any comments from the public on this item? yes, ms. bose. [speaker not understood]. >> and hooray for the goats. you don't have to do a card. that's okay. i would like to start by thanking chris and kevin for their work in trying to reduce pesticide use. i'm speaking now as an individual and not representing any of the organizations with which i'm affiliated. i've been following pesticide use now for several years and attending the meetings that chris holds in order to discuss the reduced risk pesticide list and i'd like to complement them on how open these buildings are and how willing they are to take feedback from the public. having said that, i still have two issues with the

presentation that chris made. first of all, i have a question about whether it really is work putting in so much pesticide into the natural areas. and the fact is that i don't think that the numbers that we've showed on that graph for pesticide use are accurate. going back to what i said in the database, just off the top of my head, there were two months of data missing in 2010. there was at least one month of data missing in 2013. there were three or four different reports that didn't get included in 2012. so, i think the database is working to its greater accuracy. i don't know if it's there yet. certainly at the little subset i looked at which was natural areas, it's still not right. so, i can't speak to what

happened before 2008 and 2009. that's the earliest information that i've got. but certainly in the last few years the natural areas program has been using a lot of pesticide and i understand why. their job cannot be done without it. the question is, is that job worth doing? is it worth putting so much insecticide -- sorry, not insecticide, all herbicides? and thank you to the natural areas program for not using insecticides. but is it worthwhile using so much herbicide to try and remove plants without really strongly rooted in the foil over there, but make that naturally grow there now, even if they were not here in 17 76, they are now the natural vegetation of these areas ~. so, is it really worth this much pesticide use in order to do that? so, really, those are my two comments. number one, is it worth it to

do the natural areas with so much pesticide? and number two, the database still needs help and, you know, to the extent that i personally can be of any assistance, i would like to offer chris that i would do so. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. you know, it sounds like, ms. bose, give notice of the meetings in the conversations, that's maybe a good forum. and thanks for coming and sharing with us. as long as there is a forum, you're notified and able to engage on all these. at a minimum that's a good thing. please don't hesitate to keep us up to speed. any other questions? just one quick observation. looking at the pie graph, man, that golf is really -- so, just a quick question for chris.

why do people play golf? just kidding. withdraw the question. [laughter] >> 80% last period of all pesticides from golf. any other questions? so, this is an action item we he need to approve the list for this year. anybody that is ready to make a motion that we approve the list? >> motion to approve the list. >> i'll second it. >> all those in favor please say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed please say nay. ayes have it. [gavel] >> thank you, everyone. item 12, please, monica. >> review and recommendation on updated climate action strategy priorities for 2014. [speaker not understood]. this is action strategies list for commissioners, walled, grab varess, josefowitz, speaker cal broom head. this is a discussion and possible action item. >> thank you.

commissioner josefowitz. >> so, does everybody have a copy of the climate action strategy? >> no, coming out next week. >> excellent. is it coming out next week? >> yes. >> that was the good news. i thought i was -- >> oh, -- >> we're going to drop and everything. i missed the opportunity. >> anyway, so, this is i think one of the departments and melanie's great achievements is putting together this climate action strategy which is kind of cool to what the department does, to drive the emissions down to the city's targets. it's been a long time coming, but it's really good. so, really excited to hear about it. >> terrific. well, i'm really excited to give you an overview of it and

we can get into more detail and try to answer your questions. and i'm going to try to give you some context about the report itself. before i start, i wanted to make a comment about commissioner arce's request or interest in the holding an event to highlight those departments that have done a great job at hacto. every year in june, we sponsor the blue green awards where we highlight departments that have done particularly well or done some great specific project related to all of the climate action strategy activities in their climate action plans. and it's a wonderful event. we weren't able to hold it last year because war memorial was being done and that was our cheap, low-cost venue. and we hadn't quite finished fully moving in yet at that point, so, it was tough to hold it at the department and we had no budget for it.

but i think this year we're going to be in much better shape. >> if we do, i love where i think you're going with this. does our trophy shop have like a little green truck trophy? >> well, i was thinking to have a trophy of the light duty vehicle that's not there. >> there you go. >> we'll have to think about how to do that. >> so, the good news, thank you for letting the cat out of the bag. the climate action strategy is printed. it's almost going to be ready to be released. i wasn't informed it was next week. it might be the week after, but the website is now ready. our outreach campaign is prepared the team is ready to move. if you've got questions about that. is there anybody from our outreach team? guillermo is in the audience. so, if you've got any questions about that, he can address it.

