item number four. >> item four, ordinance approving a contradiction in the city and county of san francisco and the western renewable energy generation information system. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe we have bart and the puc on this item. >> good morning, government affairs manager with the sfpuc. i am here today to talk about an ordinance regarding agreements for the tracking of environmental attributes. environmental attributes are things like renewable energy credits that are generated when it renewable electricity is created. it includes things like cap and trade emissions of said, which are created when you undergo an activity that actually reduces greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the planting of trees, emissions allowances, which are actually impacting the environment but it loud and emitter of greenhouse gases to actually do that.

and then, low carbon fuel credits, which are part of the air resources's board effort to reduce transportation and fuel and backs in terms of climate change in greenhouse gases. the ordinance before you does three primary things. first, it authorizes agreements with the western renewable energy generation information system, which we call regis, and that is for the certification and tracking of renewable energy credits associated with the city renewable electricity generation the second thing that it does is it waves some city contacted requirements in the san francisco administrative code, primarily because these agreements are standard agreements that the city has no authority to change. so it cannot conform id to our contract in requirements. the third thing that the ordinance does is it authorizes the general manager of the puc

to execute similar agreements to track environmental attributes. starting with the regis contract, the western renewable energy generation information system is a nonprofit credit by the california energy commission, along with other western states and provinces. it is the only entity that is permitted to certify and track renewable energy credits for the purpose of utility compliance with the renewable energy procurement requirements of the state. the agreement works very much like a bank account, so the account is for keeping renewable energy credits, somewhat to currency in the bank account. it certifies the number of regs that are created. and they store those for later demonstrations of compliance with the state law.

to do these services, they come with modest fees. the fis and the contractor very minimal. for example, if the puc were to register and certify all of the electric generation associated with our solar facilities, the cost would be $4,500 per year, so very modest indeed. if we were to certify all of our hetch hetchy generation and also certify all the generation that may be necessary to launch phase one of the clean powersf committee choice aggregation programs, that would max out at $32,000 a year. still a very modest cost in relation to other contracts. the next part of this ordinance has to do with the labors of the administrative code and include things like the competitive

procurement. this is the sole source contracts. no one else can do this for us. automatic renewal but a the contract automatically renews when you pay your annual fee each year. the macbride principles related to northern ireland. they do not really apply, but these types of waivers are basically things that are smart for other contracts but because the city has no authority to amend this contract, we need waivers for those. the third thing this ordinance does is it gives opposition to the general manager of the puc to enter similar contracts for the tracking and certification of environmental attributes. there are several regulatory proceedings that are going on now for the sfpuc expects that there will be similar contracts such as this coming forward, associated with emissions allowances and offsets, possibly

low carbon field credits. so this authorization is the general manager the ability to be nimble in our response. we need to be nimble in this situation. the reason is that they are very tight deadlines that associated when you launch these new programs, and you typically create a rash of entities that are seeking qualification. if you look at the regis situation, the city must register all of our generation that is renewable by july 1, 2012. right now, public utilities across the state and other generation entities are doing the same thing. they are trying to get their facilities registered. so, delays that might be caused by going to the board for approval at what are actually very modest costs could actually result in a loss in value for

the city or a loss in terms of financial value or perhaps a loss in compliance value. just a few things to keep in mind about this authorization to go again, these contracts are standard and not negotiable. they are required for full participation in compliance with state law. the deadlines are tight. the delays and risk losing some of the values. costs are very modest. it concludes not to exceed its limits, which is $1 million for the contract and $2.5 million for all the other environmental attributes. finally, these costs are reviewed in the budget, as a it is available for the board to review and approve the budget process. that is the contract. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. supervisor kim: i and a stand

with regis that we're limited in our ability to negotiate a contract because of requirements set by the state. so when asked to also be allowed to go into a future in agreements with other entities, are we assuming that these entities will have similar restrictions? >> we are anticipating that. the air resources board has released an rfp for a third- party entity to administer emissions allowances. this city will be issued those emissions allowances by the air resources board, and we will be expected to auction goes off in order to offset the cost of the cap and trade program to our rate payers. it is expected that these will be most likely very similar to what has been done by the energy commission with regis, which is a nonprofit entity that is non- partisan, neutral, and they can go in and look at it in a very

factual way to certify whatever the environmental attribute is in question. supervisor kim: it will not be competing entities that are able to monitor the same types of things. it is more that it'll be a different entity that will monitor a different attributes. >> yes. supervisor kim: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members, as shown on page 7 of our report, this is in table one. as the department has indicated -- i should say tables one into the, the cost to the puc would range annually from $4532 to $32,545. as the department has also indicated, this allows the puc

to enter into other similar agreements in the future to track environmental attributes without obtaining a court to revise our approval. any additional cost would be subject to annual appropriation approval by the board and would only allow the puc to enter into other agreements up to $2.5 million dollars. that is the cap. these are state requirements. our recommendation is that you do approve the agreement theregis. however, we consider approval to the proposed ordinance as it relates to the general manager of the puc to enter into similar agreements without getting supervisors approval to the apology -- to be a policy decision for the board. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open it up for public comment. any members of the public that wish to speak?

