tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 21, 2019 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
more specificity on the ruling is shown in this light, as you can see the order establishes a 60 day shot clock for existing facilities and a 60 day shot clock for facilities. the purpose of the amendment first and foremost are to comply with the fcc order. over the last number of months the city departments including the department of technology, planning, public works have been meeting to develop effective and compliant approach to incorporate the fcc order into current processes. the proposed article 25 amendments includes amplification. maintain master license agreements for carriers and communicate the process alike. this slide shows a side-by-side comparison of timeline. the current process takes 90-180 days.
as i mentioned this process does take 90-180 days. this slide is the proposed changes that will impact the process. article 25 amendments to modify the existing permitting process only to include permit. they would similarly review authorizations for wireless abilities on the individual city poles. the permitting process would remain public works to ensure objective design standards and how standards are met. the amended process, the carriers would require clearance prior to their application before working with public works. still refer the application for review. the amended process approved
during the protest period. the appeal process would remain unchanged. it would ensure compliance with fcc order. this slide you can see the proposed process for puc. this process which was developed in coordination would comply with the new fcc order as well. [inaudible] a little bit of the objective design criteria.
as i mentioned the proposed ordinance amendments are supported and are available for question. >> thank you. let me just say, for the record, that the industry owns the united states congress. now that i have gotten that off of my chest. are there any questions from committee members? i think you have done the best with what you have got. thank you for your work, and thank you deputy city attorney sanders for this and thank you for the briefing you gave me in my office area. >> i believe sanders had given you some proposed -- >> i was just going to speak to
those right here. clerical amendments on the following pages. deputy city attorney gartner they are on -- non- substantial clerical amendments. he is nodding his head in the affirmative. we do not need to discuss section numbers 15, 22. i just did it. with that, are there members of the public who would like to testify on this item number 7? >> that is mr. wright. unlike you, i'm not scared of going up against a multibillion-dollar establishment. it was just a radioactive material that is being discharged by these towers that is built by schools. as a result, families, instructors, contract with the preschoolers located right by the tower, because of the radioactive generation that
affects the kids, and no scientific studies being done. it is causing the schools to shut down. and thinking about shutting down. you have no test results to measure the amount of radioactive material that is coming from these towers. about you being affiliated with pg&e, that is the worst he could do is be affiliated with them. the fires that they cause with several counties, caught on fire, about 1 million properties have been lost, and lives lost with defective equipment and it has just been determined that their equipment was notified, several years ago, that it was defective and it was just a matter of time before a fire would take place at a catastrophe level. they still didn't do anything about it. i further object to the governor providing $21 billion to pg&e to help them how their lawsuit area that is a conflict of interest. you're not supposed to be paying off pg&e's lawsuit.
just like me, pg&e has several different types of insurance, they should not be paid off with taxpayers money from their friends and paid off by gavin newsom because he is friends with pg&e. until there is a scientific study done on the amount of radioactive waste that is coming from them towers, and correlating with the health of human beings, particularly kids. i do not want this to move until that is complete. is that clear? >> thank you, mr. wright. i apologize for mispronouncing your name. you are hurting my feelings, because i unanimously passed -- i do want to say i have made a college industry fighting against billion-dollar companies. with that, public comment is closed. colleagues?
in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service.
it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community. >> chairwoman: the meeting will come to order. this is july 19, 2019, meeting. i am sandra lee fewer, and i am joined by commissioners jordan mar, matt haney. today we have john carroll as the clerk. and i would like to think the staff at s.f.gov tv
for recording today's meetings. >> please ensure you have silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices. and all documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you please call item number two. >> item 12 is approval of the lasco minutes from the may 22nd, 2019, rescheduled meeting. >> chairwoman: do any commissioners have any changes to the may 17th meeting? >> none. >> chairman: seeing none, do any members of the public have any comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? so moved. >> chairwoman: motion by commissioner singh, and sected by commissioner mar. we can take these minutes without objection. mr. clerk, please call item number three.
