tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 18, 2019 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
in the united states. in 2016 we rolled out an urban forestati forestation plan, and every year, we've failed it. in the last ten years, the sfpuc has removed 475 trees and planted 39. if we want to have a -- appreciated representative from the sfmta stated earlier, one of the keys to making them more walkable is more trees, so again, would i request that forestation be an important and prioritized action of any climate action plan. >> chair peskin: thank you. agreed. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition.
i also want to thank supervisor mandelman and the department for putting all this together. as many of you know, and if not, i'm happy to share more information, the biggest bang for your buck that we can get from an environmental perspective as a city and as a state is to put housing next to jobs in order to avoid people commuting for long period of times of time. a report found -- and these numbers are actually i'm told pretty conservative, about 250,000 people commute every day from the central valley to the bay area urban core. the majority of them by urban passenger car use, for the total city of san francisco, i've got the state numbers here. 38% of the state's total co2 come from passenger cars; but in total, about 25% of the
state's total pollution comes from people driving their vehicles. oftentimes to and from work because we don't build housing next to where we build jobs. that's why we're starting to see the nrdc and league of conservation voters speak up and say housing policy is an environmental policy when done right. there's an interesting article from the sierra club -- [inaudible] >> -- they actually had to clarify, and this is from their website, long-standing sierra club policy supports transit oriented policy, and this is supported by these principles. if we don't go after the biggest chunk of this, i frankly think we're wasting our time. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker.
[please stand by]. >> we would emphasize the recognition of specific local environmental justice communities by name, such as bayview-hunters point. identification of specific communities is crucial to the specific development of effective environmental policies that recognize each community's historical trajectory, economic and cultural context and lived experiences. several resources can help inform this identification. san francisco, the san francisco indicator project managed by the san francisco department of public health collects neighborhood level data on factors such as
proximity to contaminated sites, employment and incoming resident opportunity. bcdc has developed extensive digital maps of the bay area under the adapt tiff rising tides project. this includes community indicators such as the cost burdens of housing and transportation, income level and racial and ethnic composition. this resolution signals great promise to equity in san francisco. thank you all for your time and consideration and thank you supervisor mandelman for your important leadership on this issue. >> chair peskin: thank you so much. are there any other members of the public that would like to testify on this item number one? next speaker, please. >> i believe that the proposed declaration underscores the global proliferation of an
increasingly common feature of toadyism. there's clearly and factually no climate emergency in san francisco. some of the testimony i've heard today reflected selective bias of data and the false attribu attributions. nature tends to be self-correcting and our reservoirs are all full today. if you want to reduce global emissions related to public transportation and housing, for example, you can do so without the unnecessary alarmist packaging or framing. >> chair peskin: thank you. seeing no other members of the public for public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion
to adopt the afore mentioned amendments proposed by supervisor mandelman? moved by supervisor safai, and we will take that without objection, and we will send this to the full board with recommendation. supervisor safai? [inaudible] >> chair peskin: and we will add supervisor safai as a cosponsor. without objection, that will be the order. madam clerk -- oh, and supervisor clemandelman, if yol get the clerk a red line. next item, please. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. colleagues, if this file looks familiar, it's because it is familiar because we actually had the topic of office space
conversions in the c-3-r, the downtown zoning district, which is essentially around union square before this committee earlier this year at which time we duplicated the file and sent one back to planning with a $6 fee and the rest of it, we sent to the full board with some amendments about the third floor, and i indicated at that time -- i hate to throw him under the bus again, that billy rutland recommended we could take that to $6 a square foot, and everyone agreed with that, or at least they weren't that up set about it. the amendments that you have just distributed to you and given to miss flood earlier make it abundantly clear what we're doing, so those
amendments that are before you reflect the fee increase only on page four, line eight, along with additional findings in section two on page two and revised unchaptered section four on page four. we will hear from miss butkus in a moment, but unlike last week, i always to you it when the planning commission recommends it unanimously, and not talk about it when the planning commission does not recommend it unanimously, but regardless, miss butkus, the floor is yours to talk about. is there any public comment on
this? >> i wanted to thank supervisor miss kin f peskin for working with the property owners and business legislation and specifically the permit and controls that have already been adopted, and thank you also for the clarification that we are only addressing the fee today, so thank you. >> chair peskin: yeah, and just so everybody knows, when -- at the moment that we duplicated the file was before we had made the amendments with regard to the third floor, so hence the amendments that are before the committee today. thank you for all of your help in getting us here. and while we're all thanking one another, i really want to thank my staff who had to deal with all of you guys in the planning department and me these oh, so many months.