so, where are we with climate action? this first slide should come up in a moment. it's going to show you greenhouse gas emissions, where they come from by sector. and you can see that the building energy use is actually the dominant area that creates greenhouse gas emissions. of course, we have to admit this does not include air travel. that is out at the airport and under federal jurisdiction. so, this is what we have under our control. and this is how it breaks out by sector and by use. and you notice that both natural gas and electricity have big chunks within the building sector. and we're going to -- we can talk about each one of these pieces and where that's coming from. of course, the picture for the

city departments looks a bit different from this. and you can see that the residential and commercial are actually roughly equal with actually more of it being in residential than in commercial. which i know is a surprise to a lot of people. they think it's all those big buildings downtown and industrial uses and it's actually -- it's us. so, looking at the trends over the years, if you look at this graph, we he started in 1990, tracking data. and i would like to point out that tracking this data is no simple thing because data collected over periods of time, the way the data is collected gets changed. and then you have to go back and readjust all the old numbers with whatever information you can gather about the time. but we have had some big

decreases in the amount of gas emissions and it's been largely in the electricity sector and the shut down of hunters point and it potrero power plants which were the large electricity producers. [speaker not understood], shutting them down was a big thing. it made a big step in not just cleaning up our air, but cleaning up the content, greenhouse gas emissions content of our electricity. now we're much more similar to -- similar to the rest of the grid through the state. incidence of asthma in the nearby neighboring communities has dropped significantly since then. >> has it? >> well, that's really good news. another tangent to take. the blue line, there is where our climate action strategy will take us through to 2030. and you'll notice the dots

along the line, those are -- we have san francisco targets that we want to achieve and we think this is going to help -- we're going to be able to meet our -- meet those targets, the 2025 target, et cetera, and you notice that we're considerably below both the international and the state targets. now, one of the things that has come up in the last several months is what about the municipal greenhouse gas emissions reductions. we've actually been tracking that data since the mid -- since, well, probably started 6 years ago, 8 years ago, started tracking that data. so, we haven't been able to bring down the municipal usage at the same amount because we've had more time to run on the community wide data. so, just a little bit of a context on the data piece of

this is that this report uses 2010 data. and you might be thinking this is 2014. why are we using 2010 data? we collect data on the community wide basis about every two years because it takes a lot of effort to do it. and it takes a long time. for example, a pg&e representative just told me the other day that they still had not completed the coefficient of greenhouse gas emissions verified and approved for the 2012 data. so, even if we tried to collect the 20 2012 data today, we would not be able to. we would have the data this summer and go to third-party verification and go you through that process some time in august or early september. so, we would be able to give an update to the update in terms of where we are. and i'm hoping the number will come in very close to the 20%

production during the 1990 levels that we had set as a target, but are all waiting with bated breath to find out. but don't hold your breath for 10 months. keep breathing. so, where are our reduction strategies coming from? and the biggest one is the 100% renewable electricity. that's the big orange slice there. and if you think about it, the bottom slice is the orange -- the red one there is energy efficiency. and i just want to kind of contrast the two pieces. that if you think about energy efficiency, this is going into homes and going into buildings and actually conducting a transaction and doing physical work, disturbing their place of work, disturbing their home, their building that they live and work in. this is difficult. not everybody is ready to get that done in their home today or tomorrow or even this year.

and, so, there is kind of a slow market acceptance to doing energy efficiency. it takes money and commitment. so, these sorts of things are dependent on actually changing equipment and behavior at the end of the pipeline are harder to do. whereas if you can do something like renewable electricity where you're taking already what's connected to the home, it's already connected to the building and you're just changing the quality of it, that's a lot easier to do. it's a lot cheaper to do. so, 100% renewable. we could think of that in terms of natural gas also. we just aren't that many dairy farms out there that we can pump the gas and the lines and start promoting green gas. so, the -- replacing the 100% renewable in our plan is going to be difficult. now, there are some things that we can do around the edges. one of the slices there is bart

