Skip to main content

tv   Special Joint Public Safety LAF Co 121115  SFGTV  December 30, 2015 4:00am-6:01am PST

4:00 am
>> good afternoon, everyone this is the friday, december 11, 2015, meeting the public safety and neighborhood safeway committee of the board of supervisors i'm eric mar the change and to my right is supervisor campos and ms. alyssa we're being televised by sophisticating thank you to jim smith and charles kremack to this is not live but will be posted on line and give us our announcements devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk.
4:01 am
items acted upon today will appear on the january 5th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. i would to begin with voices of young people that are outside of city hall and marching on san francisco streets today. >> don't shoot. >> (repeated.) you guys hear me do not shoot. >> (repeated.) do not shoot. >> reverend black lives matter. >> as wear meeting hundreds of young people that walked out of mission high school and high schools around san francisco from the reports of the weekly san francisco community school june gordon and galileo and lincoln and mission and gateway and many other middle school are participating i think a lot of
4:02 am
the mercy housing are hands up don't shoot my hopes many mroflgz will treat them with respect their and right to protest is represented with that, could you please call the first item autopsy an ordinance amending the police code. people leaving or storing a load vehicle with a gun >> the sponsor sponsor a supervisor campos that if you i want to note that this is a very important item for us and the scope of the original ordinances that focused on law enforcement personnel leaving fire arms in vehicles expanded to now
4:03 am
politically to anyone that finds themselves in the city and county of san francisco who is a gun owner and makes the choices of storing their gun in an unattended vehicle we wanted it so in san francisco certain rules and procedures are followed we want to keep those guns from ended up in the wrong hands i look forward to hearing the public comment i want to say at the outset from the beginning we have pushed to move it this legislation forward as quickly as possible legally, however, things we have to do which one of the things it is critical to meet and confer with the law enforcement personnel that work in the city and county of san francisco that can be a process that takes time and so we have started that process we're on a the middle of the process
4:04 am
because of that once public comment is completed i'm to ask to continue this item to the call of the chair because of the meeting confer process not have this ordinance move forward until the process is completed we hope will happen in january of this coming year. >> thank you supervisor campos i wanted to acknowledge supervisor yee is a co-sponsor as well as myself and let's open up for public comment we have one card i know that r0sh89 wants to speak and ms. brown anyone else be please come forward that will be continued to the call of the chair after public comment. >> sir. >> go ahead walter. >> please store those guns safely because of those guns
4:05 am
there is no no where to run no where to hide once e would you store them safely no where to run or hide keep is safe and raw you'll be safe by and by thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> we're going to close public comment if people don't come up to speak right now. >> next speaker. >> hello my name is paulette brown i'm here in respect to my son who was murdered august 14, 2018, he was shot with an semiautomatic gun thirty rounds into my son today his case is not solved i'm concerned about
4:06 am
the gun violence that's been going around it says here that gunfire firearms are the third leading killer of children alps 1 to 17 how many guns are going to be on the street killing our children how many guns are brought out of trunk we think about the young man that did the mural was shot and that gun was stolen out of a police officer vehicle how many guns are going to be stolen and who's account for our children where the guns are out of the police officers vehicles or whether their came into from our children buying guns illegally how long will the mothers suffer we say all lives matter black lives don't matter
4:07 am
but all lives matter all i have left my son's death laying on a jury necessary and this is what cabin violence did for my son we want justice for our children keep our cases open and make those police officers accountable for what happened to laurel woods because u because the mothers never get over the pain by police or black a black all lives matter thank you ms. brown. >> next speaker. >> my name is robert carrageenan supervisors regarding the storage of firearms in unattended motor vehicles some provisions in the
4:08 am
section are unworkable for the ordinance one method of storage is to have a lockbox affixed to the trunk another allow able to have a lockbox permanently affixed to the vehicle underneath wants seat and shout out guns and rifles are covered under this case a lockbox would be bigger? not going to fit under the seat of a car and many cars who's trunks are two small and having a lockbox in plain sight is an invitation for thieves to steal and in addition people you get or often travel with people that go to fire ranges and permanently attach two or three lockboxes is unworkable thank you. >> is there anyone from the
4:09 am
public that wishes to speak public comment is closed. >> mr. campos. >> thank you very much again, i want to thank the speakers and i especially want to acknowledge ms. brown for coming to this board time and time again to remind us of the tragic lives that the tramples that have taken the lives of so many people because of gun violence and noted because of the meeting confer process i'm going to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair in the hope that the meat and confer will meet in january and finally take action in san francisco on this ordinance in january what i would say to the gentleman that spoke about how complicated and difficult to
4:10 am
store firearms in a vehicle what we're saying here is that if you choose to leave a firearm in an unattended vehicle there are certain things to do in the city and county of san francisco you can choose not to leave a firearm in an non-attended vehicle and this is not in any way infringe on anyone's second amendment rights when you are the owner of firearms there are certain responsibilities you should you have and certain things you have to do consistent with those responsibilities with that, i'd like to again make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair and thank you to my staff and hope to have a vote as quickly as possible in january thank you. >> we'll do that without objection thank you madam clerk,
4:11 am
is there any additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> thank you very much meeting adjourned i should announce 5 meeting the joint meeting of lafco good afternoon today is tuesday, september 22, 2015. welcome to the local agency formation commission of the san francisco ethics commission my name is john avalos the chair of the commission and will be a joint commission joint meeting that the public safety and neighborhood committee i'll allow the chair of the committee to open up that meeting. >> thank you chair avalos i'm
4:12 am
eir mar to my right is supervisor avalos and we're always police department of pleased to have joint meeting with lafco. >> our clerk is alyssa and today's joint meeting is broadcast by sfgovtv staff jim smith and charles kremack also erica major is co-clerking this meeting madam clerk, any announcements? >> electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you and could you please call the roll for lafco commissioner avalos commissioner breed absent. >> commissioner campos and commissioner crews commissioner lindo commissioner mar
4:13 am
