hundreds of megawatts of renewables. those programs are clearly primed to work together. cleanpowersf can be integrated into our workforce programs, and if joining mce is a way to get that done then we strongly support it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hello, thank you, chairman breed and members of the board. my name is haley peterson. i'm here as a conservation intern with the sierra club and also as a san francisco resident. the sierra club supports cleanpowersf and believes s.f. pc is obligated by law to implement it. [speaker not understood] they provide information that will enable the s.f.p.u.c. to resume implementing cleanpowersf [speaker not understood]
regarding sf and mce. the sierra club urges the board of supervisors to maintain a strong emphasis on installing extensive local renewables and sufficiency in san francisco regardless of the mechanism used to launch our community choice program. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks with san francisco green party, local grassroots organization. our city and san francisco clean energy advocates. first of all, i want to thank supervisor avalos for putting this forward because, you know, with what's going on in the mayor's office and what's now going on at the state level, we are starting to see that our options for cleanpowersf may be greatly curtailed unless we come up with some really creative solutions. with that said, we also want to make sure that we will retain what we worked for in the last 10 years in san francisco to make sure that san francisco's
cca, cleanpowersf is based solidly on local jobs and local installations, hundreds of megawants of installations and thousands of jobs created over the next 10 years. we need to make sure we don't lose that because, you know, marin has been spectacular. so has sonoma. the things they accomplish against opposition from pg&e are incredible. however, we want to set an example in san francisco for a much more robust local build out of resource s from the beginning. california and the entire nation, in illinois right now, there are hundreds of ccas and almost none of them have any local installation component at all. so, san francisco needs to set a new standard. we need to take it to the next level with cca and show that we can get local installations and energy independence and jobs from this. the way we can do that is to make sure that as we explore these ideas for how to work
with marin county or any other entity, we explore possibilities that are not just about joining their jpa, that are possibly just hiring their jpa for a certain function or having them perform a function that wouldn't require them to -- for us to be involved in their decision-making process or they to be involved in ours so that we can maintain a rock solid program that takes it up a notch in san francisco. thanks. >> thank you. and just in time, supervisor avalos is here. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? good morning, supervisors. i wasn't expecting to speak on this item because i am here for the next item, but i'm inspired by the discussion. i am ross mirkarimi, sheriff, former member of the board of supervisors. pertinent to what is being
discussed here, i chaired lafco for five years and authored the first series of ordinances that created community choice aggregation. i'm proud of the collective effort of the members of the board of supervisors, the san francisco puc and most importantly the advocate community that helped us, i think, really press forward with some very innovative inroads. and then in 2010 pg&e had funded a $47 million campaign on the state ballot known as proposition 16 to kill every municipality's endeavor of creating a cca throughout the state of california. $47 million. this is fact. it's certainly registered with the fptc in the state. and we were able to cobble together an anticampaign throughout the state, and i was one of the co-leaders of this very grassroots [speaker not understood] effort.