100% renewable by 2030. we can get them to go green, that's great. we have another 11% of the electricity that are direct access commercial customers where they could decide as businesses that the right thing for them to do is to go 100% green. so, if we can convince them, and that would be a voluntary activity on their part, that we might be able to reach another piece of the market. the question is how are we going to get to the rest of it. and that's a challenge that's been discussed at this commission and i know will be discussed in the future. so, i'm not going to go through each one of these parts. i will point out that urban forest is the light blue wedge at the top. be great to see that expanded, or expanding any of these wedges. some of them are under influence from the department

of the environment. some of them are not. and the -- planning to the energy efficiency slice, it's going to take a much larger investment. residential pace is one attempt to try to harness and leverage more private sector leverage investment. we would like to see a two or three fold increase in incentive programs coming in through either through the department or into the community in one way or another ~ in order to increase the level of energy efficiency that's performed. going back, i had this back up slide for where our electricity is coming from today. notice the 19% nuclear and that black wedge down there in the lower left is coal. my understanding is a lot of that is actually used in the grid in southern california, but it's part of the california

mix that we are getting our data from. so, with that said, i wanted to find out if you have any questions or comments or things you wanted to look at in greater detail. >> thanks, cal. thank you so much. commissioner gravanis is up. nope? sorry about that. i meant to say commissioner josefowitz. >> i want to begin the questioning. what's the difference between transportation load share and transportation to [speaker not understood] management? on your previous pie chart there was one slice for tdm and one slice for mode shift. >> transportation demand management, i think that's -- it also includes pricing. cal, you want to respond to that? >> yes.

so, transportation demand management a lot of the work our department does. so, it's the car pool program, it's ride sharing. it's gaunter benefits. as cal just mentioned, it's -- sorry, managing demand. so, it can include congestion pricing. so, things we can do to lessen the demand for people driving alone. the mode shift is where we put all the policies that have to do with infrastructure investment. so, bike lanes, more muni buses, more lines for muni, things like that. so, in terms of better safer streets for pedestrians, so mode shift covers all those transportation infrastructure actions where demand management covers the more getting people just to not drive in the first place. >> in the report, this will be on table 2. >> great, table -- >> page -- aye ~ italics --

roman numeral 8. >> which of these are we -- are we sort of falling furthest behind -- on which of these strategies are we falling furthest behind in terms of being able to achieve our goals or strategies? sort of if you look at that pie chart, in which of these areas are we falling furthest behind in -- >> we've only -- we're just announcing these strategies. it's hard to establish a trend for any of these things. we could go through them each and talk about the market barriers or the barriers to each one of them and what we might do to overcome them. and if we were to focus on 100% renewable, that's a topic that you've become very familiar with. energy efficiency, i could talk about that probably for a couple of days. transportation would be harder for me --

>> okay. >> i'm not a transportation guy. one of the things i would point out that cal was just saying, you've got the demand management side and then there's the making muni better side. and we're not going to be able to get a mode shift if muni doesn't get the resources it needs to improve and expand its services. if it stays limited and you want to get on the bus it's packed and the buses are bypassing you, you know, you can't shift mode. so, if muni is going to be a strategic part of achieving our mode shift goals. >> thank you, commissioner. director nutter. >> so, thanks, cam. i was wondering if you could talk a little about how the current drought will affect the

renewable energy mix in 2014. obviously we won't have that data for two more years, but what does that do specifically to the hydroelectric profile [speaker not understood] drought and the anticipated impact? >> statewide there will be a problem having enough hydroelectric power as we have. that will be reflected in the spring. more particularly in the summer. it will effect hetchy and it will affect all of the utilities, particularly pg&e which has a lot more hydro than other utilities in the state. and they still want to produce the power, gather the power. the question, then, is what are they going to buy. the nice thing about hydro is that you can kind of turn it on and turn it off and have control and use it to balance your other renewable resources like wind and solar which are more intermittent. so, what are you going to use

as a balancing strategy is certainly something that's facing all the utilities. it's not a simple thing to answer. obviously we've got santa nofres down and the california public utilities commission is very concerned about how they're going to keep the grid stable in southern california with that resource off line. >> commissioner wald? >> i just wanted to observe that, with cal's help at the last meeting of the policy committee, we gannon effort which will be continued at our next meeting to develop some recommendations for priorities for the department to pursue among the various strategies that will be laid out in the

document. and we voted to recommend that the number one strategy that be pursued was achieving 100% renewable energy. and like i said, we're going to be continuing that conversation at our next meeting with the notion of helping the department focus its resources going forward on a limited number of the very long and excellent list of options that are available to us. and to all of us, commissioner gravanis unfortunately had to leave. but to those of us who remained, commissioner arce and myself and josefowitz, it was clear from the pie chart and other materials that y'all have

provided us, excellent materials, i should say, that, you know, that investing in that single strategy is where we're going to get the biggest bang for the buck if we're really serious about achieving our previously established goals. >> one of the things that came up in that conversation, if i remember correctly, was that if we put solar on the rooftop of every single building in san francisco to the maximum possible, we will achieve 7% of our electric load. so, what are we going to do about the other 93%? and hopefully with efficiency and some behavior changes and better maintenance and better equipment, et cetera, maybe we can get that -- maybe we can cut our energy use in half, which would get us to 14% solar. so, we still have -- we'd still have 86% to go. so, we've got -- we're up against it.

