>> not every municipal roof top is suitable for the solar and we have identified a pipeline of of potential projects, not just on municipal solar roofs, but also on land that the city owns and so, there are opportunities for the ground mounted solar, and today, we are a fully resourced utility and we have all of the kilo watt hours to serve the customers and were the base to grow and then it will make sense for it to develop more of those facilities, but do we have a plan to cover every municipal roof? no, i can't show you a document that says that, but we have evaluated those options. >> and have you evaluated, sort of the ground mounted solar, in the city limits or the land owned by the puc outside of the city? because you must have tremendous rights of way going out sort of to other places?

>> yes it is mostly outside of san francisco. and in the ground field areas that we have looked at. but, we most of the opportunities are outside of the city, and frankly, they are more economic outside of the city not just because of the cost of the land but also because of the solar exposure and the solar opportunities are greater and so for the same solar panel located in san francisco and you will get more hours produced in senol than in san francisco. because it makes more sense for us to look at those opportunities as well. do you have from my interest, sort of a back of the envelope number for how much solar could be developed on sort of the city or the puc owned land outside of the city. >> the type line that i mentioned of the development opportunities, includes, if the memory serves me, about 45, mega watts of development opportunities outside of san francisco. >> have you thought about,

leasing out that land, to allow a private developer to are able to develop, the solar on it and then, sell it to, you know, back to the pg&e of the grid. >> yes. >> but that is an opportunity, that we could pursue, and you know, the lands that we control, first have a utility purpose. >> and the lands that we control, are largely controlled by the water department, or the water side of hetch hetch water and power and any arrangement that we make, will be the use of the land that goes to the utility purpose and that makes it attractive for a third party to come in because they would want a long term commitment without those kind of caviots but it is something that we explored and it also would allow us to extract the value of tax credits and such that as a public entity we can't.

>> only. >> yeah. >> and but we have looked into that and are evaluating those opportunities. >> and one more question, and sort of totally, and have you explored, sort of in-pipe, small scale hydro. >> yes, we have a development under development at the university of mound and it is a 200 kilowatt system and we are looking at going forward with that project once we have the financals nailed down on that. >> would that be a pilot project? >> right. that is the beauty of it it is gravity fed and when there is power flowing we love to generate the electricity from it and so the university mound would be our first and we have identified other opportunities that are larger, on the water system. and we are continuing to look at the feesbility, and the capability to pursue those

projects. >> great. >> again, do you have a back of the envelope number for what, and the scale of those opportunities, are. >> and we have identified a little over 6 mega watts of opportunity. >> and then mainly a pumping station and sort of like the stations or like, it was just sort of really inpipe. >> it is, and it is a, and at the university mound, for example, we are looking at a pipe that goes into the reservoir. and there will be a by pass pipe with a generator and then, once the water by passes through the generator it will go through in the pipe into the reservoir and so it is opportunities like that. where we have the right flow, and the right land space, and the ability to implement, in-pipe hydrowithout getting in the way of water operations. >> those are the opportunities that we are looking at. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> commissioner gretsch?

... >> commissioner granavis. >> you did not mention the 100 percent renewable energy goal and i wonder if you could address how close we are to achieving that goal and will we achieve it with the projects that are described here today, if not, what else do we need to do. >> it was designed for the clean power sf to get there and we don't have another strategy specifically like the clean power sf and because the nice thing about that was it just converted the incoming electricity rather than having to do a tremendous amount to get it started. and we can look at some other options, and like, sat rating the city with solar.