player you have a quorum how do we want to do this mr. chair. >> a motion to excuse commissioner breed. >> to excuse if lafco supervisor breed commissioner breed a motion from commissioner crews and seconded by and excuse the newest appointees from this meeting and seconded by supervisor campos we'll take that without objection. >> okay. if you could call the first item. >> item within we think the board of supervisors urging the california public utilities commission to reject the pacific gas & electric proposed increases to net be able to metering fees. >> just want we want to call
4:14 am
them at the same time call 2. >> item 2 the board of supervisors file urging the california public utilities commission to re-examine fairness of increases. >> okay. very good thank you m madam clerk and colleagues two resolutions before us that are very, very important, important our cleanpowersf effort pg&e has filed with the california public utilities commission two motions seeking to one to get changes in the net metering program that will be similar harmful for people in san francisco and over lafco our cleanpowersf program also they've proposed a new fee
4:15 am
for the exit fee for the power electrical power from pg&e when people customers go into the cleanpowersf program the proposed fee is called the what is is called mr. fried actually trying to draw that up. >> you're talking about the exit fee. >> yes. >> the public charge in different power charge in different adjustments. >> the power charge in different adjustments. >> correct yes. >> so the impact of those two fees own the program for cleanpowersf would reduce the funds we have available for build out and could make our program less competitive with pg&e and preventing us from the robust roll out and less funds
4:16 am
to do build out this is a direct attack against our cleanpowersf power program two resolutions to say ask the california public utilities commission not to approve those increases that is dramatic two increases for the residents i think that is important to talk about some of the things going on behind the scenes that's been going on earlier this year we put on two measures on the ballot the lafco and city put on proposition h that was really about move forward with our cleanpowersf program and have a clear statement about what kind of energy we're producing the iuoe under stern have put out their own version of the property g do undermine our effort would be
4:17 am
they realized that the city was probable going to prevail on our measure that would not be good for them and their measure would lose and it very well well, did to you make sure they're not attacking our measure and stern from i b w worked very much to try at one end promote the measure he was going to try toy kill prop g earlier this week, i was tarnishing to mr. stern he said the energy fee that is working its way to the public utilities commission was all but settled our resolution before us
4:18 am
today regarding the metering was really not important anywhere i don't believe that is true and talking with lafco jason fried sdrook interest the california public utilities commission has not made a decision on the net energy metering and talking to a liaison who is here in 9 puc who's name a cody he said the decision is not made either so here's what howard stern told me are signed the metering decision is pretty much set nothing it changing and i don't believe that is for what i've been hearing that is true things are locked up between ibw and the california
4:19 am
public utilities commission to present and let us know what we have before us. >> sure jason fried executive director for lafco on those matters i've invited speakers if a statewide level and have presentations on each of the items into a local level how it impacts san francisco directly so we will take them in the order on the agenda and our presenter from solar to present followed by a receptionist in the san francisco environmental department talking about the impact the lafco and the pc i a and having lean energy present on a statewide prospective and have the sfpuc how to impacts us
4:20 am
with that, i'll call of sue huh-uh h h sue is an do the presentation and the next presenter after that. >> convalescent committee members thank you. i am supposed to say sfgovtv goes to the power point so, yeah i'm susan the west coast with go solar a nonprofit advocacy organization that is working around the country to bring solar into the mainstream about the efforts to slow down the rooftop by attacking and policy called net meters we're in the middle of the debate the commission has not made a determination i could talk about this topic for many hours but
4:21 am
keep it to 5 minutes as a context to start important to note we're reilly in the midst of a rooftop innovation in san francisco we serve 3 percent of big incurs demand the average price has dropped by more than half by 2009 and tripled the solar on the rooftop since 2011 and seeing 2/3rd's of the rooftop solar installation happening in lshgsz neighborhoods it is good news for the state but prompting a backlash that seize it as a threat is their directly attacking net meters not only in california but dozens of other states across the country an explanation of what net metering
4:22 am
and simple method for crediting people so when a roosevelt is producing more energy than the confers needed it get sent back the grid owe the skpz sell it so the metering makes sure that the similar customers get credit it allows their meters to roll backwards and give us full retail credit for kilowatt for the clean they're paying the utility when necessary buy the hours so legislationer passed it in the early 2000 and have it in place across the country but in 2013 in response from the utility the legislator passed a law that told the commission by
4:23 am
the end of this year determine what the net goals should be when they reach a 5 percent cap what 5 percent of the peak demand is served by the rooftop solar and pg&e will hit that cap around the middle of next year and so all 3 of the utilities as a proceeding in the puc have submitted proposals to end that 3450er9 and drastically reduce the solar bill saves and each utility proposed a different proposal but at pg&e they have a host of different proposed changing reduce the bill by more 50 percent that ends the metering you get the same credit for what is returned to the grid and on top of to add a 3 there's
4:24 am
per kilowatt monthly demand charge it is pegged to the maximum demand that a customer buys from the utilities so it is hard for residential customers to predict we see anywhere in the country the utility has levied levied a demand charge the customers don't know their maximum demand will be and it is difficult charge to manage more them as well to pg&e is proposed to disallow rolling over the bill credit that is part of our net metering structure and they've made other proposals i'll not get into detail but you know it is essentially if pg&e proposal was adopted by the puc it will drastically reduce the savings to the customers and dramatically slow down continued solar growth and so you can all
4:25 am
utilities they've proposed this combination of reduced to credit for exported clean energy and add fees on top of that for solar customers so you might be wondering you know how which of that is impacting the solar customers bill in pg&e territory and that gets complicate because it matters what the customers demand and the size of solar ray and so on we crunched the numbers in an analysis to the puc look at an average residential scloo solar customer in fresno a hot spot for the state right now this graph shows a customer who is under net meters the status quo and have
4:26 am
got solar with a no down payment even though up as many solar customers do on net metering the customer saves over 20 percent a month before they got solar but pg&e's process is adopted by the puc the savings go down to 3 percent you're talking about a decline of more than 80 percent in solar savings to customer under the pg&e proposal compared with net meters so you know in response to those attacks from the utilities we've got a number of pro solar voices including my organization is advocates for the preservation of net metering and for californian not make it more expensive for low and middle-income and an out power
4:27 am