>> the community's aggregate community report. >> chairwoman: we have susan mercelson with updates and state legislation. and mr. hyam. i'm sorry, mr. global. >> we were hoping you could switch to number four. >> agenda item number 4 is the city of san francisco's tenure capital plan. >> chairman: them. heather graham is here to make a presentation. >> good morning, good afternoon, my name is heather green, and i'm the director of capital planning for the city of san francisco, and our deputy resilience officers. i was asked to present here today to give a little bit of city-wide context to the clean power
work and the capital planning that will happen there. i'm here to provide an overview of our city-wide capital planning. i will try to be brief in my comments, but if you have anything you would like me to pause and talk about further, then i'm happy to do so. our tenure capital plan is a constrained 10-year plan. we are in year 13, and it captures $39billion of planned i investments. what is helpful here is to know how the capital plan helps us. it helps us to have conversations and to understand priorities as we are gathering input from stakeholders, because this is a plan that is to represent all of the stakeholders. the conversations we have with your offices helps us
produce something that really reflects the will of the city. we do this every other year. we just approved the most recent one, as i said, and it is on departments to give us information about their buildings. their infrastructure needs and so on. we're coordinating and collecting, and we're a small office that tries to make sense of everything we receive. and we do some data-gathering of our own on the facilities' conditions, primarily. and we take all of the requests and organize and prioritize them into the plan, which you guys have all seen. and we make recommendations that capital planning committees, and the draft and proposed form goes to the mayor and board, ultimately, for approval. in the capital plan, we have some narrative contents and financial tables. we think about our resilience context, and we have long-standing funding principles that helps us make difficult decisions about what to do first.
that is always hard to do. we present an overview of a capital outlook, kind of how are we doing against our deferred, aging infrastructure needs. and we have a few ongoing programs, and our two primary debt programs. and then the plan is broken into service area chapters to help it make it more digestable. how do we think about this? our city has some known resilience challenges, and these are the kinds of things we think about when we think about what is most important. we have risks from earthquakes, from sea level rise and climate change, and af enforcement araffordabilitythat we can't igd the aging infrastructure itself, of course.
these are funding principles. the capital plan has tiered funding principles. so you can see most importantly we try to address any legal or regulatory mandate, protect life safety, enhance resilience, and ensure sustainability. these are things we're straight-up obligated to do as a city. and we want to promote economic development. and in this most recent capital plan, we had some language bowe about equity in the proceeding plan, and we ask departments to tell us how they're doing that -- what we hear about their priorities. this is the capital outlook i was referring to. sometimes people ask us, well, how do you know there is so much need in any given direction? and we often point to this backlog, which starts off in the capital plan, like on day one, at $800 million in our general fund department, and this
is facilities and right-of-way. we know we have a lot to do, and this helps us to make the case for our programs, continued increases over the years. we see the capital budget each year. if that meets the capital plan recommended funding level each year, we will just be able to address our annual need in fiscal '27. we're continuing to dig ourselves out, literally. it helps us make the case of dollars towards capital with one-time use, one-time need, and it can benefit us for years to come because as we take better care of ourselves, it becomes more affordable to do so. these are the types of policies we capture in the plan. we make recommendations about the pego program, and it helps us set a norm for funding levels. we have a performance target for our streets
that is ambitious but achievable. we have a.d.a. -related policy to improve the infrastructure for those who have accessability challenges, and then we acknowledge, you know, that sometimes enhancements are really urgent, enhancements are those things that are building new or replacing the aging infrastructure. there are two major debt programs we track. they are backed by the city asset, and our g.o. bonds, and you hear a lot about the latter especially. this gives us a sense of how the plan spending in the city is split. and our enterprise departments actually are the largest pot, being the airport port, the m.t.a., and t.u.c. all of the clean power s.f., and other spending is reflected in infrastructure and streets chapter, and you can see that $8 billion there, and
that is the p.u.c.'s 10-year number. and infrastructure and street spending is also capture there. that's the general fund number. something that we strive to do is to capture all sources as best we can. this helps alleviate the pressure on anyone one source and also acknowledge all of the spending potential across programs, so you can see when we consider all departments, that other debt, that greenpeac greenpeac f the party is much, much bigger. so that's an important way that we look at things, like thinking about all of the different pieces we can bring to bear, so that we use the dollars where they are really needed. because the color of money can be so important. another thing that we do, especially for the general
fund departments, is to kind of track what the recommended funding levels means for the ability to fund against what we are able to capture as a need. so, for example, we know that our public right-of-way has tremendous means, and we are only able, even if we go at the capital plan recommended levels, we're only able to fund a little more than half of that need. it is important for us to know what we are able to do and what we are not, so we can be transparent as a city, and deliver on what wecy say we'rwe say we're goingd not others. and just to see how we lay them out, we work with our office of public finance in the controller's office to look ahead at the full 10 years of our plan and think about where the need is going to hit. so here you see our general fund debt program, the certificates of
participation, and both the program and the bond program are constrained. that helps us make, you know, sometimes difficult decisions. the -- in the case of the c.o.p. program, it is 3.25% of annual fund discretionary revenue, is the cap on our overall debt. g.o. bonds we're all familiar with. we know that the affordable housing bond has gone up to $600 million, and we were able to capture that in the capital plan as well. having those conversations ahead of time, making sure that they're documented, making sure it is clear where we need to look, so we can remember we all agreed to something like that, has been very helpful, and may be helpful to clear power s.f. as well. and the bond is constrained against our property tax line -- that's the red line you see there.
