that. is our fundamental concern. it is our work. this is a proposal to contract that out. other issues, and i appreciate the fact you are looking closely at issues around consumer education and impacts because there are some bad impacts on consumers but fundamentally please keep asking questions about the source and content of the 100% renewable. it is a lofty goal. highly impractical. we want it to happen because it's worked for our members. we don't see this plan coming to the same, successful conclusion as advocates. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you very much. are there any other speaker who's wish to comment on item six or seven? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor campos. sorry, supervisor ferl. >> thank you, chair chu and all the people that came

out to speak. mr. harrington, one more question i wanted to address and i forget to talk about before. thanks again for your hard work and more respect for how much time you spent on this and the constraints you have been under. to me it is a bit of a blue elephant. green elephant maybe that we haven't talked about. that is with pg&e and their disclose sewer they will do similar green energy, 100% green energy program i believe next year. and, you know, i think they haven't come out with rates yet but at least what i have read, i would be interested in your opinion, that it will be cheaper than clean power sf program. as we talk about some of the issues, it is not going to be a liability on our books, no job losses. it will be opt in. from my perspective is a big deal. how do you think about that?

from my perspective, why would we -- i appreciate you guys and a number of your staff have worked on it a long time and have done hard work and there is natural vested interest in something you spent time on. i absolutely appreciate that. why wouldn't we, though, scrap this program and say you know what, if our goal is green energy we can have it. customers can do it. it can be opt in, cheaper than what we offer. >> supervisor, ed harrington again, i think any program anywhere in the state that gets people to go to green energy is a great idea. that is the top thing. anyplace, whatever programs, it will be great. i don't want to speak for pg&e's program. obviously they have to speak for that. i know they presented a proposal. there have been a variety of different claims by a lot of people. the city of san francisco asked a series of questions. it is not time the get the

answers to that. we won't know the answers until probably next year sometime. the two things that are of concern, my point of view, one is if we have a program we actually get to have that program or not. we get to control it here. if you look at the last time pg&e tried to do a good program with green energy, for whatever reason, it wasn't successful and it died. counting on a new program that possibly doesn't get same level of marketing and not under our control is something less desirable because if it is put out there, not marketed and dies, we are back to where we are. i think that is one concern so it is control. >> i have no idea what they tried to do previous, i'm flying, but compared to how many years ago that the original cca goals were set forth and market forces

changed, you have learned a lot, we all have learned a lot. could be natural evolution of way that technology has gotten better. we are a long way from true smart grids but could it be that? i get fear if it is not under your control that is natural. >> if they got a good program going and we love that program i can see us telling our customers go to their program, save money. they could opt out, we could resell the contracts we have with shell to somebody else if the program actually exists. counting on a program and you don't know if it will get passed is more difficult. the second thing, one thing we have had a lot of conversation about, the pricing that appears to be there -- again, based on the news reports and what's been filed, we believe is only possible if you really are doing a program mostly recs, renewable energy

credits, which is kind of putting lipstick on a pig in some ways. your underlying power is still brown power, you are buying the renewable credit for somebody doing green power. you are not doing bundled power, you are not doing firmed and shaped power. you are not going out there and changing the market to a large degree. you are just buying the excess new asset that was created by state law. that is how you can do a program for that level of pricing. we looked at that as one of the choices and chose not to. we chose to do a program that actually does create a difference in terms of green energy. what was presented so far isn't that. >> everything you saying a fair comment. i guess follow up is why wouldn't we wait and figure out what they are going to do. >> that is a choice. >> okay. thank you. appreciate it.

>> thank you. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. i do want to make final comments. before i do i did want to have an opportunity to ask a question of a very important person here, melanie nuter, head of department of environment. as was noted earlier, she and her staff are doing a lot of work throughout the city around making sure we meeting our n environmental objectives. we have pretty lofty goals in that regard so i wanted to give ms. nuter an opportunity to talk a little about where community choice aggregation and the clean power fits in terms of what the city is trying to accomplish and the very lofty objectives. if i may, through the chair. >> great. thank you, supervisor

