tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 17, 2019 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
change. the city has bold, aggressive goals to do their part as a large emitter. we have a goal of setting our baseline of 1970 levels. it's 2019, it's a great question, how are we doing? so the great news is we're ahead of schedule. so in 2016 -- and we'll be publishing the 2017 numbers sortly -- we -- shortly -- we had actually reduced our emissions 30% below 1990 levels. that is a classic case of decoupling that you can have environment and economy. they can go hand in hand. all right. then, the next question, i know what we're doing.
why are we doing that? what's behind the 30% reduction? well, when you look at the sources, 1990 and 2017, you'll see the pie charts. you'll notice the pies are smaller, and that's because one is 30% smaller. take a look at the changes. the big change is electricity. in 1990, electricity represented 23% or almost a third of our emissions. today, it's down to 11%. what i want to talk about is the red piece of pie and we'll come bag to the other pieces of the pie. so what is going on in that electricity decline? well, part of what happened is the state of california said to the i.o.u.s, everybody's got to have renewable electricity. they set a standard that
everybody including pg&e were going to meet. pg&e have achieved 51% renewable and 78% gas free, which is good news, except 27% is nuclear. so that's going to go away, and the challenge will be for pg&e is making sure they have a mix that's greenhouse gas free and ups that renewable. and then, we put in place cleanpowersf during that time period. when you look at cleanpowersf's mix, it's a lot of different color that are very different than pg&e. it is almost all -- it's 91, 93% greenhouse gas free. it is wind, it is hydro, large and small, and it's a very small amount of solar. so that has to do with pricing, and i can let michael explain why the mix looks like that.
but the point is once we launched cleanpowersf, and we had the ability to enroll more and more people, that electricity slice is going to get smaller and smaller and smaller because we're solving for the renewable on that. so what that means, then, we can be on track to meet our ambitious goals for cleanpowersf for our own electricity, but that's not the end of the story when we're dealing with climate change in our emissions. so when we go back to this pie chart, and we say all right, we understand with the electricity, it's 11%, it'll probably get even smaller as enrollment -- as we get those big customers on board, and as michael's ad campaigns are some more effective, that red pie is going to go smaller. what that means is as a city, we have to look at
transportation, so that's on gasoline, and that's natural goes and buildings. so this is where getting off of fossil fuels is so critical and so important if we're going to achieve our climate goals. we have got to get off of fossil fuels and making sure that electricity is clean, is renewable. it's not a question of what do we need to do, it's how we get there. all right. this is one of my favorite graphs, and i know it's wonky, but i want to show is because it shows that our thinking on what we need to do is not based on instinct, assiit's based on modelling from some really great people. this graph was created in 2013, and it's a fascinating graph, and it's still true today. the size of those colored bars are the most bang for your buck
you get in terms of decreasing your emissions. the largest bar is electricity. that's not just electricity, that's also fuels in vehicles and boilers -- natural gas boilers, but it's decreasing your use of fuel or power. the color of the bar is important, too. in 2013, they already foresaw our red pie decreasing. they already knew we understood how to clean our electricity supply. we need policies, we need goals, and we have to start accelerating, so in terms of energy efficiency, they're saying we know it's important, and we've got to step it up.