of the preserve more comments as in the puc has seen on any issue we have a very broad coalition of voices from city government to save organizations not only organizations urging the commissions not to adopt but stick with the metering so where we are in the process raw the c puc about issue their appropriately decision and another a round of applause do comment and thirty days before they adopt a final decision won't happen until middle january so definitely time for the city to weigh in and definitely think that is a great idea if they decide to do so i'll stop there for any
4:28 am
questions. >> from our last comments were nothing is definitely soda up. >> the proposal has not been issued so - >> by no means decided. >> so permanently no decision on the proposed decision. >> no proposed decision out yet. >> and the proposed decision public input and we get to see that public input can influence what comes out in the final. >> exactly often changes between the changes and the. >> you've answers my next question. >> how common is that. >> it is quite common the commission seize heavy lobbying by stakeholders who want to make changes so, you know, i think in
4:29 am
this issue that's been so important to the public and controversial i think there is absolutely more time to look at this from the commission. >> thank you. >> commissioner crews. >> thank you so much for your presentation it is remarkable that the different solar customers in fresno 0 no will see to have the net metering changed do you have numbers for san francisco. >> unfortunately, i took this out of an analysis earlier this year i think that the results will look not too much different than san francisco but fresno customers buy more energy so probable the impact on savings would be somewhat less in san francisco but still looking at
4:30 am
pg&e proposal adopted a severe reduction in savings all throughout pg&e territory. >> i more example friends that bought a house looking to add solar panels and people that are you know financing their solar panels and they're looking for the cost association the cost savings association with the build in order to pay for the solar installation do we see them going underwater with solar panels. >> one thing to note the puc potential of net mooefrt will apply for customers that go solar in the future after the utility hits the 5 percent cap if i have solar the commission says you get to keep the program for 20 years and move over 0 the new program is the puc is you
4:31 am
know they're seeking to provide certainty so if you're under the current rules you'll stick with the rules the question what are the rules for the future customers. >> right so people who before all of this financeing you know flexibility is offered to go solar people that went green early on are going to stop being the seeing the benefits. >> yeah. for current customers and customers went solar in the early days when is serve years ago they will see good savings but this is going to throw you know a possible big change in added fees for solar customers and create communication in the market for customers that have solar and those going solar if you look at a whole bunch of
4:32 am
confusing fees and demand charges it is really going to put a chill on the market from the simple system of solar to a complex and that's one of the reasons we've urged the puc we have a program that works well, we're macro solar affordability to ordinary californians now is it so not the time to change could you say but to maintain this program and keep reaping all the benefits. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner campos. >> what is the what could possible be the rational by the utilities for what they're
4:33 am
proposing we'll open this up for public comment what are they saying trying to understand. >> the one side. >> yeah. can anyone keep a straight fast, no pun intend. >> as i've said i think their ulterior motivates on in their part the argument making sure that all customers including the solar customers pay their fair share for the grid what is the fixed costs every customer should be paying pg&e incentive to have their rate basis is the idea is we're moving into a future with a distributed grids customers will provide clean green choices the idea not for the utilities to build out the
4:34 am
expensive grid and require the customers to pay for it ever they don't need it yeah pg&e argument has been around solar customers shouldn't be allowed to zero out their bill and not pay towards the sgridz the fact solar customers pay not zeroing out they're bill they're paying their fair share. >> okay. thank you commissioner mar. >> thank you for the presentation i just wanted to add my $0.02 he feel pg&e's out arraign and the other utilities out arraign forecast it disincentivizes but grad glad you made it clear i have a question i'm not sure you can answer may cal or other from the department of the environment
4:35 am
but in the materials it says about 5 thousand san francisco homes we know of have solar installations or 5 thousand solar installations around san francisco that that are similar 10.5 megawatts do i know how is are low and you mentioned solar in homes is expanding to more low income and middle-income homes. >> i don't know that offhand i know there was recently a report that look at the average incomes of the zip codes for solar being installed over the last 5 years a distinct move from solar in higher income neighborhoods i don't know what the politician for the solar already installed
4:36 am
by the across the country as the costs come down most of the installations with disconnecting of in case of less than 70 thousands or less. >> maybe cal knows about the 5 thousand installations are we seeing an increase in the lower and middle-income homes. >> thank you commissioner, i can't answer that question but certainly try to get an answer for you. >> to finish up my political $0.02 pg&e's actions are outrageous bus the climate submit and the protests around the woodland is out praejz what is happening around the public utilities commission. >> thank you commissioner mar and sir, thank you for your presentation so i have two maybe hear public
4:37 am
comment or an explanation of the changes from mr. fried's and public comment. >> before we do that we have cal has a quick presentation how to impacts california before we get there. >> commissioners, thank you very much i said to painted a picture of a larger picture we're electrifying our electric vehicles moving away from natural gas to electrify our spaces heating we need more electricity resources and we the more we have in house in san francisco the better off we are what is proposed with the net metering is more difficult part of the charge of the department of the environment to think about green house gas emissions so i want to point out that the pucs our puc sfpuc go solar with
4:38 am
the metering has installed the 7 hundreds plus solar installations in addition those are providing about 23 megawatts of capacity the late number and want to make the point we've been employing people prosecute disadvantaged community in those programs as well as installing solar throughout the city including the southeast and other parts of city that are lower income and finally the point i think not been in the comments before those improve the reliance we're working on a project to provide batteries and scombrrg storage to back up the systems when we have a major broad-based quarter we have resources that will come from
4:39 am
rooftop solar not a solar installation in the valley the more we can do to put the solar on our rooftops that improve our conditions here thank you. >> thank you. >> so chair avalos to have public safety and neighborhood chair wiener to take the a good deal of and read in the amendments those amendments are a quick synopsis they are clarifying and clearing up up a few things we've produced that and gotten feedback from go solar about technical changes that are necessary we took the comments and your staff he provided edits and something that the public safety committee tapes not a lafco item i'll get into that at the ends the difference and what the public safety neighborhood services
4:40 am