campos. good afternoon budget and finance committee members and other board members. i did first of all want to thank the puc and general manager harrington, all the staff for the fantastic work over many years to put together a program that can lead us toward a clean energy future. so i wanted to thank you for that. it is an honor to work for a city that has such excellent staff and a department. in answer to your question i did want to highlight the carbon reduction goals so you have some context about what we are working to achieve, where clean power sf does fit in. this is from the environmental perspective. we have a long history of setting up climate policy and very ambitious goals here in the city. starting in 2002 where there was a resolution that said our first target, which was to reduce greenhouse emission

reductions by 20% below 1990 levels by the end of this year. that was set in 2002. there was a climate action plan that highlighted a number of actions that could be taken to get there, procuring local green power was certainly one. in 2008 there was a climate change ordinance passed that set additional targets beyond 2012 including reducing emissions by 20% by 2017, 40% by 2025, 80% by 2050. these were all in the context of the fact that most climate scientists do look at reaching reduction of 80% by 2050 to ward off the worst effects of climate change. as you have heard are already starting to take effect. these have a scientific basis but are incremental. it is something the city has set up by ordinance. back in 2010 previous mayor

gavin newsom did set a goal of making or city 100% renew bli powered in about ten years. that is another goal we have been analyzing and assessing how to reach the goal. there is the 2011sf resource plan done by the san francisco public utilities commission outlining greenhouse gas by 2030. that is a whole series of goals, a number mandated. as director of department of environment we track our carbon footprint and check our inventory, see >>the president: general committee we are at on reaching the goals. the most recent inventory which we have completed shows as of 2010 we are 14.5% below 1990 levels as a city. that is very sitting and something to celebrate. our protocol targets were 7% below so doubles what

the protocol called for for the city and county of san francisco. that also means we have a lot of work do and a long way to go. one of the memos i had distributed to the board of supervisors, also analyzed by our environment commission, did do an environmental analysis of where clean power sf could get us on those goals. first and foremost, regarding the environmental impact analysis, we could get anywhere between 15.3% of our goals, so we could get 15.3% below 1990 levels with the minimal implementation of clean power sf. with a hypothetical full roleout of the program we could get up to 23.4% so close to the 2017 goals. also on renewable side the minimal rollout could get

up to 50% renew at 11:00. now at 41% up to 80%, which would be hypothetical rollout. as you can see clean power sf is a critical program when it comes to the environment and us meeting our greenhouse gas and emotion reduction goals. i wanted to put this in context that soon there will be a strategy the department of environment will be addressing regarding the green house emissions from the built environment, which is what this is, as well as from transportation sector, quite sitting. i wanted to echo one thing that general manager harrington said. without this program the city has few actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. in analyzing the many programs and policies available to the city and agencies for reducing the greenhouse emissions, cca

does have the most significant impact. we have looked at many options and programs, this program stands to have a significant impact. hope that answers your question. >> thank you. >> thank you, ms. nuter. i don't have anymore questions, i want to thank you and your staff. i know if this goes forward your staff will be working closely with the puc in the implementation of this. i want to thank you in advance for that. >> thank you for the presentation. colleagues, we have the items before us. i think there are couple items to discuss ahead of time. there were budget analyst recommendations and also amendments proposed by supervisor campos. supervisor campos has articulated what those would be. i do not believe they were substantive in nature. colleagues, do we have a motion to accept those recommendations. actually accept those amendments? we have that motion. we will do that without objection. then the budget analyst had

made a few recommendations to change language to reflect up to five years and also place a budget committee reserve on the pending program details. this is for the $2 million for go solar, 2 million for energy efficiency and 2 million for additional studies. colleagues, we have that motion. just a question for the city attorney whether or not that would be substantive. >> city attorney, would not be substantive. >> okay. do we have a motion to accept those recommendations? we will do that without objection. now we have document amended with some changes or accepted recommendations. colleagues, any motion on the floor for underlying item? or comments. supervisor avalos? >> well, i actually would like to -- we could move forward with recommendation. i want to thank all the

parts of our city. i want to go back to 1999, when then supervisor tom ammiano initiated the whole work on developing the clean power sf program. that long-term commitment finally paid off to get to where we are today. it's not been an easy road. have have been, even in recent years, a lot of stop-and-go activity on the process. we went through multiple rfps but i feel we have something we can really look toward being a major step towards having electricity portfolio yes for san francisco that is totally clean. i agree, we cannot get there if we do not take this great step moving forward. i want to thank the supervisor david campos for

