Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 17, 2014 1:30pm-2:01pm PST

1:30 pm
communication is so these issues are clarified as the questions come up. >> the way it's been working recently we don't have day to day conversations. it's more as i get information i give it to them and they review it and in the future depending how long they need they get back to me. i will give the example of how we went through the draft version getting their comments. i sent it to them. i was following up to see if we're on time. will we get the comments back? they asked for a delay to review which we gave. they asked for a few of those and different lengths and in one case it was one day. so we did that. there hasn't been a weekly or day to day conversation. we are talking as they get a chance to put their thoughts together because this is 190 page report so it's not day-to-day operation of discussion but a regular conversation that occurs as
1:31 pm
needed between us. >> well, i would encourage both agencies to perhaps engage on more frequent conversations. maybe that could expedite some of the questions and maybe some of the questions would be resolved more quickly because there is more clarity given on something but that is just a suggestion but going back to the puc, just a general comment. i think it's important to clarify the questions raised and i agree with our counsel it's good to have this kind of discussion. the one thing that i hope though and i don't think this is -- it's not directed at one individual or individuals for that matter, but i really hope that there is a real effort to expedite this and move this
1:32 pm
forward, and that some of the questions, which quite frankly to me they seem more about form over substance; that some of the questions don't get in the of delaying how this moves forward, and just provide some context. we are here because the puc, the commission was not able or willing to set rates, and i think it's in some respects ironic that they want more transparency. we want transparency as well, so i would simply say that i think it's important for us to engage in meaningful dialogue, but i also don't think that it's helpful for the puc to expect or have a different set of standards for lafco than it does the rest of the city, and to the extent
1:33 pm
that your commissioners may not have the ability to understand some of the terminology that applies to every city agency we're happy to help in that, but they have a responsibility as well to become acquainted with those terms because it's just the way the city functions, so i just want to make sure this is not an excuse to delay this further, and i don't think it is, but if it is i don't think that this is going to be very fruitful, so i think that meaningful conversation and discussion is good, but there has to be an actual intent in moving this forward, and we know there are forces within this building that have a lot of influence that have purposely tried to delay this and will continue to do that, and so i hope it's not those forces that are driving this process at this point, and
1:34 pm
then the last thing i would say is i'm certainly prepared as a member of the board of supervisors to do whatever i need to do to hold the puc accountable if they're holding up this process because there are ways to do that, and the chair and other members of the board have done that before, and i think that we as members of the board have to be continuing willing to do that so i want to be very clear where we are because i would hope that whether a job is terkically a construction job or not would not get in the way of this project moving forward. thank you. >> great. thank you. commissioner campos. commissioner. >> yes, i want to thank the staff and for the dialogue. i
1:35 pm
have a question for the puc. you mentioned some of the readers may have issues understanding the data. what readers are we discussing? you had mention the commission but is that the only readers are you discussing or others we should be considering? >> commissioner, barbara hale assistant manager for power. i am anticipating when we have the joint meetings and presentations and we talk about this and see news articles or trade press on this that these numbers are going to be used and i want to make sure that we get clarity from the whole community, and understanding of what we're really talking about. i think it would be unfortunate for three years down the road for people to be questioning us as to why we didn't get 9,000 jobs in san francisco. well, the report never anticipated 9,000 jobs in san francisco. so it's
1:36 pm
that clarity i am looking for, and i want to thank your general counsel for putting the context on this, but we're really just talking about how to get the message right because it's going to be used and that's good. we want to make sure folks understand what it is that we're talking about. having observed some of the feedback that marin clean energy has gotten when you talk to folks who chose not to be part of that program they chose not to be part of marin's program in part -- of what i am hearing from people -- things weren't made clear that it wasn't as transparent for them, and so i am sensitive to that i want to make sure that we get everything off on the right foot and move beyond the study phase so we can all understand what it is that this program offers, this concept could offer to san francisco. >> thank you. so my follow up
1:37 pm
question is these readers, those on the commission, the only concerns you raised today were to commissioner's campos' point seem to be more form and i am curious are those the only concerns they have that you heard and if so are they suggesting they wouldn't move forward unless they're cleared up? >> no. i don't think anyone is expressing any heart felt concerns at this point. we use the report that we need to highlight the general meeting and the topic would be the enernex report and to be efficient and have the enernex folks come to the joint setting instead of one of our commissions separately and please get that on calendar and awareness from the commissioners. i saw interest and nodding heads and taking care of that shortly after the new year. >> yeah, you mentioned there
