tv [untitled] September 12, 2012 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT
negative economic impact may be changed by making it more of an ot-in process. also by making an opt-in process adjoin to a residential tax on those who choose to use brown power, that could better balance the city's cost -- cost of the city's climate goals. thanks very much. >> thank you very much for your presentation. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. go ahead. >> just if i could clarify that 18 versus $27. my understanding is that it really is the same numbers looked at in different ways. if you look at all the -- thank you. i was thinking something was missing. if you look alt all the potential customers in the 400 megawatts, you have high-end, immediate yam and low-end users. the average * if they participate would be 27. the people most likely are tier one and tier two on lower end. they tend to be the 9, the 20 dollar types of monthly
impact. so the 18 monthly impact is what is probable to people who will probably join. the 27 is what it would be if everyone joined because you would get larger homes, higher priced, all that kind of thing. it is the same numbers we are talking about, just splitting the total differently. so the 18 is the impact on those most probable to join in. >> thank you for your impromptu work. can we make sure to just go back so we can clarify for tuesday. before next tuesday that would be great. >> thank you. supervisor campos. >> if i may, i think that is a very important point. i want to make sure there is no misunderstanding that somehow from the time the report was completed there was a 50% increase in cost to hearing date. i'm wondering if you can briefly comment on the issue opt out, opt in,
maximizing or incorporating opt in to the program. wondering if you could shed light onto the extent how that was considered, how we are approaching that. >> sure. we needed a program at least robust enough to generate interest in someone like shell or someone else. that needs to be a program worth 20 or 30 megawatts. that is why we started with that many. then go to the smallest number of people in the city who have to make that choice and use that much power. we did multiple surveys and ended up if we target the precincts in the city where more than half the people want to be in this program we impact the least number of people that we might have an impact on but have a program large enough to do something with shell. after that everybody has a chance to opt in on day one. businesses, small businesses may want to opt in saying we are green, but they are not part of the original program. the idea, then, is after that is stable, after people have a sense that
power still came to their home, things still worked, we could go and hopefully that polling would -- the results would change. people would have faith in the program and their opt-in, opt-out would be better. we wanted to target ones where we had the least chance of impacting people not with us. >> thank you. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report now. >> good afternoon, chair chu, members of the committee, supervisors. i'm with the budget legislative office. i will call out a couple details in the legislation that haven't been discussed inasmuch detail. one is the discussion about estimated rate increases but the rates need to be approved by the puc. once the rates are approved by the puc the board of supervisors will have 30 days to reject the rates. the contract between shell energy and puc doesn't go into effect until those
rates have been finally approved. that would be one piece of this. the other is there is a $6 million appropriation request for the sustainability program. there is not a detailed budget for these programs. we are recommending that $6 million be placed on budget and finance committee reserve, punisheding budget details for the program. another point which hasn't really been talked about in much detail is pg&e has subsequently to the city, looking at the program has proposed their own program that could potentially be competitive with any green energy program the city recommends. we have a couple recommendations. mr. harrington has proposed an alternative to the recommendation, we concur with, which is approve resolution to approve term to up to five years, so that would be different. up to five years. we also do recommend
placing the $6 million on budget and finance committee reserve for sustainability and approve as a policy matter for the board. >> thank you. if there are no questions or comments from colleagues, i would like to open it for public comment. if there are members of the public here on this item i have your cards here. i will read off names from speaker cards. if you hear your name please line up in the center aisle. there is one person supervisor campos did want to bring first. >> i want to acknowledge we have someone here representing assemblymember tom ammiano and then supervisor ammiano is largely responsible for a lot of this work. i wanted to make sure i gave an opportunity. i know it is a long list, so thank you.
>> thank you very much for letting me be first. i am in awe of the presentation. the information provided and questions asked and discussion. tom does regret he is not able to be here, so i am here asking you to appropriate the funds for san francisco community choice aggregation program. it was back in 1999 that tom, when he was on the board of supervisors, he passed a resolution asking the state to pass a community choice law, which it did do in 2002. in 2001 he sponsored proposition h, a successful bond measure to fund energy projects. i have to say when he started all this his main concern with this was a
consumer rights issue. he felt profit motive should be taken out of service, because it is a basic right. it's taken a long time but tom is proud we are at this point. with the revenue stream through clean power san francisco, we will begin to invest in our local renewable and official build out. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have been asked by the chair to call names for public comment. i will do that now. when you hear your name please line up on the side of the wall over here by the windows. here we go. gwenn mclellan. gragorio ferrera. lolita ramos.
rudy ascione. jenny crock. you can come up in any order from how those names were called. >> good afternoon. i speak a little, supervisors. we are here because of the -- of this proposal. we are here because we will tell you frankly that if you -- in our language [ speaking foreign language ] that is why we are here to
thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, honorable supervisors. i'm mrs. lolit ramos. fixed income. i spend $6.50 a day for daily meals. if i spend more for utilities maybe i skip meals for three days. i have no problem with my present services. it is okay. i'm representing the sons and daughters and widows and spouses of the organization of san francisco, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.
