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, 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