committee and after reading those amendments sgoerd and then we should if you want to get public comment on this item or have a presentation on the pc i a i'll yield. >> do pc i a read the comments or do the presentation all the stuff together. >> if you like. >> i'm not clear what i have. >> maybe. >> so i would do at this point call up shawn and she'll do the presentation on the pc i a and have sfpuc do that and the amendments then. >> okay. >> thank you he everybody nice
4:41 am
to be here i'm shawn with lean energy jason can you help me with queuing up those slides. >> super. >> thank you. >> before i get started into this topic i think that will be helpful to set context and let you i know i was asked to give a 5 minute presentation high-level and brief i'll be happy to answer any questions but what is the definition of this power charge in different adjustments this is a long term form f 50 an exit fee it is also categorized as a departing low charge an annual calculations based on the advantageing the pacific gas & electric has engaged in or entered into on behalf of the
4:42 am
customers and so in order to keep the fundamental rate payers whole you have to pay a departing low charge for the case of community choices aggregation or cleanpowersf and want to be clear at this point we are not disallowing the need for a low charge we understand that is an obligation in particular not necessarily so much of the utility but the fundamental ratepayer is not unduly impacted by the departing load has to do with with the way the p kay is calculated and the mitigation strategies to handle some of these more intense rates we see proposed this year with that, we'll sort of recap what
4:43 am
we see as the owner currently before the c puc. 2016 it is scheduled to go up nearly 100 percent in cleanpowersf case actually a little bit over 100 percent this is the highest in history so it is unprecedented that estimates or calculates out to 2 point 3 cent and kilowatt hour the communities have to add into the generation rate to for the wholesale power rates from the market in order to then come up with a full rate at the end of the day needs to be competitive with pg&e you can imagine a 2 pointed 3 kilowatt hour charge is actually pretty hefty charge but this means for cleanpowersf is a potential hit of
4:44 am
$8.4 million in 2016 that is just for a partial year and only for phase one customers you have you're rolling out a modest phase if i look at 24 over the course of the program actually a potential for a much larger financial hit going forward peninsula clean energy the ambulance in san mateo that is $40 million in 2016 and that is also 2307 for the phase one program and the pc i a has a hard hits on care customers they rely on programs that help them meet in their olympics low income customers that are undial burdened by 100 percent increase in the fee per it also reduces cleanpowersf and other cia ability for the clean power this
4:45 am
is something to have into our rates it effects our revenues and the ability to have the excess revenue and definitely creates uncertainty in the marketplace we believe the effect is anticompetitive it is essentially contrary to save policy the policy requires corporation from the utilities 19 it also requires the urban bundled customer is made whole but some things in the calculations that satisfied both needs the other issue at hand the calculations are done in a black box manner commissioner last week knowledgeed how calibrated those calculations are the costs in ass not to my knowledge uh-huh annual calculations are unknown because of the cost information was not available to
4:46 am
9 parties our question what are the assumptions underlying and what is in this quote quotes black box it spits out a fee that potentially approved by the c puc we know undermines the california public utilities commission go credibility of the end result that brings us here today to a number of remedies that have been proposed we are hopeful an additional decision to the proposed decision before the puc potentially schedule to be heard on december 17th and potentially defer a final decisions into january giving me additional time for mitigations to be povrnl considered >> one of those to increase
4:47 am
transparency and craigslist by conducting and third party audio and verification of the calculation and more importantly the assumptions underlying those calculations what are the contract that are going into this black box and spitting out this number we don't know what is going into that we that will be helpful for the puc to have the third party verifies they're given comfort they're about to approve is valid the second mitigation that has been suggested is to consider a balancing or smoothly account to mitigate those types rates as i mentioned this is unprecedented doing so will is an annual came it could be 15ers or 50 percent but something that provides some relief with the ability to amnesties the balance of those
4:48 am
over a period of time so you have a smoothly effect and not have this hit on rates the figure out is to request to open a preceding at the sfpuc other issues about the exit fee including a potential very visiting obvious iuoe circulations u calculations work the memories and the policy behind that as well as how long does the p ccii kay cia we don't see a - they're no longer able to procure but monopoly has been defined so those are the remedies that lean as suggested and many others that have merging with the commissioners we don't know for sure there is relief for the 2016 fee some
4:49 am
indication of a willingness to engage if the structural fixed to the p cia that is a step in the right direction if you can join us for to press conference next thursday december 17th prior to the commission hearing we'd love to have supervisor avalos or anyone else a number of local officials to talk about the impact of the p cia on their program and the program going forward so with that, i the finish my remarks and i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you for your presentation and thank you as well for the invitation actually, i will not been able to make that i have my kids i take it school at it time in the morning but well, my fellow
4:50 am
commissioners to be able to go if theirable. >> thank you. >> and work with jason fried to see which one of us can be inherited over to the press conference. >> very good thank you. >> okay commissioner mar you're name is the only the roster okay. >> commission. >> thank you. i have one question. >> it was a great presentation thank you. i thinks that is very complicated and to stay within the timeframe was high-level going back to one statement you said you thought no relief in sight what do you mean that pg&e is not required to procure energy on behalf of the p cia how did it play into
4:51 am
the p cia a continual charge. >> as far it's been a continual charge ongoing discussions when a when does it at the end pg&e entered into a contract maybe 25 to thirty years at what point is there a cross over between that timeframe when the p cia halls procedure the power on behalf of the parties and is obligation to pay the load theoretically it should be wrenching down over time and go away at some point some said it should go away after the first year it is not feasible but after 10 years they
4:52 am
have the ability to go on the market and sell the contract the p cia is calculated on the benchmark price and what they cracked for we want to make sure we are innovate liable for the loads and the calculations is fair and that there is in no way a double dipping or making money and turning to and chair mar us. >> forgive me if i'm new to understanding p cia it is a dual component there's a something that the ratepayer pays and the p cia pays isn't that correct. >> yes. but the way it works the cca agency scombetsdz the p cia charge so ultimately it is
4:53 am
bundled into the overall rate for the customer. >> so the customer doesn't get this you know thanks for leaving you owe us x amount of dollars it's rolled into the future bills with cleanpowersf. >> yes. >> if i understood you correctly but the bottom line in other words, for the program whether it is cleanpowersf or lean clean energy for them to retain competitive they have to take into account the generation layer in the exist fee and the administrative costs and come out hopefully competitive to pg&e and this year we know for sure for example, lean energy will be more expensive.