all of this planning, i like to remind everyone, is really helpful at the ballot box. in terms of continuing to build constituent trust and accountability, having a plan like this helps us to make the case. and what you see here is the light ble blue line is the publication of the first capital plan, and all of the blue lines are what have passed since then. and as you can see, there is trust problems. on the infrastructure and streets part of the plans -- that's where clean power s.f. is. it is a chapter really with just two departments reflected, public works, where we talk about all of the right-of-way maintenance that they do, and the p.u.c., the waste water and hedgy enterprises. we capture the p.u.c. and
enterprises at a relatively high level in the capital plan. the p.u.c. has its own capital team and project managers and so on. they do a lot of work that we benefit from and are able to capture but are not involved necessary day to day in the programming and prioritizing. but we do try to document the system at hand, what the power enterprise is comprised of. and then there are -- we do have a financial table, which i'll show in a second. and the funds identified there, the $360 million for the power enterprise that is planned over the next 10years is spelled out for the following projects upgrading and installing new street lights, improving energy-efficiency, providing utility operations to treasure island and other developments, and new transmission and distribution facilities.
you can see that planned expenditures are broken by power and water, and then the revenues down below for power are called out. and this s, this i is the level documentation that we have. and we have longer descriptions of each of the project programs, which i'm happy to share with you, if you would rather not have me read out loud, and is available in the plan itself. that's what we see of clean power s.f., and we are very much aware that this is evolving and about to grow, and so just talking with the p.u.c. team here, looking forward to working together and offering any benefits that we can from our years of producing a plan like this. i'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> chairwoman: thank you
very much. colleagues, any questions or comments? none? that was a very thorough presentation. this is opened up for public comment. any members of the public like to speak on this item? mr. brooks, good to see you. >> good to see you all, too. eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. so just to kind of reiterate where i've said before, if i were the head of the s.f. p.u.c., and the power enterprise, that is the plan i would put together because the p.u.c. is an enterprise department that is supposed to focus mainly on a conservative approach and protect rate-payers. so there is nothing wrong with what the s.f. p.u.c. just showed to you. but it shows that. s.f. p.u.c. is not the place where we're going to get a city build-out that
will reverse the climate crisis. produced locally and regionly by 2030, which is what it is going to take to overcome the crisis. when ab117 was created, it put the elected body in charge of the program, and that's the clean s.f. board of supervisors. that's where we need a city-wide buildout plan to come from. it is so important that you hire a contractor as soon as you can so we can get that plan planned out so that we don't have to try to put a square peg through a round hole and ask the s.f. p.u.c. to to somethindosomething they're not designed to do. i know i've said that before, but it bears repeating. according to the puicc, we've only got 10 years left. so we need to do a massive
build out of renewables, efficiency, and battery storage in this city. the way that is going to happen is through the board of supervisors. thanks. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you, chair fewer and commissioners. jed holton for the 350 bay area. and it is nice to be here and to see everyone. i look forward to diving more into this process and these numbers. i've never really paid attention to our city's capital planning before. i'm curious if, you know, 3.25% -- people don't like having a lot of debt, but they also complain a lot about the city. if that were jacked up to 3.50, if we were able to meet our backlog substantially earlier than 2027. to the specific issues of clean power s.f., and a local buildout of renewables and efficiency, i noticed in the plan document that renewable development was getting a
million a year in the capital plan, and energy-efficiency was getting a million a year also. that's what it looked like in the sheet that was shown. i guess to eric's point, a million a year for renewables, and a million a year for efficiency is better than zero, but in terms of looking at a long-term strategic, what we actually need, what we want, it is, of course, not remotely meeting those. so i think this really is -- this information is what we need to kind of provide -- to kind of do a gap analysis in terms of where are we now? what are we planning now? >> chairwoman: how many resources? >> exactly. that gap in kind of renewables and efficiency that we still want to add on top of our current capital planning would be kind of what we would hope that the contractor that the r.f.q. will be able to
result in, with a comprehensive plan and developing the work force in san francisco. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. we do not have to take action on this item. thank you very much. thank you very much, ms. green. mr. clerk, will you call item number three again. thank you. >> item number three is the commune choice aggregation activities report. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. mr. heims? >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael heims, i'm the director of the clean s.f.