i'll just point to the red ones for you because we'll be coming back to the board of supervisors on that. that has to do on getting off natural gas on buildings. it's red because there's not only a technology deficit but an energy deficit. today, we're focusing on that big bar that's orange. now i'm going infoto focus on energy efficiency part to talk about what we're already doing and what the future looks like. so the most important thing to understand about energy efficiency is it costs money. there's an investment up front to save things later. california did something incredibly smart. they set aside something from everybody's public utility bill
for something called the public purpose costs. it's going into -- there's many things that it pays for, but a big chunk of energy efficiency. pg&e -- about $300 million a year it is going to pg&e to do energy efficiency work. san francisco grabs some of that money from pg&e and from the utility itself, and i'm going to talk about that, it's $6 million, because it's understand to talk about it to understand what's in our purview going forward. the first plan that san francisco put in place is called energy watch. it's called a local government partnership. that's a formal cpuc speak for
many that comes to local governments through pg&e. so pg&e controls their $300 million, and some of it they give to local governments to do energy efficiency work. we get about $3 million a year to do energy work in san francisco. we focus that money on small-medium businesses, some large businesses that pg&e doesn't want to deal with, and also, multifamily. so we're looking at what pg&e's doing on efficiency and we're filling in the maps. this is a map of the 8,000 projects that we've had in place since 2006 using these perks for energy watch. that's an amazing map. that's a map showing that our team of energy efficiency experts who are multilingual, who are culturally competent and technically expert going in the field every day to our businesses and to our
multifamilies across the city, bringing value. the second pot of money, and the second program is called bayren. r-e-n stands for regional energy network. what they showed was having to go through pg&e was a little bit stifling. we wanted to have the freedom -- yeah, the freedom to know what's best for our own communities. so we convinced the cpuc to do a pilot, and that pilot was so successful that it was recognized nationally as the most innovative energy program
in the country. pg&e gives the money, it goes through cbag, and then, we get to do what we want with the money. when you look at the map of our multifamily projects, it'll look different than that energy watch program. but what's different here is there are over 100 projects, but 8,000 units. we're going -- we're focusing on multifamily. we're going to the hardest to reach units and trying to bring value. so there's 7 to 8,000 units there for those 103 projects. and every time we work on a unit, that resident is saving money, that business owner is saving money, and the environment benefits. so if you bring those two together, energy watch and bayren, we have funneled
through the department of the environment $30 million of real money, money that's going into our businesses and residents with stuff, with new boilers, with new lighting. we have saved them -- this is the money that they get, 30 million, but then, there's been $31 million on people's energy bills that they're saving. so this is real savings that they're achieving. and then of course it's the win-win-win because we're preventing the co 2 from going into the atmosphere. and we're achieving affordability, and that's so important. i want to tell you a few stories. that's the bean counting part, and it has meaning, but you don't think about the meaning until you think about the
impact on people. one person, we found something when we went into these small businesses. we said we've got $3,000 we can give you as an incentive, and all you need to do is put in $1500. and they said, well, we don't have $1500. we said pg&e, how can you do? and they said well, we can give you financing. but we created a microloan program. we took some of our grant money, partners with the mission asset fund. and now mission asset fund is working on this microloan program not only with san
francisco, where we founded it, but they're bringing it to the other bay area counties so other people can benefit from these kinds of thinking. district six, this is a wonderful story about a 56 unit building, 1912. incredibly inefficient boiler systems, old lighting. we went in there with free audit work. we gave them incentives to cover new boilers, a new steam boiler, and new lighting. the manager saved so much money on his bill that he invested it back in his building in security doors and security lighting. so the people in this building are not only benefiting from better lighting and better heating quality, they're also feeling more secure because
that's the power of an energy program that's also looking holistically. it's not just the widget. it's how do you maintain that widget. we were able to use funds through this bayren program to creatively use and other grants that we actually got through pg&e to help small businesses -- we call it the keep it tuned campaign. we train it on how to maintain their equipment and then taught them how to upgrade their equipment. in this vietnamese restaurant, his unit was leaking
refridgeant. our auditors came in, we gave them incentives and training, and now, this gentleman saves $1200 a month on his bill that helps him stay in san francisco. it's deeper, it's broader, and it's about jobs. i know that's something that's near and dear to the hearts of the lafco commissions. it's how do we build jobs? when we clean out old lighting, when we install new, when we train people on frejs, there are jobs throughout. so while the numbers may not be huge on reports, they're deep and long lasting and those type of things go way beyond in san francisco. so hopefully now, i hope you're