>> good afternoon, supervisors. >> the other one. >> my name is rudy. i'm the executive director of west bay 43-year-old nonprofit serving the community. i think this program is incredibly well plan and very good for marin county. not for san francisco. 36% of our population are asian-americans who some are not english-speaking. i attended a lot of puc hearings where i heard professionals from marin county, they are having incredible time to opt out because process is so complicated. it is really not in the best interest of people to opt out. the two of my previous speakers said if you are going to incorporate all
the rate papers into this program without their knowledge, a lot of these n% people who do not know what this is about will not be able to understand and will just get their bill. i sincerely hope that you will think about this. and that you will give us an opportunity to really opt out very, very fast. we are mobilizing all asian-americans to opt out. thank you very much. >> thank you. i will call a few more. win ho, chris wright, rob black, arthur feinstein and rob fix. if you have heard your name, line up, please. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. jenny cofton. i'm a student at san francisco state university. i'm here because my future is dependent on your decision today n. a time of drought, food shortages and severe unpredictable
events, clean power sfs has unprecedented potential for reducing city's emissions, protecting us from nuclear energy and eventually providing the city with much-needed green color jobs but has a more potent power. i know firsthand there are many young and old across the united states that would opt to pay for 100% sustainable energy if they had the choice. having a major city provide its public to that is the immediate step toward making that choice available to everyone. as such san francisco's currently in the rare and valuable position of being able to ensure the health and security of my future. i urge you to make san francisco to be the city to take that step. thank you. >> my name is gwenn mcallen. i'm here on behalf of the san francisco sierra club chapter. we have 30,000 members in the bay area. i have been advocating for clean power sf for over five years. i'm eager to see it finally
implemented. san francisco has a chance to do something truly sitting about global warming, to set the example for the rest of the country. as a coastal city we face the risk of flooding for the sea level rise and severe weather which puts our future in jeopardy. fossil fuels are not only putting our home in danger but jeopardizing the health, safety and lives of people around the world, especially poor countries that don't have the resources to do anything about it. san francisco does have the resources. we have a president barack obama -- we have a program ready to go. they will provide resources and make people proud in a city actively * striving. the clean power sf will run san francisco on at least 50% clean energy by the end of the decade putting us on track to reduce emissions to zero by mid-century. you have the opportunity to leave a legacy so today's citizens and tomorrow can
look to their government as having led the way in renewable energy. your vote in support of clean power sf will allow creation of over 4,000 jobs, including local, solar, installation and energy efficiency upgrades with a 2 million set aside for go solar sf. finally by providing residents with a clean choice they do not currently have -- >> you have 30 more seconds. >> so people are in a required opt-in program. they have pg&e that they are already opted in. they don't have another choice to use another program. it is not that much different. grace mcleod, she is one of the people that signed our pledge, she wrote it perfectly when she said, i live in an sf and i would like options. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. just so folks know there is a warning bell at 30 seconds, you have 30 seconds before the final
bell. >> [ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language] >> good afternoon, my name is win ho, i'm the president of the community association. we are the largest tenant based grassroots organization and our 1,000 are all low-income immigrant seniors. we have 40 members present and here to voice concerns regarding the clean power program.
[ speaking foreign language] >> most of the members, including myself, are living under a fixed ssi income and struggling. even $5 expenses are important to us. a majority of members are enrolled in a care program to have energy bill subsidized. if we go forward with the current proposed program thousands of residents in san francisco will be deeply affected by the rate hike and energy bills.
non-english speaking residents can also learn about the program and option of opting out. we urge the city to properly address these issues of lack of community input and lack of language access, especially for non-english speaking populations. i'm not only speaking on behalf of member but all residents. this sun acceptable. the city needs to find a better solution to clean energy in san francisco and not put the burden on the shoulders of low income residents, thank you. [ applause ]
>> if i could ask folks to hold their applause so we can move through public comments, thank you. >> supervisors, i'm arthur feinstein, chair of the day chapter of sierra club. as you have heard from gwenn previously, as you might expect, we are completely in favor of this. urge you adopting it. not to go over board but this is probably one of the most important vote you will ever do. people talk about the sky falling. well, it is falling. climate change is very real. there is nothing scare yer in this world. we are seeing incredible droughts in the midwest affecting our food crops. this is not the only time this will happen. we are seeing incredible floods and storms. there's nothing more threatening to our civilization than climate change. the only way we address it is by reducing our dependence on coal and fos
it is fuels. we have a chance now to take an unprecedented step of going for 100% green energy. no one else is doing that. marin was the first cca, but they have a mix. we appropriately as san francisco are moving forward 100% green energy. it is the only way we will solve this problem. it is already too late to make a change from where we are. if we don't do anything, your kids, your grandkids are going to face a world we can't imagine. that will be scary as all get-out. i urge you to make this vote, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is chris wright, the executive director of committee on jobs. our group was involved around business tax. in larger discussion about needed revenue and funding
for investments in city services in our community. before you is a program that is the exact opposite of the investment. this multimillion dollar contract fails to create jobs or renewable energy and exposes most vulnerable san franciscans to rate increases. to the controller's report electricity cost will increase by nearly 80%. just to break even. additionally city government is charged higher rates by the puc to pay for this program. the end result is lost jobs and unnecessary harm to the economy. the contract with shell does require any renewables be built anywhere but in san francisco. the report says the program will result in a less of more than 100 jobs, far from the promises of a deal promised by program advocates before. another detriment to the program is fact customer also automatically be enrolled into the program.