4:54 am
>> thank you. i understand it but thank you for clarifying it thank you so much. >> any other and colleagues, any other questions okay. anything from staff? ms. harold >> good afternoon barbara hale assistants general manager for powell at the san francisco puc thanks. taking the time to review and lean and marshall for reviewing the p cia since for the last couple of weeks we've been pulsing over how to reset our cleanpowersf plan to in the event if pg&e is successful in their request at the california public utilities commission our commission on december 8th adopted a resolution similar to the resolution bra you today
4:55 am
it rejects or urges the california public utilities commission to reject the proposal pg&e offends it ports it asks the puc to support the ultimate resolution as ms. marshall described that helps mitigate the impact of the p cia request ton cca programs and p cia customers and finally the sfpuc urged the p cia to reexamine the calculation method and the application to cleanpowersf program and other cca programs in state law requires that the investor on collect this fee to
4:56 am
maintain the differences for the remaining customers to other domineers departing the san francisco public utilities commission it in challenge it san franciscans san francisco is made up of bundled customers and you know customers that will join the cca program we need to keep both the ratepayer groups incomes and we're asking the california public utilities commission to do the same they should be keeping in mind the bundled customers by the but the cca customers it is not at all unusual for the california public utilities commission to apply it's practice on a rate making issue and see the result oh, that is has a heavier impact on customers and rate payers
4:57 am
than we think is appropriate quarry moderate that the puc resolution requests them here and the resolution bra requests the california public utilities commission to do to moderate the impact we've spent sometime today, i spent time talking with california public utilities commission staff i think that the issue one of the issues that is most troubling ms. marshall be mentioned it pg&e the proceedings that pg&e's asking for making in request is a proceeding that started back in june of this year parties had an opportunity to review the materials, to put their point of view on the formal records on november 5th is when pg&e changed their request to make it a more
4:58 am
dramatic higher than previously requested in june that was november 5th, november 13th shortly after the assigned administrative law judge grantdz pg&e request when we look back then on the filings the filing that pg&e made on november 5th i have with me going to the transparency issue this is a filing that pg&e made with tremendous amount of redictated we cannot see >> a this is a more than a tremendous amount of redacting. >> we can't see the calculation so part of what we're asking the california public utilities commission to pause look at the real calculations here make sure that they understand it can and moderate the impact on our customers and going forward look to see how can we assess a
4:59 am
charge that protects bundled customers and didn't unfairly hits the cleanpowersf and other cca customers commissioner crews. >> you were asking a question specifically how to affect cleanpowersf customers like other ccas we're doing when we are proposing rates for the cleanpowersf program as we're trying to make sure that customers will be neutral to whether you you know on a bill basis to whether they're in the cleanpowersf program or in the pg&e program we know that pg&e is going to include on the cleanpowersf customer will include on their charges page the exit fee times the kilowatt hours a separate charge each customer will see we've tried to
5:00 am
do in setting our generation rate to take that how far take into account it means we have to be 25 percent cheaper in our our electrical supply has to be 25 percent what we were cheaper in other words, to be cheaper pg&e so we're when ms. marshall said we're amending that we're saying you're costs have to be cheaper by the cost of the p cia in order for our customers to have no bill impact by joining our program. >> okay. >> so that i think this is i'll stop there and take any questions you may have thank you. >> thank you very much i don't see other questions so why not go ahead and hear from our director jason fried.
5:01 am
>> i want to do a quick summary and giving us an understanding from the board of supervisors you know we have a couple of resolution in front of you i understand technical amendment to the resolutions today and that's a good way for the board of supervisors to go that is best if they do it set up a committee report so go in front of the the board of supervisors on tuesday and they vote prior internal revenue to the meeting the c puc especially from the skraik from a lafco prospective looking for the final reductions on the letter writing side and things like that lafco what about more nimble and support what the sfpuc and lean is doing stone
5:02 am
the p cia and support what the department of environment and the go solar and other net merchant we'll be taking part that's little directions i'll be encouraging to give the instructions when 33 these 24e7kz occur between the merge and draft letters the chair then reviewed them and gives the final sign off that's generally, the way it is downey done in a supervisor has a on or about we'll incorporate you into 0 that loop but draft the letters with the chair giving final approval with the lafco i'll recommend at this point and still, of course, have to have public comment on those two items actually. >> great so why not do public comment first actually what we have before us
5:03 am
a technical amendment i passed out to my colleagues adding a few words here and tloo there to see the expectations of the california public utilities commission could be just changes in the title that referenced to solar customers and changing language that go helps to clarify around the net energy metering and it is really minor changes here and there on the second one around the power charge and different adjustments adding a line that jason fried discussed a therefore, be it resolved and this is not underlined by the board of supervisors directs the clerk of the board to transmit copies to the california public utilities commission and the san
5:04 am
francisco's representatives of the legislator that's the last on the line that of that the power charging adjustment resolution that's new okay. so we can decide to bring those we'll vote on those amendments or the public safety neighborhood services committee will vote on those amendments after public comment let's go to public comment. >> good evening commissioners eric brooks with the san francisco green party and the local grassroots i come forward with the clean power advocates and are for the energy choice that hepatitis to lead the charge in sacramento to stop bad bills that will undermine community choice
5:05 am
so i'll just stick to the exit fee the plaintiff cia fee because of limit time i lean has done a great job of calling your attention and dust kicked up and getting public comment unprecedented public comment to the commission on this but i would kick it up a notch we have a number this p cia charge was happening and now a situation where there are 40 the last number i saw 40 city and counties cities and/or county pursuing the choice and la that county is pursuing 20 or more so pg&e and the other utilities know full well the market is drastically changing and a lot of the services territory will be taken over by community choice program what the p cia
5:06 am
i'll call you to ask for it to be rapidly changed it is left the the way it is it sets up a situation where corps like pg&e not only the choice program will stand up to the territory can sign up for 20 and thirty years knowing the next year x number of customers and those customers will be dinged in perpetuity for the 20 and thirty year contracted so this is - >> hi a point of order we
5:07 am
should get double the times i'm jed i co-coordinator and spent time on the board a party to the puc and definitely involved in the p cia we've worked on the deconstruction of fossil fuel and provide a healthy future not without turning on the clean power those issues are extremely critical a climate crisis we need more 5 percent of residents to have solar on their roof and heard from the gentleman about the resilient so it benefits everyone and the only party is the corporation that didn't benefit that wear discussing as far as the puc i'll make sfpuc and make the comments again, the