inspired. i'm inspired. when i think about lowell and what he did and his team in our energy efficiency program, it makes my heart sing. and now, we're at a new landscape. to me, we're at no good deed goes unpunished or be careful what you wished for. in 2018, the legislature passed sb 250, which said that we need to double our energy efficiency, so we're going to have a goal of doubling our energy efficiency, but we're not going to increase how much is in that public's purpose charge. so same amount of money, double the efficiency. well, that has had a cascading impact on the p.u.c. it did three things. number one, the no
effectiveness requirement increased significantly. which means for every dollar we get, we have to get 1.25 worth of value, and that doesn't matter who you're deal with, a corner store or a boma office building. the second whammy was they very narrowed the definition of hard to reach. in hard to reach, we understand it may take more and you're not going to get the cost effectiveness. it now means that the uber office building is hard to reach, and a chinatown grocery store is not. and it's just because of the way they defined it that is really challenging for us. the thing third they did was say we're going to greatly restrict what actually you can get reimbursed for, and we think l.e.d. lighting is
already a given, so you can't get all those reimbursements for l.e.d. lighting. so now, when we go chinatown, and they have this old lighting, we have this burden of cost effectiveness. so those three consequences are for any money that's coming out of the public purpose charge. any money that's coming out of public purpose money has those three challenges associated with it. and also changing landscape, as you know, is the pg&e bankruptcy. what do we want to do there? i'm going to leave that to you, and there's a lot of exciting opportunity. and also, on the very cheery side is that cleanpowersf now is going to hopefully have more revenue because they will be fully enrolled. so those are the changing
landscape. we have two very good programs that are doing good work. we will work out how to work within the consequence, but it's tough. all right. we have been in conversations with our colleagues at cleanpowersf. we have give them actually a very similar presentation to make sure they understood the value of what's been going on in our energy efficiency work. i believe they understand. i believe they are as excited about this potential as we are, and are ready to partner. so there are two ways that the future can go. so this is, as i said, all about resources. we know what needs to be done, we have the people to do it, we know who the people are that need it, so it's really just the resource piece that is missing here. so cleanpowersf has the ability to be like an i.o.u. and get that public works charge to
them, just like pg&e does. there are two ways to do that. one, you get as much as you can justify asking for, and the other is you get a percentage of only cleanpowersf customers. there are different ways, they have different burdens on the city to apply for them, and we can do that. there's timelines, we've looked at how other entities have done that. we can talk about that if you're interested, but that's a path. the other path is the revenue path. if there is revenue from cleanpowersf, that they would like that we believe can go into energy efficiency work, then that is money that doesn't have those sb-350 challenges associated with it, and when i think about how we would love to focus that funding, however much it ends up being is truly on those hard to reach -- the things that we call hard to reach, not that the cpuc calls hard to reach. we're very interested right now
on the food security system. because, for example, the food bank. the food bank may not be in a hard to reach neighborhood, but their clients may be. we learned from the department of public health that one in five san franciscans is food insecure. let's make it more affordable for those entities to stay in san francisco. it's such an obvious win-win-win. so those are the opportunities. we know what the parties are. right now, that's off the
tabl table. the amount of funds that are available will depend on so many different things. how many people are enrolled -- michael can talk about that. so the future in terms of additional resources and au autonomy. the future's rosy. that graph shows that we must focus on this. so in a way, to me, this is a great story because we know what we want to do and we're setup for success. we've got a beautiful little jewel, we just need to scale it. >> chair fewer: commissioner ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you for that presentation, director raphael.
that was great. i think it was page four of your presentation, the san francisco emissions sources? >> yes. >> supervisor ronen: so the entire basic success that we've had has been in the electricity arena of lowering our g.h.g. emissions? >> no. the pie has gone down for many reasons. it's the electricity, it's also our green building codes so we are not using as much energy in that sector. it's incredible what we've done on the food waste. it's also our transportation fuels, car efficiency that the statewide has put in. there's a bunch of different things that are contributing to that pie going down, but as that pie gets smaller, then, the proportionality shifts, and you can see -- even though the whole thing is smaller, now proportionally, what we're left with now is our fossil fuels.