meaning residents could unknowingly face significant increase in cost. i would say that on this point that members of this body in the past have been and would be critical of a private company that automatically enrolled customer into a premium product. yet this is proposed right now. in summary, this is a bad program that fails to meet the most basic elements of its previous promises. you should vote to send this back to the drawing board, thank you. >> thank you. i will call a few more names. barbara raymond, katherine roberts, al winerup, nick freeman, christian ettiger. >> i'm rod block, executive director for golden gate restaurant association. i'm here in two capacities, the business community and as someone followed cca in 2004 when first voted for and i worked for supervisor pier. at that time cca was promised to create thousands of local jobs,
green jobs, move the city to 100% renewable at better price than pg&e. eight years later we have a contract before you. a contract that is going to cost close to $20 million, not counting six million already spent, which the controller says will cost jobs, not increase, not create city and city-owned power generation and will cost residents 77% more for electricity generation. let's look at the players in this process. shell energy. so shell energy, pg&e, clean power sf and rate payers. shell energy we found out two days ago started drilling in alaska, also the largest investors in the canadian and carbon intense way. pg&e a local company has challenges. they have some problems. being an industry leader is not one of those -- industry leader around clean energy is not one of their problems. i have given all of you an
nrdc report generated this year based on the 100 largest electrical gone ray tors in the country. out of that report pg&e, as part of -- they are the lowest co2 emissions per megawatt of any investor-owned utility in america. while they may have other problems, co2 emissions isn't one. the other part to highlight is clean power sf. they have a million dollars of marketing. currently if you look at their marketing they say will my rates increase. they say we will try to be comparative to pg&e. they don't say yes, by 77%. they say can i exit the program. yes, enthusiastically. they don't say you will have to pay to do that. that is not the best marketing if we want a fair and balanced conversation. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon chairman chu and supervisors. davis fix. i'm a plan c board member.
as you know plan c is a civic organization with more than 1,000 members. while we and everybody else support green power and concerned about climate change this proposal does nothing to increase the creation of green energy or green jobs. we have consistently opposed public power and see the cca as the first step in that direction, which voters in san francisco have consistently rejected over the last number of years. we are concerned about the money committed to this program. san francisco cannot afford this money. i as a puc customer am concerned even if i opt out of the program as a puc customer the 19 million i've committed to this program i will have to pay for, whether i want to be part of the program or not. this will increase utility costs.
i'm concerned about the controls. as a pg&e customer my rates have not gone up substantially but rates with the puc have gone up significantly over the past number of years. finally this program will be run by a bad player. executive director of green peace united kingdom called shell one of the dirtyest, most regressive corporations in the world. i urge you to reject the cca. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is barbara raymond. i'm happy to be here. i'm sorry everybody left before i had a chance to talk to everybody. i'm a resident of san francisco. i live in the mission district. i purchased a house there in 1978 so i have been here a long time.
i went out for the sierra club about five years ago. the petition talked about hetch hetchy, how san francisco owned hetch hetchy, what a wonderful program it s. everybody signed my petition. whether in the park in the heights, dolores or farmer's market, everybody loved this idea. then disappeared. i don't know who was against it. i never heard anything more about this. this is five years later. i still have my tee-shirt i wore when i came here five years ago. it says clean energy. well, i was really looking forward to saying great, we are going to have clean energy. i'm sorry, i came to this wonderful presentation. it was excellently researched, beautifully presented. i will tell you what, the last -- all i heard is it will cast more.
well, that is fine. our wonderful program of picking up garbage is -- gosh, i have to skip this part. that costs more too. but anyway when i heard the word shell, i live in hawaii part of the time. they went for clean energy too. there was a volcano over there. they take clean energy, which is not clean from a volcano, has sulfuric acid and is dirty energy. i don't think shell has any clean energy at all. not mentioned any solar power. how are we going to get clean energy? >> thank you. >> shell does not have clean energy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hi, nick freeman, i'm a resident and native of san francisco and strong believer in the idea we could have clean energy. i don't think this plan