5:08 am
pentagon proposal is to instill fear statewide and effect the public policy that by g a dictionary dispensation is economic terry recidivism a hostage taking with 8 and a half millions pictures rotted away from us money from the peninsula it is unacceptable the public didn't have a big role with the san francisco public works i'll urge to get involved with the c puc supervisors to move the pools actually this hearing an is 17 despite all the feedback they've heard the p cia charge patrol is still it on the consent calendar this is the level of respect for the process we have over there
5:09 am
this 8 and a half million dollars is real money we'll have here on behalf of the appellant. >> do you have imagine to add. >> yes. thank you. >> we heard from the sfpuc hearing they'll been losing be potentially 8 and a half million dollars in this the plaintiff cia increase goes through we've think thinking how to use this money back into the promissory note program we tell them the mask of the community choices going devotes this is is transfer of wealth and for money for build outs going instead to a maneuver in a conceptual way it is poor planning by this year corporation to be back stomped by the public not happening in any other industry i'll back up under brooks we need to look at
5:10 am
the blunt of this but the funding of the p cia thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> dashing through the snow in a solar powder slay over the city hills we go green power all the way. >> bells are again to ring keeping spirits bright and bright i hope the item turn out right hope that goes well and hope it is swell and hope it sells oh, what fun to ride in a solar powder sleigh offering oh, no place like solar and green be able for the holidays and no matter how far away you room if you want to be economical in many ways for the holidays it
5:11 am
great powder energy way to go . >> (clapping.). >> well, i guessed that is taking my green ride to a whole new level is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed and i think this is where the public safety neighborhood services can take over. >> chair avalos any questions about the amendments can we adopt the amendments for the net metering item without objection. >> and thank you let me say two different items before us
5:12 am
and if no questions we've heard public comment can we. >> the new on the power charge on the adjustment resolution that you combined asking the board to send a letter to the california public utilities commission and to our representative that serves the city for this c puc not only a lafco motion but for the public safety committee and it this is for the public safety committee. >> so for the p cia can we accept that amendment without objection great on both items support 0 those with the with a positive recommendation. >> look forward as a committee report. >> so moved. >> and moved to the full board of supervisors on tuesday december 15th and doing that without objection thank you.
5:13 am
>> back to the chair avalos. >> other items for the safety committee or close that one out so we can adjourn the public safety committee and go on to the lafco. >> any other business before the public safety committee. >> there's no further business. >> we'll conclude that public safety and mr. chair they need to witch over to lafco. >> okay. we'll pause a switc >> okay. we'll pause a
5:14 am
minute. >> sfgovtv is really. >> very good and so those items are open on our lafco agenda jason fried. >> they're open on the lafco staff 80 so we have it read into the record to take part in the letter writing campaigns and to work with the chair to get those letters done in a timely fashion. >> okay commissioner crews. >> i wanted to make the motion to have the staff to write the letters on both matters please. >> okay. thank you and i think that's a motion and seconded by commissioner mar and take that without objection i'll work with jason fried on working
5:15 am
on the letter. >> okay thank you very much and let's go to our item number 3. >> item 3 the approval the lafco minutes from the october 23, 2015, with the san francisco public utilities commission. >> colleagues, any questions or comments on the minutes okay let's go on to. this is related to our minutes so no members of the public we'll public comment is closed. and item 4 >> you need to take a motion to approve the minutes. >> so moved. >> okay thank you and seconded by commissioner mar and we'll take that without objection. >> item 4 the community activities report for a report on the clean power and b status on the california public utilities commission. >> okay
5:16 am
ms. hal welcome. >> the general manager for power at the san francisco public utilities commission i wanted to provide an update if i may how we're doing with the clean power program marching towards launch on the november 10th we made a presentation to the commission that dooementd the business plan the reflex that we were facing and our strategies for mitigating those risks the revisions relief talked about the p cia we reran our model and looked at the stability of the program we on the 10 were able to an november 10th able to inform our commission it looks like a 8 percent operating margin that we'll be funding an operating reserve we'll funding a rate stabilization and
5:17 am
providing a gastroproduct with very a good basis of financial so we'll be able to grow the program and ultimately get a credit rating more sufficiently reinvest and along the changes that pg&e is asking for in the administrative law judges is saying yes and we ran the fingers it shrinks with the new numbers and funding an operating reserve no longerable if edging successful no longer able to fund rate stabilization reserve the importance of the reserve having that reserve allows us a
5:18 am
returning give us an account we can turn to for contingencies like a change in the p cia we'll not have to immediately pass those costs onto the customers but absorb them until the next opportunity to adjust our underlying costs so that cushion having that lost that cushion is concerting we made the presentation to our commission of the changes on the 8 of december we are still moving forward their comfortable with that we are watch a number of factors the pg&e change being one that is was the one more impactful between now and the first of the year or the first week the first of the year of the new year we'll be getting a
5:19 am
price refresh from our suppliers and hoping to see those costs come down and we are going to finalize the negotiations with those bidders 3 active bid option one bidders we're talking about with two active specified renewable projects we expect to finalize those over the next two weeks and have the pg&e raised come in on january 1st, we'll know what the rate is we're competing against the generation and the p cia not only will we expect to be acted think or defenders by the commission on the 17 of december; right? on january 1st pg&e is scheduled to publish new rates based on a number of decisions the
5:20 am
california public utilities commission is making is on january 1st, we'll have a new rate we'll have a calculator on what the p cia is and able to do the math to fourth we know what our costs say we have the best and finally over from our suppliers and know what pg&e rate is costs are on the plaintiff cia and able to say okay. can we cover our costs and including funding and operating reserves at a rate that is .25 percent less than the rates pg&e is charging today, if we are able to say yes, we'll continue on our large number path in not at this point that's when we pittsburgh hit the pause bottom in between and then continuing to work on
5:21 am
refinancing the numbers looking at and ooefg what sort of a mitigating factors we might be able to recommend to our commission if we do finds ourselves on the pause path also known as to the launch path wear expecting to be on the launch path blue in the expectation we're wrong so our schedule remains the same. >> just i'm going to pause you right now. >> yes. >> what do you mean if we were to pause what will the range looked like and the time i understand you have to look at contingencies i'm not what that means illegally how our program is considered by the california public utilities commission but