his work. shepherding this through lafco and through the board of supervisors. we have huge changes that are happening. we are in the midst of climate change globally and have a commitment as a city to take action on that. i don't see that the clean power sf program as it starts immediately is something that is going to be for every san franciscan. i really believe what we heard from residents who have concerns about ability to pay is very, very real. i think at the same time we are are making an initial step to kick start this program. it means that folks who really want to take an action towards doing our part to prevent climate change can make that investment. we are making investment on the future and comes at a premium cost. i want to make sure we have

the ability -- we actually are very strong in making sure we do the outreach that people understand the program. how to opt out if they want to choose to opt out. i see that as an important part of making sure this can go forward and people who are going to be consumers of electricity will know what program they want to be in. there's been a lot of talk about shell. i think it is not necessarily an issue. i was concerned that shell would be who is doing our program. i actually have a car. i fill up my car with gas. i'm part of the global demand on electrical energy. i think we have a demand on clean energy. the fact shell is providing that to that demand is a fact of life and same demand we have putting gas in our car is very similar to a demand we have for

clean energy. just a different demand. i think the demand for clean energy is greater for gas that fuels our cars, but i don't think that is necessarily a reason not to accept a contract because it is part of shell because clean energy will be brought to us by shell. so i want to move, make sure we can support this moving forward. again, i want to thank all of our city departments for their work on this effort. nancy miller, jason freedom for their work through lafco as well, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i think maybe we maybe need to make a clarification. we made two motions to amend. the first was on what supervisor campos asked, specifically on page eight. the line 15 and two

including in that proposalal discount for low income customers. when the rate fairness board provides proposal onto the sfpuc and board of supervisors and second amendment on page 16. the further be it resolved the board of supervisors supports an appropriate discount for sfpc customers and resolve the sfpc take an outreach campaign in multiple languages with a particular folks us on multilingual communities and then the recommendations made by our budget and legislative analysts. i think this was a really tough issue and complex issue for many of us. we all support clean power, clean energy. of course we weren't able to meet all of the goals we had set several years ago, but i think the p.u.c. did an incredible amount of

work to get us as close to the goals as possible. i personally have a clear understanding of why we weren't able to meet all of the goals we had set out. i think my top concern when reviewing this policy was of course for the most vulnerable rate payers, whether they are low income, mono lingual in a language other than english or seniors. i feel a little better now that we are ready to engage in a plan to educate. i think we should work a lot with our ethnic media, whether it is radio, television or newspapers and of course i think we can spend a great deal of time doing outreach in neighborhoods and communities. i would love to work with supervisor campos's office, the puc and department of the environment to make sure that happens. this was an issue of course when we talked about charging a fee for our paper bags and our small businesses as well.

hopefully we can kind of piggy back a lot of that together in our low-income and immigrant communities as well. i'm excited about this program. i understand why there is aned a digal cost to pay for green energy. it is the same as when i make that decision as mr. harrington said to go to the farmer's market to get locally grown and locally produced items or when i go to whole foods. it makes sense, you are paying a higher premium because it isn't mass marketed same way. as we move forward and able to get more residents on board and find a way to reduce cost of clean energy over time that i do want to recognize the immense amount of work over the last eight years p.u.c. took to bring this. i feel comfortable at this time bringing this to the full board. i think the big thing is my concern for our most

vulnerable rate payers. i think for myself i could imagine as a busy person missing the opt-out notices. i'm less concerned for someone like me that can afford to pay that at decisional amount for a month or two before i realize and opt out later. my concern is for individuals that can't afford to do that. i do appreciate the programs who have a 20% discount for participating low income customers. the other issue is how can low income residents afford to be green. if they can't go to the farmer's market, how can we help our low income residents to be green as well? i appreciate the effort in that route. so i'm happy to support this with recommendation out of committee as well. >> thank you for your comments. i a bit of housekeeping. i believe when supervisor campos articulated the amendments from the city attorney that was on one version. there is a second version

supervisor kim articulated. there are two versions. we have taken a vote on the motion to accept the amendments articulated by supervisor campos. however the amendments that supervisor kim just read has not yet been taken. supervisor kim, would you make a motion to accept those recommendations? >> i didn't realize there was another set. i would like to make a motion to amend, as i had articulated prior. >> there is a motion to amend legislation on page eight and page 16 as supervisor kim read. that is on the floor. we can do that without objection. okay. so supervisor avalos, did you make the motion to send forward with recommendation? >> if it wasn't clear enough, yes. i would like to mention the work done. i didn't enunciate that