we spent less than $200,000 and defeated pg&e's $47 million campaign to solidify prop 16, and if prop 16 had passed it would have immediately terminated marin clean energy program and we'd have completely stalled and terminated our san francisco cca and all the other ccas that were being contemplated or that now have come to life in municipalities throughout the state of california. that was an amazing victory for us. and i tell you, in the shadow pg&e's reach, we were holding secret meetings at the golden gate bridge authority office between marin clean energy, their attorneys, and former supervisor who authored the creation of marin clean energy, charles mclash in, who has since passed away, a very untimely loss, and myself and members of the city attorney's office here in 2009 and 2010
for the express purpose of envisioning a jpa with marin. we were not sure if we were going to be able to break out of the yoke of pg&e back in those years so we were investigating efforts on several fronts. and one of those fronts was the legal construct of developing a jpa with marin should marin be able to progress. and i have to tell you, what they have been able to do in marin is quite impressive. and i don't think we should let their lessons be lost on us and shy away i think from what had been envisioned some years ago, that if san francisco can't do it on its own, then what we should do is huddle with the other municipalities, small, medium and large, and begin to rethink how a cca can grow, strength in number. and we may want to do that, i think, with marin and with any other municipality. and that's exactly what should happen. but i am so disappointed to see
actions by city hall, present company excluded, that would at least attempt to gut or attempt to bury for good any effort of cca. and i want to thank the supervisors who have come to the rescue, i think, of this very critically important endeavor that goes back now a good 10 years since the first major public power campaign of 2001. thank you. >> thank you, sheriff. are there any other members of the public who would like to make public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor avalos, thank you for joining us. i know you were rushing over here from another meeting. so, appreciate you being here. we've gone through the item. we've had a great discussion about it, and i would like to know if there is anything that you would have to say since you are the person who put this all together and brought this before us today. >> just sorry i couldn't make it here for the beginning of
the item. this is something that many of us have been working on very assiduously over the past many year. the board of supervisors and lafco have been promoting cleanpowersf and cca, community choice ag re ~ aggregation for 10 years now. i think what the lee administration would like to see is a dead end, but i'd like to see us at the crossroads, that we are doing everything we can to make sure that we can provide an option for san francisco residents for 100% renewable energy in their homes. the cleanpowersf program is that program or what we have designed for that program. we had approved that program in september of 2012. and since that time we've been stalled, but i want to make sure that we have options for
moving forward to make sure that we can have san francisco meet its clean energy goals. our climate action strategy is very ambitious. on paper, it's probably the best municipal climate change strategy in the country, but it's on paper that way because when it comes down to really doing the work to implement the program, we are falling way behind. cleanpowersf is a big part of our effort around climate strategy. in fact, the mention of cleanpowersf and the cleanpowersf goals were reducted, whited out from our department of the environment climate action strategy. and we've made -- i've made my office and others have made efforts to try and promote, you know, the goals through different means and this is one option that we have before us, to join a joint power authority with marin clean energy and to
work with marin clean energy to provide an option for local residents. we also have another problem that we're moving forward as well. lafco had approved proposals to study building out and creating jobs and creating -- running our own power program as well so we're moving on that front as well. this energy for us is essentially to provide time for a study with marin clean energy, a feasibility of doing a program with them. and it also urges our public utilities commission to look at clean energy, marin clean energy as an option compared to cleanpowersf. this ordinance would be a step with a feasibility study, ma [speaker not understood]. what we have before us does not authorize san francisco joining
the jpa but just provides a step in that process towards that. so, i would like to, you know, urge the committee to send this forward with recommendation and we can study this as an option that can be before us. it will cost a little bit of money, but we have funds moving in the lafco account to be able to cover these costs and i think they are appropriate uses of our funds to move forward on clean energy and i hope you can support this ordinance, colleague. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. and for clarity, in the past i don't think we've used all of the funds that have been made available to us in most years. we've actually returned significant amounts of that money to the city general fund. and, so, this is what i believe an appropriate use of those funds so that we can explore all options that are available to us. this is a huge endeavor to undertake for the city.
and not only should we be looking at the possibility of adjoining in other programs that are actually successful in doing it and far exceeding expectations, but what our other options may be. this has been really years of work and now we're at a point where we really need to make a lot more progress than we had in the past. we have the infrastructure. we have the resources. we have the desire. we have significant support on the board of supervisors and we just need to move forward. and, so, colleagues, i would ask for support on this item as well. and president chiu. >> thank you. i want to thank all members of the public and various stakeholders for this conversation. i was and am a supporter of cca. to the that the program we had move forward in 2012 should move forward. given it has not moved forward for now, given the continued questions and interests how we invest in jobs and
installations with real sustainable strategy, i think it is entirely appropriate we do move forward to study what marin county is doing with cca and happy to support this. >> so, [speaker not understood] this can be moved out as a committee report. i just want to be able to expedite things as quickly as possible. >> okay. >> because, i mean, really we should have done this work a few years -- last year, we should have had a program up and running right now and every day that we delay contributes about 145 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. so, let's move as quickly as we can. if we can do a report a quickly as we can, i'd appreciate it. >> okay. supervisor tang? >> [inaudible]. >> oh, that wasn't you. okay, colleagues, would you like to make a motion to move it out as a committee report? >> so moved. >> okay. without objection? without objection, this item moves out of committee with a -- i forget what we just did.