miss flood? >> yes. good afternoon, chair peskin, supervisors. karen flood, executive director of union square bid. also just wanted to thank you for making that clarify about third floor. i read the agenda and heread t handouts, and confirmed it hadn't been changed, but you confirmed it will be the same as the legislation already signed by the mayor. we're on board. >> chair peskin: and of course all of these dollars that are generated will be used for improvements in the c-3-r. >> we're looking forward to meeting with you to see how that process will work. >> chair peskin: you are going to drive that process. >> yes. and thank you very much for driving that process and getting us to where we are today. >> chair peskin: thank you,
of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco
cynthia somera. colleagues, can we have a motion to excuse commissioner gordon mar today? yes. moved by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner pollock. we can take this without objection. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clar madam clerk, do you have any announcements. >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you. madam clerk, can you please call item number two. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: do any of the commissioners have any changes to the minutes from the february 22 meeting? seeing no changes, i will open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item 2? seeing none, public comment is now closed. is there a motion to approve
the minutes? moved by commissioner pollock, seconded by commissioner ronen. motion it approved. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item three. [agenda item read]. >> good morning, commissioners. michael hyams, director of the cleanpowersf program for the public utilities commission. i have a short update for you as you can tell from the slides. i'm happy to answer any questions you have, and i know we have special guests here from the department of the environment, and i know there's be some discussion around that presentation.
i do thank you for the slides. just want to try to make a habit of providing you all with an update on our enrolment activities. and i think this is almost identical to the last meeting with the one exception, we had a slight uptick in our opt-out rate. it was 3.3%. i think last time we presented, it was 3.28%, so there was a little bit of a rounding. we also get upgrades, supergreenup grades, and i have some updates on that. i wanted to comment we are working really hard at the p.u.c. to prepare to upgrade more than 250,000 san francisco accounts cupping up in april. i had noticed the -- announced at the last meeting the
noticing that had begun. along with the noticing, we're seeing an uptick in activity with respect to customer calls, to our call center. we had almost 4,000 visits to our cleanpowersf website last week. that's up from 1200 the week before, so pretty dramatic. and on the call center side, call volume went up to 1200 calls last week, up from 240 the week before. so that's definitely the impact of the noticing. san franciscans are receiving the notices, they're taking a look at them, they have questions. so that's all very good. and i think as tyler gamble, communications director of the sfpuc last meeting detailed, we -- cleanpowersf is going to
be pretty visible in the city in the next couple of months. starting next week, you're going to start seeing cleanpowersf ads on muni. and this is -- one of the ads, you'll see something looking like this wrapped around the muni buses, trying to be light about what's going on, creative, hopefully get people's attention. and we've been -- we've been very active at various events. green family night, eco fair, arbor night, sunday streets. we're trying to be as visible at possible. i mentioned the supergreen earlier. we had, in one week, about a 7%
increase in our supergreen enrollment. i think the visibility is really having an effect. and i wanted to wrap up by -- i understand commissioner mar isn't here today, but he did ask a question at the last meeting about the pcia, and i committed to getting back. i believe his question was how much do san franciscans pay on the pcia? so i think during that meeting, the pcia represents commitments that pg&e made to serve san franciscans prior to the formation of our c.c.a. program, those costs are embedded in pg&e's normal rates, so every customer pays the costs that includes the pcia. when a customer moves into a ccia program, the pcia becomes
a cost of the program, continuing to show up in the pcia. so enrolled ccia customers this year will be contributing approximately $80 million a year in funds just through the pcia collections. to put that sort of into scale, into picture, we're projecting cleanpowersf generation revenues of about 160, $170 million. so that's a pretty big chunk. that's about a third of the total generation costs. and then citywide, it's about 120 million total. that includes some of the largest accounts we haven't yet enrolled in cleanpowersf. i'm going to stop there. if there's any questions, i'll entertain them, otherwise, i'll