program for the public utilities commission. nice to see you all again. i wanted to make one quick comment before i provide our content here about the last presentation, and more a point of clarification about some of the materials you saw at the very end of that screen. what ms. green was the existing capital plan for hedge gey power. and some of the values that were noted, one million dollars a year, those are related to the hedgy capital plan. we're starting the development of the very first clean power capital plan -- >> chairwoman: so it will have its on capital plan? >> yeah. and having the idea of ms. green come here was to start a foundation on the capital planning process, and we're going to build from that, and talk a lot more about what the p.u.c. is going to do. >> chairman
>> chairwoman: >> today i'm going to cover our usual customer enrollment update that we provide every meeting. and we're going to provide a high-level year-end review. we just finished a fiscal year, and we thought it would be appropriate to take a moment to reflect on what has been accomplished. and we're going to provide an update on state legislative activity, which has been hot. so as i think we've reported before, we sc now have now enrolled more than 400,000 customer accounts into clean power s.f. as of this past week, we have a 3.4% opt-out rate in the program, or 97% retention rate. that's about 4/10ths higher than when we reported to you in may. our super green upgrade rate is 1.6 particulars, a
tenth of a pe percent higher. and that's just 1% lower than our department goal for super green when we launched the program. i will comment before we conducted the very large enrollment, we were actually over our goal for that initial enrollment. i think we were at about 6%. so we're building it back up, and it is one customer at a time. so as i mentioned, we just wrapped up fiscal year ending 2019. as syth yo i think you know, it has been a really big year for clean power s.f. we have a few slides to reflect on what has been
accomplished by the city. first, the total number of accounts enrolled by the program has jumped from 88,000 to more than 400,000 in just one year. that is 312,000 increase, almost 360% year over year growth. and we've maintained low opt-out rates during this time period. i mentioned 3.4%. that is lower than the 5% to 7% we had been actually forecasting to. that puts that into context is little bit for you. while managing this large enrollment process, we have managed to continue to get a significant number of costumers to opt up to super green. at the start of the fiscal year, we had about 3420 businesses and homes enrolled, in the past 12 months, we've nearly
doubled that number. that's about an 80% jump year over year. this is an area we'll be pushing hard on in this upcoming year, increasing these numbers. we're working on an employee upgrade challenge. this is something that we're focusing on to coincide with energy awareness month in october. we're going to be working with the other bay area community choice aggregation programs to target employees of major 100% renewable companies that have signed up in our respective communities, to try to target their employees to upgrade as well. we're going to be expanding our super green digital campaign. we intend to continued to hold events and work with advocates. we've done phone banking in the past with various advocate groups, and we'll continue that effort. and generally, we want to try to build our super green community and
awareness of that community. we've had a number of businesses, like the new wheel in bernal heights, and yoga in the mission sign up. a number of these costumers are featured on a new web page that we've added on our website. we call it "the super green spotlight." so if some of you want to see some of the partners that have agreed to let us disclose they're a customer of ours, and also we're doing some co-marketing with. so, of course, along with our jump-in enrollment is electricity sales. our average program energy program increased from 63 megawatts to 240 megawatts average for this past fiscal year -- excuse me, from 2018 over
to 2019. we're forecasting that our average sales for this current fiscal year will be about 340 megawatts average. that's accounting for a full year of sales with all of the costumers we enrolled over the past year in the program. in actuality, it is about a 540% increase in our demand as a result of the enrollment over the past year. with the significant growth and demand, the p.u.c. has also had to significantly increase our power supplies to serve the program. and we've been able to do that while also delivering more renewable energy and clean power to san francisco. to put this in perspective, procedure to launching clean power s.f. in 2015, the renewable energy content was about
26% of its total power supply mix. in 2018, clean power s.f. delivered a portfolio that was 48% california certified renewable energy. this year we're expecting at least 50% california certified renewable. to deliver that percentage, we've had to increase our renewable energy purchases by 300%, so th >> we've also made some
progress on program development. we expanded our net energy meeting enrollment to more than 8400 customer accounts. energy meters supports costumers with clean powered solar. and we also launched a new peak-day pricing pilot program for large commercial costumers in may. it provides incentives to customer to reduce their electricity on days in the summer when demand on the grid is the most extreme. it happens to be that the reduction that comes along with this also happens when emissions on the grid, the greenhouse gas emissions are the highest. customer programs is an area that we're going to be focusing on in the coming months and year, as we seek to roll out more complimentary services for
