you to adopt this program. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. eric brooks, representing san francisco green party and local grassroots, our city. man, has it been a long ride and long road since 1999 when tom ammiano started this and we are finally getting it off the ground. the main thing i want to do is thank supervisors kim, chu and especially supervisor ferl for the tough questions. * some of my colleague also grumble under their breath what is ferl doing, complaining about this program? i think what you are doing is actually vital to this program. the grassroots and environmental community groups you just heard that are supporting this program are supporting it because we are going to build, because the shell contract is a kick-start for the

next five years of building 100 megawatts of renewables and efficiencies, putting 4,000 a year to work doing that and creating a boom for our economy, not a bust. if we were to roll out at the beginning of next year an expensive program that the rates are wrong and scary to customers or if we were to roll out a program without making clear what they were getting into, that would make clean energy incredibly unpopular. we do not want to see that happen. so it is because supervisor ferl you are asking the right questions that we are going to get a god program. i would reiterate what staff said, which is if we get to rate-setting time next year and this program doesn't look good, believe me, the coalition pushing clean power sf will be ringing your phone first, supervisor ferl. saying you know what? we should bring rate-seting to board and put a hold on

this until it is ready to go. we do not want a bad program to roll out and make clean energy look bad. that is where it is at. actually i appreciate your tough questions. thanks. >> thank you. stacy renecius, anglo king, even nguyen, cd workman, michelle meyers. >> good afternoon, my name is brook turner with coalition for better housing. although cdh certainly supports clean energy, we have a few concerns about this legislation. first of all, the opt-out provision is always a bad one, in our mind. it would be much better for us if we were able to opt in. regardless of the efforts to get the word out, i think property owners of any kind in san francisco, some of which will be caught not knowing or not aware of the fact that they have opted in by not opting

out. regardless what i understand is that the owners are going to pay more. they pay more as per mr. egan's brown pg&e tax. if they don't opt in. our concern is there is no provision for owners that have a single meter to pass through any cost whatsoever of their energy. just like water if it is a single meter onto tenants. not that that pass through, so to speak, is for recouping the cost but it motivates people to use less. as was discussed during this hearing the price of energy and water is important to the end user deciding how much they will use. we'd like to see a small

portion of the increase required by this able to be passed on to tenants. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, joshua arsa with bright line. i want to say i think you have learned through this process, it's been a long road. a lot of us have worked on this a long time. work by supervisor campos, puc, lafco advocates, a lot of folks in the room. let's recognize the goals. we have a plan to be in a 100% clean energy city. it is a goal we have task forces come around. that concept and how to get there. this is a pathway through this program. another benefit is you look at that. was slashed and already run out of money. this is a way to get money

back into this, which i think is a good thing too. there was talk about jobs, obviously. jobs may not be there on the front end but there is a path to get there and to get to jobs. that is a component of this plan. so the other hat -- i wear a hat as a new member of the commission on environment. we have our very talented staff, director and staff here who i was reminded that we have an outreach team at san francisco department of environment. it is called the environment now. it is bilingual, might be a way to tap into the outreach in a multilingual way and maybe save some of the money dedicated to consultants instead get into worker's hands. i just want to say monday the policy committee of commission on environment, we passed a resolution supporting program. >> thank you. >> if i may, madam chair, i

wanted to ask a followup question. in terms of -- can you just briefly talk a bit about the reasoning why the -- there was that support. >> yes, supervisor. the commission i have been on a week, two weeks maybe, week and a half, there had been a longstanding goal of getting to a 100% clean city at the department, at the commission. a program like this has been long-stated as a way to get there, 100% clean energy. we looked. i don't know all the history. i see fellow commissioner king to el laoum nate a little. we also highlighted it is a goal to create jobs. we think within this it may take time but those were 10%. approximate >> thank you for your two weeks of service so far. >> hello, supervisors.

stacy renexis. i'm a san francisco native and lifelong entrepreneur. my companies, dan lynn solar corporation and power trees services have constructed over 20 megawatts of solar, including over a megawatt of solar for tenant occupied properties here in san francisco serving over 1,000 so far. i urge you to support clean power. it is a terrific market demand generator. i can tell you directly being the person directly employing and hiring people that this program will generate jobs, opportunity and will help clean our environment and combat climate change. we are presently constructing over five megawatts of energy storage within the city of san francisco. and have over 10 multiunit

buildings presently committed to supporting electric vehicle charging and additional solar. we do look forward to opportunities with the clean power sf program to help enhance that and grow that further. that is one example of the kinds of opportunities that can be brought to this city as a result of this kind of program being on the horizon. i do encourage you to approve it and move it forward, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm dee dee workman with the san francisco chamber of commerce and a resident of district nine, pg&e rate payer, representing over 1,500 local businesses and resident owners and employees. we are very concerned about the impacts of the clean power sf program on san francisco businesses, residents and the local community. community choice aggregation was originally designed to inject competition and generation

of electrical power. the goals were to drive prices down, maintain rate stability, provide over half the power load from renewable sources and find a supplier for a long-term contract. this contract ensures none of those goals. rates for electricity charges will increase. this is a short-term contract that creates no green power, results in net loss of jobs in san francisco. all the liability rests with the taxpayers. while it is well intended and we appreciate the hard work that's gone into this we feel like it is not ready to go. and clean power san francisco does not represent or reflect goals of community choice aggregation program. the san francisco chamber of commerce urges you to table this item and send this back to the sfpuc, thank you. >> thank you.