committee report, yes, thank you. [gavel] >> thank you, colleagues. >> been a long morning. madam clerk, can you please call the next item? >> item number 3 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to reauthorize the reentry council and revise the membership, powers and duties, and sunset date. >> okay. sheriff mirkarimi. >> thank you, madam chair. good to see you again. this is very much a pro forma update of modernizing the reentry console and speaking to the sunset clause that was built in. ~ reentry council. i am privileged and honored to be up here representing this iteration because i was the original author that sponsored the -- creating legislation of
the reentry council nearly seven years ago. and this is before that there was a governor brown and this was before that there was a, a notion of state prisoner realignment also known as assembly bill 109. because san francisco is beginning to rally together back at that period of time to answer the very vexing frustrating questions about our recidivism and repeat offender rates. fortunately we had criminal justice stakeholders from the district attorney, especially the public defender, adult probation, juvenile probation department, sheriff's department and community that want us to have a more focused centralized examination of how san francisco can really up its game in addressing high rates of recidivism and repeat offender rates. and then when it was created and as the reentry council was getting its legs and starting to really focus on good work,
governor brown gets elected and assembly bill 109, state prisoner realignment comes into existence. no other county in the state of california up till that point had a reentry council. so, in some ways by fluke or by design or default, we were more prepared and be able to brace the dramatic changes of state law as it impacted our local criminal justice system. and the outgrowth of the reentry council's ability to really hone in on needing to invent practices that hadn't existed and really upgrading practices that needed to, for a better response locally on addressing recidivism, rehabilitation, reentry, has now made san francisco a leader in this state about dealing with its reentry population. as a matter of fact, last week
at a state sheriff's conference meeting i spoke with governor brown and he spoke to all of the elected sheriffs, i believe. and acknowledged -- he acknowledged the work that he's familiar with of what san francisco has been doing, whether it's marqueed by the fact we have one of the most under crowded jail populations now not only in the state but in the united states because of our per capita in ratio to our city population and county population, but also because they are looking at the recidivism rates that are showing great progress due to the innovations that have been pressed forward by all the stakeholders of the reentry council. so, logically, the reentry council which is not a commission which saves i think a significant amount of money for the city because it's not a commission, but it also doesn't enjoy the powers of a commission, does quite a bit for its limited i think stature because of the people that are on the commission and the good
work that's being done, especially by staff of the reentry council. jennifer scape who is the reentry council point be person and affiliated with adult probation department can speak to that. her and her predecessor jessica flinthoff and others did amazing work in giving this reentry council the real, the kind of punch that it absolutely is now known for. so, thanks to the city attorney's office, we have mild amendments here that speak to the need to address the extension of its existence to 2019. the rework of what a quorum is, because the addition of people that are being added onto the reentry council and our ability to now move forward into the next phase in this current and probably post era of realign many as we can foresee. more than happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. colleagues, are there any questions at this time? okay, thank you, sheriff. >> thank you. appreciate it.
>> okay, i'd like to open this item up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to make a public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> okay, colleagues, before you we have this item with some amendments that were just handed out today. mr. givner, would you like to make any comments about the amendments in particular? >> sure, deputy city attorney jon givner. the ordinance if it passes the board and as signed by the mayor in the next couple weeks won't go into effect until early july. the council is set to sunset on june 1st. and, so, we just added a proposed amendment today that would ensure that the members of the council don't lose their seats on june 1st and the ordinance will be retroactive when it finally goes into effect. >> okay. colleagues, does anyone want to make a motion to support those particular amendments? >> so moved. >> okay. item has been moved. without objection, the
amendment passes. [gavel] >> is there a motion on the floor to pass the item in its entirethv? >> so moved. >> okay. without objection the item passes. thank you. [gavel] >> madam clerk are there any other item before us today? >> no, that concludes our business for today. >> okay, this meeting is adjourned. [gavel]