clean power s.f. costumers, with a goal of facilitating more and local investment in clean energy technologies and furthering our efforts to reduce san francisco's contribution to global climate change. and last year in our review, but definitely not least, in support of our massive enrollment effort, the s.f. p.u.c. communications and power teams have been getting the word out through all means necessary, including mailing, hitting the streets and going directly to our costumers. we sent more than a million enrollment notices over two major enrollment periods that occurred in july and april. we contacted over 180 organizations in the community that represent our electricity consumer base in one way or other. we conducted over 35 presentations, and we
staffed 68 communities events with content in six languages. and we -- recently our team was at the one richmond community party, and we've been participating in every sunday streets events, and last week we were at the mission, and we're getting positive reaction from people at those events. that's sort of a snapshot of what has been accomplished. i think it really has been a banner year for clean power in san francisco, and so with thanks for being here i'm goinwith that, ie rest of the presentation to susanne, and we're happy to take questions when she is done. >> chairwoman: if you don't mind, let's see if we have any questions
about this portion. >> sure. >> chairwoman: commissioner singh? >> yeah, i have a quick one. i was wondering is it possible for disclosing businesses -- are there businesses who are willing to disclose they're participating in the super green program, to maybe promote in their physical locations, if they have any? that they're a participant? >> yes. in fact, all of them do that. >> oh, they do? >> yes. i think that has been a motivator for them, too. i think they see in many cases our values are very aligned, in terms of our mission, and they want to promote to their costumers that they're participating. >> great. >> so we have decals and other things we do. we've been doing sort of events with some of those costumers as well. >> great. that was my only question. >> chairwoman: thanks. commissioner mar? >> thanks for the great presentation and all of the great work over the
past year. it is really exciting to see where things are at with clean power s.f. i just had a question about the move towards renewable -- california certified renewable energy in the portfolio. it looks like you said there was a slight increase from 48% to 50% in 2019, of renewable energy in the portfolio. i just wanted to know, very briefly, what sort of the plan is to get to 100%, and what the timeframe is. >> yeah. so...one thing i want to also point out is there are different definitions of renewable out there. there is the state renewable portfolio standard program which defines deniewbles that renewabt are eligible for
compliance in that program. and there are other ts technologies, like large hydro, that deliver clean energy, that while not eligible for that state program are still renewable resources. and when you look at clean power's total portfolio, when you account for some of the hydro electric that we're also acquiring, it is much closer to, like, 90%. so i weren't to point that wantt out. there are two things coming up in this next year: one is the capital plan that i mentioned before. the other is our 2020 integrated resource plan, which is due in the spring of next year. so we are starting both of those. those are happening on sort of a parallel paneling. and that integrated resource plan is a -- it's an 11-year plan, and it's out to 2030, which happens
to coincide with the city and county's target of eliminating greenhouse gases from our electric supply. we use that plan to support our long-term planning effort to get the city to renewable power. we prepared one in 2018, our first plan. we're building from that. and really diving much deeper into local resources. but to answer your question, that planning vehicle is really where the pathway for achieving that goal will be developed. and i think we're going to be looking at a number of scenarios, but our sort of base case is that we will ramp our sort of certified renewable power supply up to about 70% by 2030, with something like about 30% of hydro in our mix to achieve that overall goal
of eliminating greenhouse gases. but in this next planning cycle, we will look very closely at various scenarios, how decarbonizing other sectors may impact that, and whether we may need to source from other supplies, other than hydro, for example. so i hope i answered your question. there will be more information coming on the how we're getting there over the next six months. yeah. >> chairwoman: i just have a question, also, about your partnership with businesses. are you also partnering with the department of environment about their green business -- >> yes, absolutely. very closely. >> chairwoman: is there such a thing as a super green business award? >> there heartbeat hasn't been,. >> chairwoman: you might want to think about it. >> interesting idea. >> chairwoman: the ones that are already green, they may want to up it to super green awards. >> certainly for a company
that helps us get other companies involved. >> chairwoman: yes. and they actually really like that they have that award because it makes them look green be environmentally-friendly. i think if they were a super green -- and then your outreach, are you doing an evaluation on how successful every outreach event is? >> yes. so we keep records of how every event went in terms of contacts with individuals. we track upgrades that happen either at the event or around the event. sometimes consumers actually sign up through our staff that are located at the event, at a table. other times there is just a conversation, and they go home and do it online. so we keep pretty close track of that. if you'd like to hear more stats about how it is performed over the past year, we'd be happy to come back.