1:38 pm
is potential discrepancy in the way jobs are identified so someone must have mentioned that. >> i was saying that the title of construction jobs i think is confusing to people, and certainly in conversation at the puc when we have talked about the report not -- staff, general manager, staff to staff, not at the commission meeting to be clear. >> okay. >> we have talked about how many jobs we had at sunset reservoir. 35, $40 million project. we had per million to use the same metric that the enernex report uses per million spent we had about .4 -- .42 jobs and those are actual construction jobs on the site measured through the city's elation system. >> sure. i don't want to get into --
1:39 pm
>> and the enernex report says you could have five to seven i think jobs per million spent and, construction job is what the title says and it's just that kind of huh -- that kind of conversation that i am referring to. >> i want to make sure there weren't substantive concerns that you perhaps didn't present today. >> no. there wasn't a substantive conversation. it was really just a preview of what the report covers, a preview of the comments we had at the staff level about the report. we have not had a briefing to our commissioners of the draft. we have been asked to put together a briefing of this version. now, it sounds like mr. fried refers to as the final version so that seems the version to have a briefing with the commissioners with and that's what we're planning on doing. we're planning on
1:40 pm
collaborating with him and his staff to put together the pros and cons on the issues at the staff level we're expressing some concern about. i hope that is clearer. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner crews. >> okay. as every month i'm going to just struggled with this microphone. thank you both for your comments on the enernex report. i think cleanpowersf is an important step forward for san francisco really to halt the devastating effects of climate change and to make renewable energy a reality for san francisco residents, so i do have a few questions though so i
1:41 pm
guess i can start with you ms. hale with my questions. what are the plans to -- well, let me just back up. i know that you talked about target jobs creation or you talked about jobs creation in terms of using the model that the puc uses versus the model that's in the enernex report. do you or does the puc have a target goal for the jobs that would be created to answer your questions about just feasibility and preference in terms of cleanpowersf? >> to be -- just to be clear on my comments. we are not questioning the methodology that was used by enernex. the elations report that i referred to that the city uses is a tracking of the construction
1:42 pm
jobs per city sponsored project, and i was just referring to that system for purposes of relaying the information we have from the 5-megawatt solar system we installed just as a benchmark of actual construction jobs for a san francisco solar project, renewable project. with respect to target -- job targets from the cleanpowersf program we do not have job targets from the cleanpowersf program work that we have done so far. that was -- that is something that was identified and we're certainly happy to see that enernex report certainly at the staff level at least happy to see that the enernex represent put some thought behind what the jobs potential is, and frankly that's part of the reason why i am spending time and thought on that part of the report because
1:43 pm
i feel that was a gap going into this process, and i think the enernex report attempts to fill that gap. i want to make sure it's done in a robust way. it appears to be done in a robust way with respect to the methodology and i would like to see the numbers unpacked a little bit. what we're seeing is a total and i am asking what the pieces that get you to the total so we can better understand it and benchmark it against our own experience like at sunset. >> sure. are these same numbers ever requested in pg&e jobs? >> i don't have first hand knowledge of that. i don't know . yeah, i don't know. i don't think it's requested in the context of the california public utilities commission review of pg&e expenditures. i don't believe it is in that setting. it maybe in some
1:44 pm
other though. >> sure. >> [inaudible] >> i want to make sure we're talking apples to apples when we talk about jobs creation as far as city projects goes, city and county and then also on a state wide level just so that we're holding cleanpowersf accountable to the state -- or the enernex report as to pertains to cleanpowersf in the same method and reporting standards that we do for all others. >> and i think mr. fried referred that the enernex methodology and the actual model that the city controller's office uses, the controller ted eagon uses when he puts together information they're not the same model but they have similar methodologies and i don't know if mr. eagon was considered whether he considers it apples
1:45 pm
to apples or mixing up of fruit there. >> yeah, in my discussions with mr. eagon said they're slightly different models but basically the same depending on the category of the work that you're doing the jobs will come out slightly different but they should be pretty lose and they use similar methodologies how they do it. you talk about the jobs on site, how much money is spent into the economy and translates to more jobs down the line so it uses similar methodology but a different model so the output various slightly but you should be close and pretty close if they run it through the city model with the numbers of ours and close but not exactly the same to the city's models and enernex's models. >> thank you for clarifying. i am less concerned about the methodology -- especially with ted eagon's comments and more concerned whether we're holding
1:46 pm