i'm glad you asked that question. >> supervisor ronen: mm-hmm. and just in terms of the last part of your presentation, if we are successful in taking over the distribution lines from pg&e and able to really be independent from that company, you know, at least in the long-term, the potential for revenues that we can pump back into the most effective strategies for reducing g.h.g. emissions is enormous. so i just wanted to make that point explicit, even though i think you were making that throughout your presentation. i just wanted to draw that out. thank you so much. >> chair fewer: thank you. commissioner pollock. >> commissioner pollock: thank you, miss raphael, for your
presentation. i think we were talking before your meeting, it's been about four years to the date since we've had your office here talking to lafco about -- excuse me -- about energy efficiency and the potential partnerships that could come partnering with the sfpuc, with cleanpowersf. i just wanted to ask a few questions. in the last presentation, you talked about on bill financing projects with pg&e and just the unfortunate fact that many of the projects were lighting only or water only and they were not looking at a holistic approach, but programs that were, that the next step would be on-site renewables where you could create a microgrid for
residents or businesses there. do we know if any of those have been created or is that still the dream? >> my sense is it's still a dream because i don't have a grid that i can point to. do you want to answer that? as i warned commissioner pollock, there will be many times probably where i need my staff to help fill in gaps. >> commissioner pollock: sure. we thank you so much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. to answer your question about renewable, so some of the restrictions from the cpuc that debbie spoke about, one of them includes the fact that the rate payer funds cannot be used to
fund renewable energy products. so there's a separation of those, and those have not been able to blend, unfortunately. >> commissioner pollock: okay. thank you. i just want to ask one clarifying question. are public service funds the same as public funds -- >> yes. >> commissioner pollock: okay. there was an effort to -- in 2016, we had a proposal that went in to ask funds for cpuc, and at the same time, marin and sonoma put in requests for funds from the cpuc. so what happened with that? >> great question. so marin and sonoma clean power -- well, you know what?
i'm going to let michael. either one of them could. >> yeah, this could be a partnership answer here, but i'll tell you, m.c.e., they applied and collected these funds which are collected on rate payers' bills, the public purpose. most recently from a briefing from the department of the environment, that they had submitted an updated business plan. i think it sat with the california p.u.c. for about a year maybe? a year before they took it up and really looked at it seriously, but they did end up approving at least some component of that basis man. so m.c.e. has the longest track record when it comes to managing these funds and scope? sonoma clean power does not manage any of these funds.
i think the county of sonoma may manage some of those funds through the r.e.n., so it's a different structure. it's a complex terrain. you have nonprofit programs, like the r.e.n.s, you have the c.c.a.s, you have the high use programs. there's also commitments that have been made to date on some of these funds. i think debbie alluded to c.c.u.s having the ability to apply for the remaining funds that aren't admitted for statewide programs. to bring it back to your question, m.c.e. is running programs that are funded through this pot of state rate payer funds. sonoma clean power runs
programs, but i believe almost all of those are grant funded or rate payer funded through the generation service that they provide. >> commissioner pollock: so just one question. so then, when there was a request to create an independent energy efficiency program, was that approved by the cpuc? o >> i think what the question is there was back in 2015, an idea that we would create -- that the local governments would create their own statewide program and submit a business plan for it? that got rejected by the cpuc. >> commissioner pollock: yeah. do you know if there was any progress on using prop c funds that was the housing trust funds on energy efficiency? >> i am not aware. i have no information on that.
>> commissioner pollock: okay. >> okay. it's a great question. >> commissioner pollock: okay. it's 2012 of prop c efficiency? >> okay. >> commissioner pollock: it was a housing trust fund and there was -- i know that supervisor avalos had talked about potentially there could be funds in that that could be used for energy efficiency. >> i am going to find out. i did not believe there were any. i do not believe staff has gotten any of those funds. i like the way you're thinking. thank you. >> commissioner pollock: the other question i have is were the programs that -- have programs come out of the energy efficiency task force? is that still happening? >> that's a great, very timely question. the energy efficiency task force has completed its work. they completed a report. i have read the report. it's outstanding, and i believe
they would like to present that report either to our commission, to you, to the board of supervisors. we're working with them to figure out just how to do it. their recommendations are -- they're interesting. they're very much about ramping up and scaling and fast, and a fo fork -- focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities. there isn't anything in that report that wouldn't be reflected in my story in our focus. >> commissioner pollock: i think it's so important to highlight the findings from that task force just because of the inclusion of community groups like poder, and i think it represents rate payers in a different way and builds in equity, and that's something i feel like we want to have baked into every program. >> and i hope that my presentation showed you how much we take that seriously?