5:22 am
in terms of their decision making but i get nervous when i hear the word pause it feels like all the work you've done and the puc has done could seriously be a waste of time so, please let me know what you mean by pause. >> to what i mean by pause staff has been given direction to launch this program assuming we're able to over service at a rate that is affordable they've defined affordable as being a rate that is zero 25 below pg&e. >> i heard that. >> yes. and so we will know what pg&e's recreate is on january 1st, we'll know we've been estimating our costs;
5:23 am
right? using the bids we've received from the suppliers those - the approach we're taking consistent with outing how things work in the electrical market they've over us a best and final price wherever we ask for that we will when we know in the pg&e rates are that supply is 70 percent of our costs of the overall operation of the program is it it is a fundamental piece of our cost pie reporting or; right? once we know what the actual supply costs are and the actual pg&e rate then we'll be able to judge when a whether we meet the affordability yeah. our costs below can we offer services as
5:24 am
25 below pemgz and recover our costs. >> we'll ton do so if he can we'll got rid of if not the question about the pause part. >> okay. >> is that like a pause that is - >> - >> a better rate if pg&e. >> what i mean us looking at i know we've not been able to change pg&e rate quickly; right? that's a long term advocacy efforts but we'll be looking at with the pause what are some of the other tools we have available to modify the cost of our program we for example, have a target power content our green offering of 35 percent
5:25 am
if we're not able to launch the program not meeting the cost benchmark consider reducing the 35 to 240 we'll be in compliance with stating an option that lowers our operating costs we could look at it and we're 86 looking at modifying the mix of customers that independence the receive stream eco system a mexico of customers that have more business than residential that might provide us with a revenue stream that allows us to afford to provide the service at that you know extensively affordability. >> i have a lot of resistant it is down the pathway of paws i'm worried about that i have a
5:26 am
lot of questions i feel like it is a slippery slope to start talking about what the pause i was not contemplating that right now. >> i'm trying to demonstrate to you that we, keep is short. >> what. >> if we're not successful with our advocacy at p puc if the costs coin higher are reprepared and thinking that is, yes we are. >> i. >> now is not the time to discuss that. >> i would rather do is that closed session. >> commissioner crews. >> i have a question on timing if we should have a pause to
5:27 am
reevaluate to configure the program to still lead with affordability what can that mean in terms of launch date? >> we're telegraph hill knowing to minimize the launch date we need to begin the opt out process in mid-january to stay on our path of the lauven in march so any dwla on that in january would cause a delay in the actual start of program and again, we're not expecting to be there but i just want to assure you, we are prep and thinking it through if we find ourselves put in that position.
5:28 am
>> thank you. >> director fried. >> jason fried exclusive officer i don't want to jump go into a hornet's nest but what is the worse case scenario they have not yielded participated and right now their staff is foouth kwhaepd in pg&e they like to mess with san francisco what if pg&e is figuring out a way to come in cheaper we've testify grafted not higher than per diem and so they're trying to figure out what happens in those cases there is not a pause in the program i do feel that the staff and everything they're working towards getting getting the launch they're doing their due diligence to anticipate if pg&e
5:29 am
2r50iz to mess with us and put a price out there thereless lower than other anticipated lake the p cias charge they mess with our finances you know with feed to is have a discussion the financial needs to be there i will or know they've been ward's on the avenues what occurs the one benefit we have pg&e is getting a lower price we should be getting a lower price for any contact wire mirroring the market in pg&e is laboratory lover our hopes are contracting will be lover it therefore we'll oath set and we'll get a launch i see the work their staff is doing internally everything is full steam heads but calm the nerves no one is expecting a
5:30 am
pause the staff is part of their commission wanting to make sure that he everyone is on board from a financial stand point commission said he's happy with the work they've done all the worst case scenarios they've been able to deal with any worst case scenario and they're continuing to go down that pact one thing i wanted to highlight i don't see a pause not any their staff is foouth how not to be a pause in the program and i heap that one january comes around we'll see the program moving forward. >> yes. i don't want to cast anything on the puc staff but get freaked out there isn't a lot of carol about what
5:31 am
decisions will be in the california public utilities commission that makes we worried i am concerned about this giving air to what where we are right now is that doesn't make us feel like we are doubtful but other people maybe a closed session discussing the matters or rather than having it you know before us - >> i think it make sense to talk about it pubically as well that is my concern. >> i agree with you completely and each of the elements eave heard this outside the chambers i ask the same questions i think we are working on the same path to move forward we can and have our agenda when mergers are the next lafco will be after all the decisions are made but try to schedule a meeting in january if
5:32 am
something needs to be scheduled or right after the holidays if i want to have it closed session and staff can have the meeting with each personal individuals. >> let's have a meeting in between and then. >> why not move to public comment any public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners again eric brooks with all the groups i've mentioned previously those are in the various capacities is just to we had a pretty good meeting with staff last monday and they kind of reassured us to the extent that breeding e director fried did it looks like the price of renewables is going do you think that's what your
5:33 am
hearing so the likelihood of a pause is pretty unlikely, however, it i would also agree with the notation of the having lafco and the board of supervisors ready to have lafco ready to have a special meeting in january and the supervisors ready to act in case pg&e plays games to the board of supervisors can pass whatever legislation to undermine those pg&e games and keep the 0 program on track so - at the puc meeting on tuesday advocates cleanpowersf advocates and outlets whoirldz supports the commission decision to go ahead and vote for their package and their business model moving forward and we think that the things look good but be prepared
5:34 am
for january in case of the games one quibble in the business plan staffed agreed to sit and pleading will be involved the frontalss for what the build out starts in the best plan are 2020 and enernex is sooner that that basic where we do it sooner hinlz on the financing so that's little with an thing to should tell with staff to get the build out started within a year - >> thank you. >> thanks jed from 350 sf again, we had a good meeting with staff and i think the sfpuc meeting on tuesday was a positive one
5:35 am
i just really wanted to give from an outside prospective kind of back up with director fried said you know the sfpuc staff is under pressure from their commission from members of the commission to really look at the worst of the worst and protect basically the rest of the power enterprise that could happen to clean power i think that it is important to keep an eye on on the fact that puc really potentially taking more direct measures to halt the launch of this program than previously but i think at this point the way for us to move forward is to hopefully do this together outside organizations the board of supervisors, lafco and the
5:36 am