enernex to some additional hurdles, so that the puc understands just what's included in terms of jobs creation. i want to be sure that when you said we want to get the message right that we're not skewing that, the message that the puc wants to use to perhaps stall or halt this project. >> so i am just -- at the staff level we're just looking for understanding how the total number that's listed there under a heading construction jobs breaks down. we're just looking for more transparency on the math. i think the methodology provides this information but the way it's shared in the report doesn't disclose that information, and so i'm just asking for more disclosure on that so i can say okay in san
1:47 pm
francisco our experience at sunset per million dollars spent was about half of a person. that's an actual construction job and not indirect or induce the i don't have a way to do that because it doesn't list that job component of the total. that's all i am asking for and i think the data is all there. it's not in the report so i think it's easy for enernex to sit down with us and show us how they got to the total and then we'll have that information. how it's presented in the report -- if san francisco typically calls all jobs construction jobs i'm not sure that's what happened in the examples that were given like
1:48 pm
america's cup because i didn't read those reports, not in my wheel house to do that but if it's the city's practice to do that then fine. i think you know when you read about it in the trade press or in the newspaper those folks need to understand what that number is. it's not just a construction job number. >> sure. i actually watched the sf puc's meeting so i am familiar with your report out to the commissioners and to me i didn't see a lot of concern on that side in terms of the commissioners on those types of concerns, so i think it's perhaps coming from the staff's side. >> yeah. that's what i have been saying at the staff level because that's what i am referring to. we provided staff level comments on the report and i summarized those on the report
1:49 pm
to my commission on tuesday. >> okay. great. just sort of moving on are there -- i always talk about going forward. are there plans to bring back kim malcolm now that we have some sort of forward looking documents? >> so kim malcolm took leave. it was at her request. we granted it and it expires on january 31. >> okay great. and then if either ms. malcolm or someone else was engaged or some preliminary weights can be set as -- you know, a suggestion to the commission to the puc that they can start to begin to think how these would compare in these
1:50 pm
areas for cleanpowersf so that we can just start moving forward. i mean it sounds like the enernex report is a path forward and i want to see we're not stalling things with waiting on a meeting. i think on the staff side creating some of the suggested rates or preliminary rates could be a way that we could move the ball. >> so the enernex report provides good information. it does not describe a new program. >> i understand that -- but it's also set out -- said in the report some of the things can't be done until the sf puc sets the rates. >> and we can't set the rates or we can't propose rates to our commission until we know resource mix, costs, size of the program. we put all that data
1:51 pm
together with the policy guidance we got from the commission for 100% renewable programs, 20-30-megawatts in size, that kind of information was known to us and we put the program together. now, we're seeing enernex's report suggesting that the same sort of approach that sonoma clean power and others have taken that renewable content among 100% renewable. we haven't taken that question back to our commission. i am hopeful as enernex presents their thoughts at this joint meeting we will feedback from the commission to do that work on. >> great. remind me again when the next commission meetings are. we just had the december meeting but what about in the new year. >> the second and fourth
1:52 pm
tuesdays of every month. >> okay great. >> okay. >> and i think that concludes my questions and i want to thank staff -- or thank the commissioners for bearing with me as i ask a lot. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner mar. >> i wanted to thank commissioner crews for reviewing the puc commission's meeting because that helps us to understand that it's staff lack of clarity on enernex, some of the data, and i agree with my colleagues, others that have said there is so much urgency with the climate crisis in front of us to move cleanpowersf forward and if we're only talking about redefining the construction jobs or something that seems tiny to the broader overall picture of what we're trying to accomplish and i think this plan set forth by enernex and i know we hear community input on this is setting a
1:53 pm
manager, available, and achievable plan for san francisco's future. i wanted to say that the enernex report doesn't talk about the soon to be established san francisco energy efficiency task force. that say community driven body with groups from the grass-roots environmental justice movement and emerald cities and other groups working with the department of the environment that that can be another body that is helping to move the build out and the local efficiency projects forward so my hope is that we integrate that community driven body in addition to what we're doing suggested by the report and i wanted to thank jason fried and barbara hale and others and like my colleagues i have anxiety how slow this has been and i don't want to see anymore barriers and delays. >> thank you commissioner
1:54 pm
mar. commissioner breed. >> thank you. i just wanted to some clarity from ms. hale. it seems like the only concern with the puc is the lack of clarity around the job component in terms of the local build out and how that whole formula has come together. is that correct? >> barbara hale, assistant general manager at the sf puc. i used that as an example of the sort of thing i know already we're looking for better clarity on now that we received what is referred to as the final report. >> okay. is there a list of questions or a way to coordinate a meeting with you and enernex and mr. fried in order to address some of the issues in order to be all on the same page especially when we have our joint meeting about this particular report?