and your point about that report coming out of such a diverse group, such an intentionally diverse body is a good one, and that speaks to the importance. i believe they're going to be presenting on the commission to the environment, and we can see how much more we can get those fundings out. >> commissioner pollock: okay. my last question has to do with the timeline. when we heard from the department last, there was -- there was thoughts that the timeline of the launch of cleanpowersf would coincide with the timeline of those rate payer funds. >> we did hope that. >> commissioner pollock: so now where we are with cleanpowersf, what does the timeline to look like to really have, you know, a strong partnership between department of the environment and the sfpuc to really utilize the energy efficiency programs
to help cleanpowersf rate payers? >> so back when -- before cleanpowersf was actually launched, i think the department was a little bit overly optimistic and ambitious when revenue dollars would come in and time would be allotted to set it up. it turned out this launches was a big endeavor and continues to be? i think we're at a time where the end of full enrollment is in sight? cleanpowersf staff have told us that they feel like the timing is right for them to work on this intentionally? they have asked us to give them in the next two weeks a deeper analysis of what it would take to file a business plan, which is the heavy lift that they need to do? so i would actually expect -- when we look at what happened in the city of marin and
lancaster is another county that applied through the cpuc. s how long they sit on it, that's hard to tell. so we have done our own business plan through the bayren program so we have some experience how to do it. we'll be working closely with the sfpuc to work with the consultants that they bring in because it needs to be done through sfpuc. they are the ones, not us, but we are there to serve at subject matter experts and hopefully implementers at the end? so my conversations with barbara hale, michael hyams make me incredibly excited that this is not going to be on the back burner of our plate? >> commissioner pollock: i just ask that we be apprised of the timeline and how that changes.
i know we had a sort of rolling timeline where we were looking at the launch, if we could be kept up to date on the energy efficiency programs. >> we can do that. >> commissioner pollock: the last question is do you know when the updated climate action plan will be released. >> so i'll tell you what -- our story arc, our work for 2019. we have supervisor mandelman and many of his colleagues just introduced an emergency climate resolution. as soon as it passes, we will hold a hearing. after that, we will be looking for changes to chapter nine, the environment code which is railroad our goals with codified? once we get that, we will look at our climate action strategy, which will be a community-led process? so i'm hoping by 2020, which is when we need to have our next
update, we will have our next climate action plan. it doesn't mean everything would be done, but that's when we can publish it. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any other comments? questions? you know, debbie, i have one question just related to the fact that we're looking at transportation and that we have to not rely on fossil fuels anymore and that would mean going electric. so that would mean privately going electric or even our public vehicles. now there has been a lot of research on the use of cobalt, in these electric cars and all of our cell phones, and what is happening to exploitation of people in the congo, which holds two thirds of the world's reserves of cobalt. there has been a lot on the
exploitation of those people in the mining almost in the same way that we're looking at blood diamonds. so i'm wondering, do you have any suggestions for us as a city as we're moving towards electric vehicles and how we can purchase this responsibly and not hurting another country. in fact, this part probably of the world is so mineral rich, it should probably be the richest country in the world and yet, it is amongst the poorest. so not to add to a world exploitation but to move us toward a climate action goals. is there a way we can move to
you. >> -- individual cars, so that's part of it. you can do that, and that can be part of the plan right away. i wanted to highlight something that might have gone overlooked in debbie's excellent presentation about this great program work that they've been doing, and that is the importance of getting these funds down to the local community under cleanpowersf and potentially under a public
power system. as debbie said, you have to separate are yrenewable funds energy efficiency funds. as commissioner pollock noted, microgrids, all these things need to be installed together and they become much more cost effective and energy efficient. so we need to draw those funds down to the local level so we can combine these things together when we do these installations, and that's get to the next item, which is the importance of getting a sydney style local build out plan and hired experts to make that happened so integration can be planned out as if it's a big
always on power grade for the city. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thanks, chair fewer and commissioners. jed holtson. senior analyst for 350 bay area. i think we do a lot of work at the bay area quality management district, first of all, thank you to the department and debbie for her presentation and these data. getting actual gas out of existing buildings is really kind of the building piece that no one knows how we're going to get at. certainly compared to the rest area, san francisco has a very hold housing stock. i've lived here for 20 years and i don't think i've lived in a house newer than 1910.