♪ >> you go out tracking after midnight out in the moonlight searching for the budget like you do you go out tracking in the moonlight searching for budget money for the environment like you do you go out walking and i hope you track the budget good luck to you ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. other members of the public who wish to speak on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, the item is before us. ok, we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you. item five, please. >> item number 5, resolution

placing funds intended for defense and special circumstances cases on controller reserves and adopting guidelines for receipt -- for release of such funds. supervisor chu: thank you. i know there are a number of folks in the audience here. another is a representative from the courts. our public defender is here. and of course supervisor campos is here, the sponsoring supervisor. supervisor campos: thank you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce this item and speak about this item. i also want to thank the budget and legislative analysts for their report. i want to let knowledge that we have our public defender here, as well as the chief attorney for the public defender's office. former supervisor is here. here on a different matter is the police commissioner. this is a pretty common sense to call item that request that

funds be transferred from an existing fiscal year 2011-2012 for mandated legal services account into a newly created indigent defense of special circumstances reserve account of the transfer of this money is not only consistent with the legal obligations that we, as a city and county, have with respect to the legal representation to individuals, but it is also consistent with the practice that we have had for more than two decades, where these funds have been made available for cases not only involving the death penalty but also cases that could result in life without the possibility of parole. i recognize that there is the difference of opinion in terms of how a particular judge reads a specific section of the penal code, but what i would say is that the transfer of the money at issue goes beyond what the

requirements of 987.9 of the penal code are. it is very clear that we have a constitutional mandate and a mandate that is codified in other sections of various codes, including the evidence code, to provide adequate representation to individuals. and the case law that has handled and dealt with these issues is very clear. we see in the report of the budget analyst sighting of a 1984 case, but there are other cases that make it clear that the obligation to provide adequate legal representation and to make sure that the legal representation that is provided is effective, necessarily implicates providing payment for some of these services. with that in mind, i think that this is something that makes a lot of sense.

and i would simply ask every question to the city attorney's office comic event that we have it effort -- city attorney's office, given that we have a difference of opinion in the coach section. what specifically is being asked of the board of supervisors? it is pinera and discrete action, which is to assembly approved the transfer of funds in the adoption of specific guidelines to be followed. and we have every right in the authority to do that. so if i may, through the chair, ask cheryl adams. >> you are correct, this is a distinct transaction, and movement of money that already exist in the budget, changing the name of the appropriation and placing it on a reserve and establishing criteria for the release of the reserve. it is not an expenditure of that money. supervisor campos: great. with that, i would simply ask my colleagues to move this item forward. if you have any of this of the questions coming as a more than happy to address them.

we also have the public defender and the chief attorney who are here in the event that any questions as well. supervisor chu: thank you. i will like to offer the public defender an opportunity to say a few words on this item. >> thank you very much, supervisors, for hearing this resolution today, and thank you, supervisor campos, for sponsoring it. for as long as i have been public defender and even before then, this fund has been established in order to allow our office, as well as the superior court, the indigent defense program, to provide representation in cases where individuals were charged with death penalty offenses and/or special circumstances offenses where a person faces the possibility of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. the reason why this fund was established as for three reasons. one, we cannot anticipate these

cases which are investing in of, intensive, as well as cost intensive because of the need for expert witnesses. these typically involve dna evidence. they also involve extraordinary costs that are not currently budgeted within the public defender or the superior court's current budgets. second, we need to respond quickly to these cases. we cannot come back on the case by case basis to the board of supervisors to seek funding in these cases. often, the preliminary hearings are held within a matter of weeks, if not months, and we need to begin providing representation in these cases. third, under both the penal code as well as the california supreme court, these cases,

expenditures in these cases must remain confidential. for that reason, we have set up a procedure in the past that involved a confidential court review of expenditures. the reason why we are seeking this resolution is that the presiding judge of the superior court has recently determined that the court will not be making determinations in cases where special circumstances are charged, the person is facing life without possibility of parole. so what this does is essentially allows the controller's office to make that determination. so this resolution is joined by the superior court, as carmen chu indicated. we have someone here on behalf of the court, as well as the controller's office. i will answer any questions. supervisor kim: tuesday quick

question. i appreciate the intent of this resolution. the request was made by the superior court and public defenders, and the vast majority of them have been four defendants -- have been for defendants for cases that can result in life without possibility of parole. >> there are actually three categories of cases could of their cases are the district attorney has elected not to seek the death penalty, but it has charged special circumstances. special circumstances are specific factual allegations that have to be proven in court, which would result in a sentence of life without possibility of parole. there are also cases where the district attorney has charged that the death penalty but has not made a decision as to whether to seek the death penalty. there is a third category of cases which starts off as death penalty cases that the district