turn it over to our next presenter. >> chair fewer: commissioner pollock. >> commissioner pollock: thank you. i appreciate so much to see that the advertising campaign will begin. i know that the last advertising that we saw was really about the supergreen opt in? and i hate to say i wasn't really a fan of the super hero part, but i just felt like it didn't communicate what people were doing. do you have some early information about what the opt-in advertising will look like? >> well, we moved away from the supergreen -- i mean, i'm sorry, the super hero green. so the messaging continues to be taking action about climate change, but it doesn't have
that, i don't know, kihschy super hero element to it. i guess what we did during the business enrollment last year, we moved to sort of a more businesslike approach. maybe a little less fun, but trying to really drive the message around, you know, what san franciscans can go to minimize their greenhouse gas footprint and address climate change, and this being one of the best and easiest ways san franciscans can take action. >> i think that's great. climate -- i mean, climate change is real, and it's serious, and i think giving people an actionable approach to that is really helpful, so if you. if, on your next visit or the next time that you present any sort of marketing materials,
would you give us a heads up and show us some of that? >> absolutely. >> commissioner pollock: okay. great. thank you so much. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you. commissioner ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i just noticed we had a classroom join us in the chambers, and i was wondering if you could explain what cleanpowersf is and why it's so important to our city. sure. hello, and welcome. so my name's mike, and i manage a program for the city called cleanpowersf. cleanpowersf is a new initiative where the city is attempting to transform our energy supply from polluting sources of energy to clean sources of energy, including things like wind power and solar power. so we're trying to make the electricity that we all rely on
every day when we turn the lights on, come from solar panels, the sun, the wind, and other forms of clean energy. i think we're doing a great job, but we need your help. we need your help to stay in the program and encourage our families to opt into our 100% renewable energy product. >> chair fewer: sure. that's a good plug. [applause] >> chair fewer: thank you. commissioners, any other questions or comments for mr. hyams? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public wishing to comment? welcome, mr. brooks. >> hello. eric brooks, san francisco
clean energy. it's important that pg&e and the other utilities know that, for example, in april, we're going to put hundreds of thousands of people more in the program. pg&e and the other utilities know that if they buy long-term contracts that are overly expensive, they don't have to worry about that, and they can have a higher pcia, a higher exit. that they can prepurchase contracts that are too expensive to make it harder for these little community choice programs to compete with them and that is because of the pcia. i've already mentioned ab-56. there's another one. sb-350, and it's senator
hertzberger again and what he tried to do with sb-357, which the lafco rejected last year. that one should be on your radar, too. and then hopefully, next month, i think next month is going to be a key month for the lafco to take positions on bills, and i'll send the bills to brian so that they'll get a tip off on what they're facing in this legislative session. thanks. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. brooks. any other member of the public wishing to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: there is no action for the commission to take, so madam clerk, will you
please call item number four. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you. we have san francisco environment director here to present, debbie raphael. miss raphael? >> thank you, commissioners. it's an honor to be here at lafco. it's been many years since i've been at lafco, and i'm excited to give you a bit of a context on energy efficiency, some interesting new graphs and slides that we've either been creating or discovered and then talk about the changing landscape and where we find ourselves today because it's a fairly unique setting. so first in terms of context, this is what we were talking about in terms of climate 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 wa