the incentive structure for even pushing through energy efficiency is pretty much absent. i would also say anywhere we measure normal gas emissions, they're lower than expected, and so getting natural gas out of buildings has to be seen as part of energy efficiency, which debbie's data, it makes clear so anything that the city and county can do to get cpuc or funds at the state legislature, i think that's key getting to where we need to go. i would also say the presentation showed that there's an outstanding need for policy framework for the heating electrification which is basically building, water, and space heating, natural gas. something we've suggested that the air district institute future effective dates to ban the sale of natural gas furnaces in the bay area to
basicy put the marker down by x year, we're going to need to be total electric? that is something we can do at the local level while we are getting our ducks in a row, and i would suggest that we pursue that. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. thank you very much, director raphael for this. i have one question for you, and this is just something that just triggered my thought was that are we by any means promoting the discontinuation of water heaters, those really big gas ones that everyone installs in their homes or are we going -- i have one of these water heaters. we had one of those things that was heating water continuously.
and now, it's an electric things that goes through the pipes. like, they do it in germany and japan and everything else. and what are we -- are we doing anything about that? >> thank you for the question, chairman. we are. so with the bayren program we have a pilot where we're using district money to try to persuade a certain number of single-family homes as well as 250 multifamily to convert from natural gas water heating to heat pump electric water heating, and that was a pilot that just started in january and we're actively recruiting interested test homes. >> chair fewer: so i would love to work with you in my
districts because they have a lot of single-family homes, and they have these big water heaters. we converted maybe about seven years ago i guess to this new heating system, but i just think is so -- which i just think is so much more efficient. but i would love to partner with you if you're doing an upgrade in my district. >> i just want to say, we're also looking proactively at our building codes to try and make sure that we can have the latest version -- the best and most strict building codes so that as people do major remodels and as we have major construction, we're moving this in. it's a multipronged, but it's definitely coming back to the board of supervisors. we're going to need legislation and leadership to lead up to that. >> chair fewer: i would love to work with you on that. there is another public
commenter. did i close public comment, mad madam clerk? >> clerk: you can reopen. >> chair fewer: okay. we can reopen public comment. >> i know tha lot of things in getting things like mcdonald's and burger king to add to alternative power activities in the community. i wanted to know if the city had any feelings about that or willingness to work with those businesses or others on seeing through a vegetable diesel component to alternative energy experiments or funding of some sort in. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that would like to
comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. and thank you for your presentation. madam clerk, can you please call item five? >> clerk: yes. and just for the record, no action was taken on item four. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: mr. goebel, i think you have a presentation for us. >> yes. brian goebel, chief executive officer. today, i am asking for your request for qualifications for a renewable energy expert. as the sfpuc start developing their local energy access and a build out of local energy projects, this would allow us to have an energy expert in place at lafco to help provide
effective oversight feedback and what i hope are going to be some really graeat ideas. that person would work with lafco, community groups and other stakeholders to provide feedback during the capital planning process at the p.u.c. in an effort that supports clean energy for all san franciscans. this firm or person would ideally also have some experience on power issues to assist us there, should the need come from lafco. sfpuc staff, mike hyams who's here today are supportive for extending the m.o.u. for this purpose. i had a really great meeting with general manager harlan kelly, so i would work with commissioners, the advocates, other stakeholders to develop
the r.f.q., and i have one slight change to my recommendations. in your memo, i ask for authorization to issue an r.f.q. for cleanpowersf consulting services. i'd like to request we broaden the title to renewable energy expert. this gives us a little more flexibility in case we want to call on this person to advise us on energy issues outside of cleanpowersf. so with that, i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: sure. commissioners? commissioner pollock. >> commissioner pollock: sure. thank you -- excuse me. thank you, mr. goebel. i'm really excited that you want to broaden the scope just a bit? we learned a couple meetings ago that cleanpowersf could
potentially buy energy from a hetch hetchy project that is built out of renewables -- out of hetch hetchy and clean po r cleanpowersf. and i think if we have the scope so narrow, maybe we're missing that has to do with the operation which is included in the -- in the m.o.u. language but could be missed by just having it as a cleanpowersf consulting services. >> thank you, commissioner pollock, and i'll be happy to work with you on the r.f.q. and the language to make sure it's comprehensive. >> commissioner pollock: is there a reason that we're doing an r.f.q. instead of an r.f.p.? >> i think this gives us the option of potentially having a few experts if we want them, so we would qualify a firm or person to do work and then hand them a specific project.