succinctly as i wanted to. you have done a great job as control and manager and i think this is a worthy place for you to do it before the next phase of your career. so thank you for this and your great work. >> thank you, supervisor. [ applause ] >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, madam chair. i don't want to belabor the votes but make a couple quick points. i want to recognize others who have played an important role in making this happen. we heard about the amazing staff at p.u.c. and lafco. i want to acknowledge the city attorney's office, which has been an important part of this process throughout all these years for their advice and guidance. but perhaps, you know, for me as important and perhaps one of the most important players, if not the most, are advocates who have been working to make cca happen

for so many years. the fact we wouldn't be here without their advocacy and their support. to folks who expressed concerns about this program, i want to say that i respect what they are saying and that we are very mindful of the issues that have been raised. if this moves forward i look forward to the opportunity to work with each and every one of you to make sure that we take all necessary steps to address those concerns. so i see this as an opportunity to work together. i especially was moved by the presence of so many low income seniors. i do think that is an opportunity for all of us because i do believe there is some misinformation or misunderstanding and how this works. we have an obligation to make sure people understand how this works and we take every step we possibly can to protect low income individuals and do so in a

culturally competent way. i know the puc and department of environment are committed to making that happen. you know, devin dufty once said if there is a gold standard in terms of someone running a department, that is ed harrington. i think if there is a question it is demonstrated today why that is the case. the fact is this is very complicated stuff. i do believe we have the best program we can possibly have because of your leadership. i also see our soon-to-be new general manager so i want to acknowledge harlan kelly, thank you for being here. we look forward to working with you. we look forward to being helpful. one of the things you will inherit is an amazing staff. you are very lucky in that sense. colleagues, i look forward to a yes vote. i think this is a historic

moment. again, i want to thank also my colleagues on the lafco, including john avalos, hope spencer, leah pementel, christine olagi and mark. >> thank you. i know there is a motion to send the item forward with recommendation at this point. i will be calling for a roller coaster on it. i wanted to explain why and al want to thank the puc for leadership on pulling this together. i don't think it was an easy thing to do. i think under circumstances and limitations of state law you did pull together as best as the market would allow you. i want to say thank you in particular to your staff for pulling this together. it's been a long time coming. i want to thank you for your patience and having this coming through budget and finance and for

director harrington who actually stayed beyond the time he thought in order to be here. i do want to appreciate him and thank you. for me i do think in terms of a cca, i don't think there is anything wrong inherently in the concept of a cca. the ability to purchase power or aggregate purchasing power to get a different product or different deal for your consumers. i also don't think there is anything wrong about having additional consumer choice. i don't think that is a bad thing. inherently what troubles me, the reason why i won't be supporting this is it don't think it goes far enough to, one, to build the reserve that is funded really by individuals using the program. if we were to have shaped a program where we were phasing in or we are asking people participating in cca to actually pay for the reserves that we are as a city at risk for, that would be something i would be more comfortable with and i think is much more appropriate. i think that would free up funding from the city to pay and invest in other

programs like go solar if the city had chose to do that or go pay for other energy federal court si programs to help reduce energy usage, *ets. that is one area that i think i would have liked to see a different approach on that i don't see in this program and this contract. i think the second area that troubles me, there is nothing that the puc could do about this is really on the opting out structure. i really do think that as we talk about choice we really are not doing that with an opt out system. inevitably the best attempt also be people trapped in this because of language issues or so busy with their lives, raising a family, that they will miss it that. is something i don't prefer. i much prefer an opt-in, where people fully and willingly know they are entering into a program and willing to pay a premium for a product. those are two area and two

aspects that troubles me, why i will be voting against it. do you think we would be able to shape a program, a stronger program where perhaps like marin did initially. there's the same rate structure, then people can affirmatively opt in? i'm not sure. i would imagine the p.u.c. did work diligently to figure out an approach to this opt-out situation. at the moment i don't think we are there in terms of being able to really after official that people are not being captured. i know the puc has argued tk -- argued -- argued tech lated that is not in the best interest. and with the program that would allow us to free up money on energy efficiency, even with our own buildings but number two on the opt-out component, that is something that again is structurely n