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 you [speaker not understood] energy efficiency in the city as soon as the application process goes forward. that is something you should be talking to the sfpuc about. it is my understanding through city attorneys' discussions it would be the sfpuc that would have to apply for that monday soy part of your discussions is why they not applying for this money as an asterisk or side note to that, my personal guess might be the cpuc might say no to this application because we're not serving customers yet

and do not have a plan to serve customers but it doesn't hurt to ask as a cca program can we have access to that money. i believe between the sfpuc staff and your staff at the department of the environment you could probably put together a very good program that could utilize that money and start working on that 15% of the goal that's going forward. i would also add in on the discussion of bart to achieve 100% [speaker not understood] the joint hearing from them they are having -- the power enterprise in the very near future is going to have a budget shortfall and needs to try and find customers to sell energy to. guess what, you have bart, you want to get them to 100%. you should be encouraging the sfpuc commission to tell their staff, start those negotiations, start talking to bart. see if they're interested in buying energy. i'm willing to bet the puc could put together a package that would give bart the ability to buy energy cheaper than what they are currently buying energy from whoever they are currently buying energy from. so, you should really put that

package together ahead one other item, but i guess i'm out of time. >> can you summarize the last item? sure, on your electric vehicles, the thing to remember is yet electric vehicles are cleaner than fossil fuel base vehicles but they're only as clean as the electricity provided to them. so, you still have some dirt that comes outs of it unless you get to 100% electricity renewable electricity. and then the other part on that is your renewable portfolio centers is under state action. that's what happens if you do absolutely nothing. item a on that list goes away completely if you get to 100% renewable. that becomes a nonstarter. thank you. >> thank you. all right, thank you, mr. freed. any other members of the public? ~ like to speak on this item? and monica, as we said -- and we can't say enough -- how amazing she is found the letter that we sent from the policy committee of the commission on the environment to the sfpuc. you want to read it to folks so

we know? >> [speaker not understood] the number one priority for the civic climate action strategies for 2014 to be making significant progress toward 100% renewable electricity. the commission on the environment looks forward to discussing this topic and related issue with you at the joint meeting february 25th and it's signed commission president joshua arce on behalf of the commission environment policy committee. >> and might be later on folks want to put topics when we have that meeting. so, any other comments, thoughts on this one? >> did you get all of jason's items? >> did i get jason's items on the last piece? >> yes. >> i'll have the question. the 100% renewable energy, does that include any sort of -- to what jason said, does that include the rps mandates or is

that in addition to the current statewide rps mandates? >> so, have you seen a copy of the climate energy itself yet? we will get you some. those three different pathways that we calculated, the rps is included in the first two. if we get to 100% renewable, we of course will far exceed the rps standard because all our residents will be on the 100% renewable power. that is taken out so we're not double counting it in our calculations. the part we point out the larger chunk depends on us gets tog 100% renewable [speaker not understood]. there are multiple factors in therein term playing benefiting on whether we get to the 100% renewable electricity policy. >> that answers my question. on the solar stat 7%, you know, if you could send me -- i would

be interested in looking at that. >> sure. >> some back up for it, that would be great. >> yes. >> thank you. >> great. thanks, cal. commissioner nutter. >> i wanted to thank jason for his comments. it's true that i have spent quite a bit of time during my tenure on this particular project, but the two key people who have spent so many hours on this are in the audience, it's obvious. i wanted to point out cal and cal who have done so much work on analyzing the different strategies, working with all of the other city departments who have had a lot of input into this -- into these certified strategies. everybody from the san francisco public utilities commission to the mta, to rec and park and i just really want to thank the two of you for the four years that you've put into compiling these strategies. and i just again want to thank

the commission for, as commissioner gravanis said, asking a will the of questions, being very interested in it, keeping this topic front and center. ~ lot i think it's pretty obvious now the information is there and really the next steps are about analysis of those strategies and action. so, just wanted to thank, again, the amazing staff and the commission for your interest. (applause) >> thank you. >> i'd also like to thank [speaker not understood] and pansy gee who along with cal put in and donated extra hours to the city doing the data collection, running the departmental climate action plan program. it's been very time intensive and really appreciate all of the extra work that they put in above and beyond their paycheck. >> and also in abstentia, donny

oliviera who spent 6 to 8 months on this project as well. >> all right. before we go to the next item, did we do possible action -- no, no motion. just, colleagues, before we go to the next item, we know we have melanie through friday as our director and david osman will become our acting director. but i think there was a little bit of a discussion about maybe the rest of the meeting for david to be our acting director to get us through some of these items. we kind of talked about be comfortable with that. melanie is sufficient with us through friday. if that's okay with melanie. so, before we formally do that, though, i said there were going

to be a couple of surprises -- maybe one good one -- on the way over to the meeting, got a call that there was someone who wanted to send regards and send something nice to the commission. so, i bee-lined over to the mayor's office where there was something from our mayor for you, and it's framed. and it reads, that, proclamation that says, whereas the city and county of san francisco traditionally recognizes the achievements of notable individuals and the dedicated work of melanie nutter as executive director of the department of environment has represented san francisco values at their best and whereas melanie nutter was appointed to lead the san francisco department of the environment but then mayor gavin newsom in august 2010, and whereas under the direction of melanie the department of the environment has championed leading urban environmental policies and programs, helping

san francisco get closer to its zero waste goal and making significant greenhouse gas reductions -- after the glare -- and whereas during melanie's tenure san francisco reached an 80% waste diversion rate and successfully implemented the plastic bag ban to all commercial retailers in san francisco and whereas melanie has advanced the sustain ability of our city and communities with her diligent leadership and tireless efforts raising awareness ~ of reducing energy consumption for small businesses city-wide, and the community through the energy watch program and the green business program, and whereas because of melanie nutter and her exuberant enthusiasm, san francisco is well positioned to continue its visionary programs that have helped make our city the greenest city in north america. now therefore be it resolved that i, mayor edmond m. lee, mayor of the city and county of san francisco in gratitude for her service to the residents of our city and the environment

and in wishing her the best in all her future endeavors do here by proclaim today, ~ january 28th, 2014 as melanie nutter day in san francisco. (applause) >> can we all get a picture together maybe? >> yeah. >> we did that before over here, right? we have a nice camera. [multiple voices]