1:55 pm
>> yes, as i mentioned it's my intention to collaborate with mr. fried to go through the report and understand the various issues, have an opportunity to document -- write something up in a summary way. my commission asked for that prior to the joint meeting. we received this report on the afternoon of monday of this week. >> okay. >> okay. >> got it. >> prior to that we provided a multi-page comments on the prior version. i'm looking for a little time here to work with mr. fried to identify any outstanding issues that we may still have and to summarize that for my commission. >> and i appreciate that, i guess it just feels like there's more excuses and that's been a bit frustrating because part of it is it just feels as though any excuse to try to prevent us from moving forward in this direction, and i do appreciate the fact that you just received it on monday. you need the
1:56 pm
time. i totally understand that. i have actually received two drafts before i got the final report and there's not a significant difference that i could tell. i know that folks from the advocate community have provided feedback on their suggestions that we have been able to incorporate, so i guess you know, yes, i respect the fact that you need time, but i think our patience is run out, mostly because the rates haven't been set. we have done this report. we are just providing information in order to make it easier for the puc when in fact the puc if they have this information they should be moving forward with a plan for clean power directly themselves, so i think i'm just -- you know, my patience is left the building a little bit, and i am sorry to express frustration here today, but we as members of this body
1:57 pm
doing everything we can to try and make it easier, and it's just not happening, and that is a very frustrating thing to see, and it's clear from my perspective because puc hadn't set rates that the puc doesn't have the will to do this and i want to figure out a way to get them to do this, and this report is not a report that's meant to get the puc going as much as it's a report to be a road map to explain what the options are, what we have available and so some of the details that you're looking for that you're concerned about are not necessarily details that should derail us from moving forward in this process, so i just want to see us move forward. i am frustrated. this is a long time coming. the excuses are just --
1:58 pm
you know, not working for me anymore, and so i'm just hoping we can move this thing forward a lot more quicker than we have. >> so if i may. i am not standing before you today providing excuses. that is not my intention. i apologize if that's how how i am presenting to you today. that's not my intention. my intention was merely to give an example of the kind of thing that we commented on the prior draft that i think still needs additional work in order to accurately represent what this cleanpowersf program could provide to san francisco. >> thank you. >> could provide to the region, could provide beyond the region. >> thank you for that clarity. >> that's so that's an example. >> so if this report is with your feedback if the report is
1:59 pm
solid what then? what's the next step? because that's what we're ready to do, is the next step. >> so i understand the next step to be that our commissions are jointly be presented the report's findings. at the staff level i am looking forward to hearing the responses of my commission from what they learned from the enernex report and the dialogue they can have you at the public setting in the joint meeting. i think that is an opportunity for us at the staff level to get additional guidance what work we should be performing to be responsible to our commissioner's needs so that's what i am looking for at the staff level as a next step. i do want to say i believe we're among the first of the commenters on the prior draft providing feedback to mr. fried on the 20th of november and in
2:00 pm
advance of the commitment for your meeting in early december for your meeting today, and i expect that we will be equally responsive and collaborative with him prior to the joint meeting so that we can get the commission good information to then give us guidance from. >> okay. thank you. mr. fried is there a reason why we chose to do the joint meetings, do a presentation with both the puc and lafco rather than separate presentations with feedback? >> it partly deals with costs of having their entire team here. also if you do a joint meeting questions that come up with one can be talked about with everyone in the room instead of one of us going first and one going second and having a joint discussion. at the end of the day if we can't get a joint meeting i wi g


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on