>> chairwoman: i just want to make sure that we are getting good response from our costumers who are not english speakers, or mono lingual chinese or mono lingual spanish, that we're doing adequate outreach and that we're getting good results from them. >> sure. another initiative of the s.f. p.u.c., is we've established an equity project, really focused at ensuring that the program and any services we provide sort of related to clean power s.f. prioritizes equity in its outreach and its design. that is something that is ongoing now, and we're going to be gathering some information from the community to really try to inform that work that i mentioned ementioned earlier on programs. it relates to who is aware
of the super green opportunity and who is taking advantage of it, too. >> chairwoman: great. and also our use of non-english newspapers, that type of thing, i think is really great. okay. thank you very much. so, mr. merckelson, maybe on legislation that is pending at our state level. thank you, mr. heims. >> name is susanne merckelson, and i'm happy to be with you today. we're currently at legislative summer break. that means that all bills must have passed, at the policy committees, in their second house. we've seen some movement on a few of the bills that we've been watching. some will not be advancing this year. the first one i want to talk about is ad56. we updated you on this before. the s.f. p.u.c. is opposed
to this bill, along with cal c.c.a. it would designate an existing state agencies as a central buyer, procuring energy, including c.c.a.s, like clean power s.f. last week the bill failed enough to get votes, which makes it a two-year bill, meaning it will then carry over to next year's legislative session, but will not pass this year. the author has indicated he is interested on working on different proposals. we plan on engaging on this issue, via cal c.c.a., as well as on our own. the next bill is sp155. this concerns p.u.c.'s review of renewable portfolio standards and integrated resource plan requirements for low-serving entities such as c.c.a.s cal c.c. as has been opposed to this bill, and we have shared
their concerns. it would reduce c.c.a.s flecks abilitc.c.a.sflexibility. cal c.c.a. has worked to negotiate compromised amendments, and the author has agreed to put those into the bill. they address those concerns we had with p.u.c. procurement. we are expecting to see the amendment in print very soon and we'll continue engaging on that bill as well. and then lastly, i wanted to talk about a ab1054. it was the urgent see bill concerning wildfires and utility financial stability. it passed last weekend and was already signed by the governor. this one one of the governor's top priorities this year. it was motivated both by wanting to make victims of
recent fires whole, as well as, you know, looking at a potential credit rating downgrade. so the bill establishes two separate wildfire funds that the utilities can choose to participate in. a liquidity fund and an insurance fund. it also requires additional grid-hardening measures. and it also includes a safety certification process for those utilities. as you're probably aware, there were some additional amendments added friday evening, on july 5th. these are problematic. if san francisco does decide to go ahead with the acquisition of pg&e assets in the city. these late, last-minute amendments would expand p.c. u.'s authority over those that acquire the for-profit assets.
given that it was urgency legislation, the timelines did not allow us to make amendments to the bill during the bill process. our entire delegation, senator weiner and schue voted against the bill. and the mayors of san francisco and oakland called out concerns with some of the last-minute amendments, and then a resolution from the board of supervisors which supported the bill, only if amendmented amended to removt last-minute legislation. right now mayor breed's office is in contact with governor newsom's office about addressing these concerns. meanwhile, we're continuing to move forward with our study on public power options and remain committed to finding a solution that provides safe, reliability electricity for the city.