sfpuc to basically move forward as a city tee help undermine what the correspondence of the regulated monopoly might be don't go certainly they can watch those meetings and everything is out in public verse the redacted record we say early i expect when the rates come out in january they'll specifically be geared to take a loss for a short time to gain a competitive interest in other community choice programs we can't do anything about that but work together to be trickier and dirtier than they are for a future i want to back up the sfpuc staff the 8 and a half millions of they're required tee account
5:37 am
for how this money is distributed because of the commissions request and despite this large hit they maintained to their commission they were very certain to move forward albeit it with a smaller margin and reserves than they like we back up them in getting positive and focused on doing this question agree this is happening no matter what they throw at us we'd like to collectively surpass that thank you. >> thank you very much. >> just a corrections on our public comment it was tremendously redacted and also i agree i do in my comments to ms. hailey said a tremendous amount of work your staff has done and don't want to lose sight of that so this is an
5:38 am
informational item next item. >> item number 52016 lafco meeting schedule. >> director fried. >> executive director jason fried in the package the proposed dates for 2016 how we distributed how we came across for it to o thousands meeting you have the schedule in front of make a motion to accept that schedule and put that in as our regulating schedule meeting we may have a joint meeting but for the calendar 2016 when we were we'll be meeting. >> before that go into public comment is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak and public comment is closed. and a motion from commissioner crews you want to an our
5:39 am
schedule. >> i think i tediously director fried i'll not be here in february i'll be traveling for the moss month. >> okay. >> everyone else okay with the schedule can i get a motion from - motion from commissioner lindo commissioner lindo can't make a motion. >> the motion by chair wiener and commissioner campos without objection thanks for making the motion though. >> next item. >> and item 6 executive director's report status update with the city and county of san francisco can do to increase the voter turnout. >> so jason fried our executive director office and also thank for the commission we'll have those in february for
5:40 am
the utilities itself for the report we're continuing to move forward with enrique the intern has been reaching utilities to the academics we have a meeting schedule next week with the department of the elections that john is interest we'll ask him perspectives and we're starting to reach out the community groups we're continuing to be in the raven phase my hope by the middle of january had all the meetings we need to have and drafting and reporting so at some point you know ends of january beginning of february timeframe we'll have a rotator and put it out there commissioner crews you want to look at the drafting process we'll don't we we can and i'll avoid all in one big blast i
5:41 am
know you have that request and his own that request once more in depth and if any other commission wanted to hair the draft it is very early draft we'll have but i'll be happy to to share what we have that's all i have on the study itself and the only thing january is normally the election of chair and having to keep in mind for anyone that wants to stay in their positions within the bodies as far as chair or vice chair those happen in january that's all. >> commissioner crews. >> i have a consecutive statement slash question for director fried. >> i in terms of of the report voter turnout i want to reiterate i want to make sure that our research is reaching
5:42 am
out to the youth commission to go talk about the vote. >> yes. we've talked about i pefrm sad with the youth to talk about that. >> super thank you commissioner londo. >> i've been receiving the nominees and know that is not always easy we'll continuing having the e-mails trying to at the time set up the meeting. >> i maybe coming to some of you the most responsive if you have a relationship with that that group i'll come to you to get those meetings acceset up t you. i'll let him know that.
5:43 am
>> between the last meeting and this meeting i preenrolled for super green for cleanpowersf and founded a it was very easy to do less than 5 minutes so i'm my office is putting out information a newsletter how to sign up and if people can talk about the program it goes a long way i know that commissioner crews has a whole stack of packet and been swell at getting that out don't our part that would be helpful. >> director fried. >> i've been helping the puc to do the community meeting you're correct 50 percent signed up for super green it was very easy to do so people should be encouraging all the commissioners office and
5:44 am
commissioner crews got the cd what a bunch the low log these i'll be happy to to work with the puc to get you that information. >> great on the executive officer's report we'll open up for public comment. >> eric brooks again with all those groups good afternoon, commissioners and first on the last point that was raised and to the public that will hopeful watching this hearing we build that cleanpowersf is definitely going to start in april of next year things are looking pretty good and you caprice enroll for the program it will be lower price than pg&e or a few bucks for more for 100 percent as the chair said and to the public you
5:45 am
do that easy go to that is one word and get our energy if the city not pg&e i want to raise and point what happened in the november 3rd election really made a powerful statement about process we need to include in how we educate ventilators in the last election for mayor 3 of the campaigns purposing ran together as a bloc-vote 1, 2, 3 for us in the process of their purposing running together they did a lot of education to the voters on how and why to do that that is the first time it any candidate in san francisco if you look at the previous election and this
5:46 am
election how rank worked out both mayoral it was profound a lot more voters knew and properly transferred their votes to candidates and resulted in one of the candidates getting 33 percent of the veto a providence defensive than the last election which was none of that candidates getting much at all to let's - >> thank you. >> ted long time san franciscan who's regularly baffled in and december gusted by our low voter turnout when people have dying around the world to have a stake in the future i think unfortunately, our society is convenience space i did a lot of data analysis on this election
5:47 am
for a campaign that plain clothes officers mentioned and ink we have under half the registered voters vote when you take the eligible they could vote you can't force the horse to drink to water but lead the horse are better to water i hope we're looking all mail ballots and there's rank choice voting education unfortunately, i see the ads on muni permanent the only person that looks up at that in trying to educate peep in the election voting in this cycle the goal was to say eye rate voice e choice voting how
5:48 am
you oozed use it and trying to clear up misconceptions the departments have spent millions of our money trying to clear up those campaigns as well intended they're not penetrating so increasing the turn out helps but when people feel like not only the 39 proscriptions they don't understand they don't understand how to vote for their choice no further so rank choice is great should encourage people to vote thanks for the education thank you. >> seeing no other members of the public coming down public comment is closed. >> general public comment is now open and seeing no member of
5:49 am
the public general public comment is closed. and next item. >> >> item 8 future agenda items. >> colleagues, any future agenda items any public comment? and seeing none the future agenda items are closed public comment and adjournment. >> we're adjourns good mornino
5:50 am
5:51 am
5:52 am
5:53 am
5:54 am
5:55 am
5:56 am
5:57 am
5:58 am
5:59 am
6:00 am
the of the san francisco transportation authority i'm scott wiener the chair of the authority and we want to thank sfgovtv leo and phil for broadcasting today's hearing i want to also welcome oe


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on