attorney's later he lacks on the record not to seek the death penalty. those are the three categories of cases. my understanding is that superior court was still review cases where there had not been a determination not to seek the death penalty. however, the other two category of cases, either cases where the death penalty was not charged that life without possibility of parole was sought or in cases where there was a later determination not to seek the death penalty, those category of cases would be submitted to the controller for its approval. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. a question for either the mayor's budget office or to the department. with regards to your budget for this special, whether it is expert testimony or other services that are needed for these types of cases, do you have existing resources within your budget to actually address

some of those? do you necessarily have to tap into this special pot of money? do you have >> we do not, currently we have funding that is available to handle what we would call a non special circumstances, mental- health cases, misdemeanor cases, all the cases that our department currently handles. what we don't have adequate funding for is the special circumstance in death penalty eligible cases. it is only in those cases that we would be seeking the funding. part of the requirement is that we would submit documentation to ensure that we would only be using these funds in cases where special circumstances were charged. these funds, once provided by

the comptroller are put into a separate account. there is a trust fund created for each and every case. those expenditures will be monitored by the comptroller. supervisor kim: confirm this for me, you have the amount set aside for not special circumstance cases, but there is no restriction on the funding to be used for special circumstance cases. you might make the argument that there won't be enough money in there. correct? >> we definitely don't have the funding allocated. to give you an example, when requests in a special circumstances life without possibility of parole case, one

individual request would probably wipe out the entire allocation for all of the alohor cases. supervisor kim: to you would make the argument that it is not enough. supervisor chu: if there are no other questions, let me invite of michael from the courts to add any comments. >> in short, what we have here is not necessarily a dispute between the public defender has a realignment of authority to allocate funds. realigning the authority back to the policy-making body of the city and county of san francisco. the interpretation of the penal code as it stands by the judge that considers these requests,

she is only authorized to sign off on this funding for two types of cases. since cases and cases where the defendant has a prior prison term for murder in the first to second degree. we agree that these are cases that need special funding. we don't believe it is the role of the court. this is not our money. we believe it is more appropriate for the policy- making body to make that call. we support the usage of these funds for special circumstances cases. this is money that has already been set aside for this purpose, it is simply continuing past practice but with different procedure. we're supportive of this

resolution and i am also happy to answer any questions. supervisor kim: this is the part that i found a little bit confusing. previously, the superior court of the cult -- or the public defender would make requests of the fund. but of the superior court judges the interpretation of the penal code as the way the fund is currently allocated, it does not allow antabuse for cases that don't involve the death penalty. if we change this through the resolution, we agree they can be used for the non-death penalty cases? >> is not the the court does not agree, it is that the court does not believe is the core's rule to make the approval. i or someone of the court should not have the authority as to

whether or not to grant your money to put towards special circumstances cases. we agree they should be funded out of this reserve, we just loved it is a decision for us to make. supervisor kim: of the board passes the resolution, from here on out, the judge will feel comfortable authorizing funds to be used, to be continued to be used in cases where the death penalty is not sought. >> that is correct. supervisor kim: is this also changing the approval from the superior court judge to the comptroller's office? >> it is approval coming from you, the board of supervisors, have this money can be used for special circumstances. the specific approval may or may not have been there.

it was one of our judges citing off of these requests. in the past, it was authorized to only be used for the two specific types of cases outlined. supervisor mirkarimi: i just want to note that we have been here some years now, umpiring some real interesting debates between courts and public defenders. a the this is a holiday moment where we have the to agreeing on this resolution despite may be some a lot of differences, the fact that there is agreement, let's not let the go unnoticed. we should move forward and pass this with recommendation. supervisor kim: i don't know if the court has ever disputed

items, it was probably more the budget office that anything. >> the key for the common. -- thank you for that comment. >> to clarify the points made previously, what is happening here is a change in the documentation that we need in order to release the funds. prior practice with the staff would receive an item signed by the court. we would be receiving other documentation along these guidelines the and of being approved by the board that shows that it allows for the release of these funds. that is the primary effect of this legislation. supervisor chu: given the potential moving of the funds to a new name defined that would allow the comptroller to reserve ed released it, what it

prevented the courts from being able to access that money? >> of a never accessed it directly. >-- they never accessed it directly. supervisor kim: but they would still be able to request it be released, correct? >> correct. >> on page five of our report, and $750,000 general fund appropriation for this reserve account as previously appropriated by the board of supervisors in the general city responsibility budget includes $500,000 from a carry forward appropriations. that was not expended in 10-11.

we stated on page 6 that sense it has been previously appropriated, and general fund revenues, the board of supervisors and determine the guidelines on how funds should be expanded. supervisor chu: with regard to the actual findings, and those are laid out. and whether there is additional documentation provided basically requiring the special services, requiring the comptroller to conduct an annual reconciliation.