>> chairwoman: any comments or questions? >> are there any sort of limitations -- due to the fact that this was an urgency bill, are there any sort of limitations within its provisions that might sort of help us get around it is hampering the ability for us to potentially look at municipalization down the road? >> it is an urgency bill, but it is still a bill, and it actually takes affect immediately as an urgency bill. what we would be looking to do and what the mayor's office is speaking with the governor's office about is about other ways of amending that bill. you can amend laws that are already in existence. so that's essentially what we would be looking to do. >> so looking towards the next legislative session, potentially? >> yes, or potentially this year. >> chairwoman: i have one question. if senate bill 155 is amended, we would support that? >> i don't think we would support it. we have to look at the exact language and really
analyze it and make sure it addresses all of our concerns. but at the very least, we would -- we're currently not opposing the bill as s.f. p.u.c. we have been engaging with the bill as cal c.c.a., and so we would talk with cal c.c.a. about removing their position and going towards a neutral position. >> chairwoman: any other questions or comments? seeing none, no action is required by this committee, were l we will take public comment. any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three? >> good afternoon, again, eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice, and i'm with the california green party and the local green party. so i'll focus more son on future agenda items, ab1054 is far worse than just blocking public
power, is does some profound things that are even worse than that. i want to focus, again, on local buildout. it is reassuring to hear from mike heims that they are going to have a plan next year for some kind of renewable energy buildout, but i don't think that's going to change what i said, that it is not the s.f. p.u.c.'s role to do the kind of build-out we're talking about. the numbers we just saw are really troubling. so 70% is not 100% by 2030. and, also, it doesn't make any sense to count large hydro because that's already there. it's not newly built renewable energy. that doesn't solve any of the problem of the climate crisis. we need to build new renewable energy resources and efficiency and storage, and we need to do it locally because of line loss over long distance
transmission lines, and because of the fire danger of long-range transmission lines. we need to build renewable energy in our own community and in this region so that 100% of our energy comes from renewables by 2030 from our region. the more we're locally independent that way, the easier it is to turn off the long-range transmission lines when there is fire danger. the more autonomous we, and the big, huge rate increases that ab1054 will hoist on rate-payer, will be something that we -- [buzzer] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> jed holtzman, 350 bay area. certainly back in 2013, it did not look like this was going to happen.
i'm surprised that i haven't heard about, like, the party yet, like the city has finally enrolled party. i'm sure they're too busy fighting off bad legislation, but i look forward to my invitation. the advertisements that we see around town for our city, our power, i think it is a lot more affective than what we had going on before. my hope is hearing what they're planning on focusing on over the next year with customer programs and kind of increasing super green buy-in, that we're on the right track in terms of getting messaging out that people actually pay attention to. in terms of customer programs, i want to highlight the need for us to pay attention to heat-pump water heating and space heating, and how people are going to pay in existing buildings for kind of decarbonizing their homes. berkeley just passed an ord naordinance to ban natural
gas pipes in new construction. we'll be pushing that throughout the bay area. that is all good for new construction, but for existing buildings, how is the decarbonization of space and water heating going to be financed. [buzzer] >> we might look at how we may transition, folks, to building decarbonization, at least in more low income communities that will be less able to do that. to the point of 70% renewable energy to commissioner mar's question, we should really aim to get to 100% california renewable energy. if we still have hedgy power, if we're lucky enough not to have doubts -- [buzzer] >> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other public comments? seen none, public comment is now closed. the committees is not required to make an action
on this item. mr. clerk, will you please call item number five. >> item five is an authorization to accept a grant in the amount of $100,000 from the bay area work founders collaborative for on-demand workers. >> chairwoman: so this is a super-exciting item. i'm looking forward to hearing more about this area of work since we're getting some national recognition on it. so do you have an update on this item? >> thank you, madam chair and commissioners. brian global, executive officer. i'm very excited about this today. the resolution before you would authorize lavco to accept a $100,000 grant. it will help with our survey of on-demand workers. this will be the first time in history of san
francisco lavco that the agency accepts outside funding. we will be able to develop partnerships with outside funders to support the work we do at lavco. it is made up of funders, workers, advocates, and employers, who are working together to build an equitable regional economy. the san francisco foundation, as i'm sure you know, is one of the largest community foundations in the country, and committed to expanding opportunity. and when i first met and presented to them, they were really excited about the study. the grant is going to support the survey team's work in phase 2, which is the actual data-gathering and survey of thousands of on-demand workers in san francisco. not only will it be one of the largest