we have to figure a way through this very challenging situation. >> is that 7% of peak, cal? 7% of peak? >> 7% of giga watt hours. so, it's not peak. it's total -- total usage. >> um-hm, um-hm. one thing to the point that commissioner wald had raised was that monica, because she's super diligent about all this stuff and she's amazing and we don't thank her enough for everything that she does, was able to get the communication and worked on it with cal, got the communication over to sfpuc commission. >> thank you. >> just in time before their meeting in which i think we had this really direct statement. dear sfpuc, we believe that 100% renewable energy is the number one climate change discussion topic of the year, and that was received well.

i understand that the commission discussed that and wants to put that front and center when we convene next month on february 25th for our joint sfpuc commission on the environment meeting. i talked with sfpuc president courtney directly. he wants to have 100% renewable energy. what are we doing? what is our collective plan around that to be front and center on the agenda, particularly as it impacts our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. so, i expect that will be a really good discussion in just about one month's time from now when we meet with the puc. >> can i jump ahead of you, commissioner gravanis for a minute? thank you for saying that. not only do i want to thank monica and cal for making that communication possible, i want to thank a member of our

public, jason freed for encouraging us to take a position in what seemed to me like the wee small hours of the night at our last meeting. jason, your attendance at our meeting -- meetings has been extremely constructive. so, i hope you'll continue to come. thank you. >> all right. commissioner gravanis. >> so, i just wanted to mention that had i not had to leave policy, i certainly would have reported and endorsed making this item renewable energy a top priority. and just to remind everybody, i'm sure everybody knows, for the past seems like many years, but i think maybe only a year and a half, we've had lots of different hearings and workshops, both at policy and the full commission about renewable energy goals. and we have said repeatedly

that there's no way we could meet them without getting involved in some form of cca. and i just want to express my impatience that we have been saying that for so long without really tackling what we as a commission can do next to move that along. i think what's in the works now with our joint meeting at the puc is a fabulous step and we should not let this drop. >> if there is anything that we can do to prepare for that meeting that you have ideas, please let us know. >> and it's helpful, monica, i would suggest looking through my e-mail to see exactly how we communicated that just so colleagues know how we communicated that statement to sfpuc. you don't have it handy, do you? >> i did not bring it with me. >> okay, i've got it somewhere. but it's pretty much to the point. and i think it was well

received by the sfpuc commission. so, we have at least one member of the public, jason freed, from lafco to speak on this item. thanks, cal. thanks, cal. hi, jason freed, lafco staff. first off i wanted to start with a comment that chair avalos who is the supervisor wanted me to pass on to you today at the board of supervisors. he introduced a hearing request to find out why this report has not been issued yet, why it is still not public, why we cannot review it and also to start getting into some of the meat and bones of what's in it is part of the hearing request so we can start moving this forward. i think he was a little frustrated that we have been waiting at least now i believe two or three months for a report that has been done and been sitting there on the shelf ready to go and not been issued. i personally would love to see it issued this week so ms. nutter who put so much time and effort into what actually be part of the proceedings. hopefully she'll come back

whenever it is released to celebrate that. getting into some of the comments specifically, the only part of this report that's actually available is what looks like table 2 of the executive summary. some of the things you might want to add to your puc commission meeting discussions is when you're looking at the 100% renewable as 45% of your overall goal, we've had that discussion at the policy committee and you i think took a very good stance there. the other party want to bring up is 15% is energy efficiency. currently today the cpuc has $800 million, i believe is the estimated amount, in energy efficiency funds that's available throughout the entire state. pg&e is allowed to apply for it. a cca program can also apply for it. now is san francisco has a cca program. unfortunately we have yet to serve any customers as the commissioner earlier mentioned. that does not mean the city shouldn't be applying for those energy efficiency dollars. my personal guess is you can put together a small program it as a pilot to show you could do good work to get