>> commissioner pollock: and then, could you just summarize for us any amendments or feedback that you got from the sfpuc on this proposal? >> well, i will just tell you that the memo that i gave you was done with feedback from the p.u.c., and they particularly wanted me to address in the memo providing feedback on the integrated resource plan, which is really their road map for cleanpowersf going forward. and the job description that you have in your memo, as well, that was also -- that was also -- i got the advice of the p.u.c. on that, as well. >> commissioner pollock: okay. thank you. i know there are a number of updates that you receive from the p.u.c. just to keep this commission apprised of what's going on? and i think that the addition of this subject matter expert
could help in the way that you update commissioners on just the progress of the program so we aren't so reliant on the p.u.c. to give us incremental updates. >> for sure. thank you. >> commissioner pollock: if no one else has comments, i would like to move that the commission adopt and authorize the r.f.q. for executive officer to develop -- or to issue the request for qualifications for a renewable energy expert. >> chair fewer: thank you, commissioner. before we take a vote on that and make a motion, i think we should open it up for public comment. >> commissioner pollock: okay, my apologies. >> chair fewer: is there any member of the public that would like to comment on these items?
>> one more time, eric brooks. so i just want to stand in strong support of this motion. it's crucial that we do this first contracting process to get the ball rolling on a citywide and county wide local build out for renewable energy. so -- and i would also support expanding the scope because that's crucial. if we add public power. that totally changes the game and we've got to be able to have consultants to tell us what to do on that. just as a side note, if we adopt public power, we've got to make sure we're mandating these things. this is what we're going to do on clean energy under the public power system. i would just like to reiterate what i and many others have said over and over at this podium for last decade.
it's great to have consultants advise the p.u.c. on what to do with their integrated resource plan and what to do with their projects, but we need to make sure we're couching that within the vision of a sydney, australia style green new deal vision so that sfpuc vision is just a component. it leads to a whole thing in an integrated way as i just said on the last item so we're creating what's called a virtual power plant. the goal needs to be what's called a virtual power plant and that means you're implementing so many different types of energy, efficiency and battery storage it's like you've always got a 24-hour
always on power plant. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> jed holtsman. i would -- i do support this, and i'm sorry, i haven't gotten around to reading the proposal. -- that we need to meet our greenhouse gas targets as well as our kind of vision for workforce development and green jobs and local resiliency from earthquake, storm surge, sea level rise, etc. that we've all talked about or not. and just feeding into existing processes or not, i think, is -- is not necessarily
representing the discussion at this commission, i would say. i think the commission or the board of supervisors and/or the public of san francisco might already or at time goes on have a broader ambition or driving to take care of energy or climate issues than are being handles through existing sfpuc processes? so i think that this commission and this consultant or set of third parties needs to be able to analyze kind of the big picture of what it would take the city and county to get where it needs to go up to and including changing the charter in various ways. not suggesting that today, but very much dedicated to the goal -- excuse me -- to the goal rather than the process and kind of setting the process up to meet the goal that we want to meet most effectively. so i would hope that -- that
part of the advising and feedback to the sfpuc is be kind of a gap analysis of where we want to get to and what still needs to be done by on folks. thanks so much. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, madam chair. my name is bruce wolf from the haight-ashbury council. we're a members of san francisco advocates and californiians for energy choice. i agree with all the previous commenters, my colleagues, and just want to say it's an interesting and smart idea to do the r.f.q. that way, i agree, if you have -- can develop multiple projects and you have them all at the same time or close together so that we can achieve the goals faster. so i urge your aye vote.
>> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers for this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i believe there's a motion on the floor now. i'd like to second the motion by commissioner pollock, and if we can take that without objection, thank you very much. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item number six. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. mr. goebel. >> commissioner goebel: thank you, madam chair. brian goebel, executive officer. i'd like to update you on the study of on demand workers in san francisco. i've told you that our survey which will be the largest survey to date of on-demand workers in the u.s. is estimated to cost about $300,000. that figure was based on feedback from the washington state department of commerce which is conducting a similar survey? our survey will happen