next speaker. good afternoon, even nguyen, director of the san francisco energy cooperative. we are a brand-new organization that started up aimed at community ownership of green power, funding green power on community buildings. we are a membership organization. the reason why members support us is because they believe in movement from grass roots and every little bit makes a difference. you guys are politicians, you know the politicks in many ways is the art of possible. this is not perfect, not everything we want out of a cca but really does make a small difference towards a goal that is so far away. we have such a long road to walk towards energy independence and transitioning away that any bit can make a huge difference. the larger mission is really to popularize the idea of community ownership, to make it so that everybody sees that they can have a hand in owner their energy future. that is the real difference green power can make. the first technology that

makes it available to take ownership back from the huge corporations, to change from a top-down to grassroots to decentralized model of green energy. though the cca is only a step in that direction, that is crucial so i urge you to support clean power sf and help us take that crucial step. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is walter pope. i am a member of the sierra club here in the bay area. i think that the position of the sierra club is generally known now so at best i could just give a general outline to what the see rear club is standing for. the main thing i think is considered what are the dynamic long-term perspective versus a static

short-term narrow scope, myopic view of this issue. the world is in a transformation, we can see that. that is, of course, obvious. an economic crisis and also an unprecedented global change in the n environment. this is a very optimal program. first of all in terms of just the benefit cost ratio in the long term it is going to generate jobs. even in the short term. that would be good. these are new jobs, new technology. the challenge is we have something technically feasible but is politically feasible. do we have thought forms and institutions that block the way? the summit is not an easy climb so i would like to say altogether again is that we have the courage to go forward and adopt the

power plan. thank you. >> thank you. i have no other speaker cards in front of me so if there are members of the public who wish to speak on these two items but have not yet please line up against the wall. otherwise these will be the last two speakers. >> thank you. >> my name is michelle myers, director of the local chapter of the sierra club. i have to follow walter pope who so poet kli the issue at hand. we have been working on clean power a decade * and know we need something to carve the carbon emissions, improve air quality and reduce dependence on dirty fos it is fuel. we have gone through a long road of advocacy. supervisor campos, jason freed from lafco and members of the p.u.c. who have gone with us and and challenged us to look at things we didn't want to consider, like the contract with shell and things we

know we really needed and we needed to start this program. we need to start this program now. we have waited long enough. it is time to move forward and create clean power to be a program that now in its beginning is simple. we buy clean energy and sell clean energy. it will create financing mechanisms and help us develop the program we want, which is empower people that want jobs, that want the skills to be competitive in the job market. these are green jobs, new economy jobs we have talked about for a long time, now we want to deliver. i'm not here to sell you shell energy, i'm not. i'm here to get a program off the ground that is so much more than that. supervisor ash land, if you don't know him, he passed away, was a champion for this issue in marin. since that was my bell i will speed it up. marin clean energy is a program up and running and is very successful. after their first year they managed to pay off all the

people that initially loaned them the money to start the program, because banks would not. now they have a program -- the purchase program for 972 kilowatts of rooftop power from the san rafael airport. this is where the jobs come in, is when you actually build clean, renewable energy within the city. so i urge you to support this legislation. move it forward and keep watching and help us shape it into what we know it can be. >> thank you. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is janine new, director of the san francisco apartment absorb eyesing. i'm here to express our opposition to cac. we believe and after sitting through an hour and a half hearing i believe even stronger that this is a system setting up robbing peter to pay paul. looks like higher costs. going from one corporate

bad guy to another. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> while everybody is talking about producing renewable energy over time, once again i want to put another plug in for refunding the go solar program. i want the city to double down on money that is paid for in terms of training folks to do those kind of installations. i know because i know a lot of people help do outreach to get people into the programs. so, you know, those programs are, you know, ready to go now. triple line benefit. you know, you get people working. somebody gets to save on their energy bill. and we reduce some carbon footprint and put more energy in the grid. if we be found money to pay for this program, i hope we can find money to be able to refund go solar because

there are people interested and very disappointed it is not there. in addition want you to consider additional programs for new multifamily developments such as electrical terminals for electrical cars. perhaps policy around solar for a new development on coming, some kind of recertification. multifamily development. i don't understand why anything coming out of the ground at this point in time doesn't have that so thanks. thank you. next speaker. if there are any other members of the public that wish to speak, line up. otherwise this will be the final speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thanks for the chance to speak. my name is hunter stern, a resident in san francisco

and business representative with ibw1245, representing utility workers throughout central and northern california. more important, that is 18,000 strong. but more importantly our members work for the utilities, ibw members who work for the sfpuc and pg&e in san francisco of course. but also 30 other utilitis in northern california. most importantly we have a viewpoint unique. i won't say all-seeing but very broad. we have fundamental concerns. not with the attempts. i think the fair and honest attempts to implement it since 2004 here in san francisco, it is with a contract with shell energy. obviously we have heard impacts in san francisco itself. it is a net job loss.

still a job loss but more importantly to us, members who work to generate power in northern california and to know where that power goes, most does not go to shell energy, most goes to customers and residents here in the states so shell has to purchase their electricity. not all but a good part from outside the state 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,