and unfortunately, if we blanket every single roof top in the city we will achieve 7 percent of the electric load. and therefore, even if we are able to reduce, 50 percent of our electric load through high amounts of energy efficiency, we would still only be at 14 percent. and maybe, with some additional brown fields or other sites we might be able to get 20 percent, but we are still going to be talking about importing large amounts of electricity, from renewable resources, in order to meet that goal. and alternatively, we can look at trying to get through the same 931,000 tons a year of diverted through some other means, like vastly reducing the number of vehicles on the roads in san francisco, and requiring more car sharing type of solutions, or going after natural gas use. and trying to really cut back on the amount of natural gas that is used in homes and

businesses in cooking, heating and hot water, and particularly it is hot water and home heating, that are the primary uses of natural gas. and so, we would have to come up with both of technology, and the financing method and then the retrofit, method of getting out there and so we are looking at zero net energy homes and the home upgrade program, for example really targets the natural gas use and it does not get much at the energy and by sealing the house and insulating and you can reduce that heating load on the home and you can get that load down enough that you could actually convert and pull out the furnace and install a heat pump that will be solar powered from the energy from the roof. and you could have enough power on the roof, to power a heat pump and then you will not need the furnace any more or the hot water because you could use the heat pump technology as instead

and so we are looking at those kiepds of solutions that is really a state wide effort and, and a lot of that effort, unfortunately has been focused on the new construction and we have got almost, zero single family homes being built in san francisco and very few of them and most of the new construction of the housing in the city is in the multifamily and high-rise, and we are trying to get the states zero net energy resources focused on existing buildings, so we can come up with a protoe types that would be applicable to san francisco to go after the natural gas load. >> and with a power, sf program or some other version of it, that needs to cca, and the description, house or how long will it take to meet the 100 percent goal? >> well, i think that the 100 percent is certainly aspirational because we do not have control over 100 percent

of the electric customers in the city and even through the cca. you have approximately 20 percent of commercial load that are barbara might actually know the number better than i do on that, that are what we call the direct access customer and these are customers that are grandfathered in from the days of reregulation of the electric industry and they were allowed to go out and secure their own contracts. so those are contracts that are independent of the pg&e and will be independent of the clean power sf and it will be hard to get at that group and you have the folks that will opt out for whatever reason it is to opt out and even if it was to, be at the same price, and as the utility offers. so, it may not be able to achieve, 100 percent, but it will get us very close, and that could happen in a very short period of time.

>> yeah and i would just, i would just add that cal's guess was pretty close, and the direct access side of san francisco's electric services is amounts to about 17 percent, and we provide about 12 percent from the own greenhouse gas free resource and the balance is pg&e and one of the opportunities for improving our greenhouse gas profile that cal had not mentioned is that pg&e is in front of the public utility commissions to have a green tariff option and our electric resource plan updates which was endorsed by the commission and our board of supervisors identified both the community choice aggregate program and the pricing programs that pg&e has now filed before the cpuc as

options. and so, we have been my staff and i have been actively engaged at the california puc to make sure that is a program that works well within san francisco and it has the opportunities for the local development of renewables as well. and so it is, it is a dual path, the community choice aggregate option and the green tariff option. thank you. commissioner wald had a question but cal if i could just mention because i was at the and it might have been at the environment commission where you mentioned the statistic about roof top could get us 7 percent and i don't know if you get the boughts of insomnia and i wanted to figure that out and so i took a ruler and i kind of tried to figure out is that really right? it is only 7 percent of the

entire city and so i went recently and found a study called roof top revolution and changing everything with the cost effective local solar and institute for the local self-reliance from march of 2012 and quote from the law and the golden gate law school that estimates 378 mega watts of roof top solar, which a non-peak demand is 6 to 700 so that is about 50 percent and a peak at 1,000 would be about a third is there a potential to revisit to figure out what the real number? >> the difference of what you are pointing out is the difference between a mega watt and a megawatt hour. it is going to produce about four and a half and there is a reduction in the storage and transition and the terms of hours per day. >> and i got you, and i know and it i have been around to know that and they say that the

estimate per hour is 547 giga watt hours per year. >> yeah, but..., that is about right because we are running well over 6,000 giga watt hours, per year. is that? does that number sound right to you? >> so 547 giga watt hours and what percentage of 6,000. >> the food for thought and i will e-mail that to you, if you hear that number and you take a ruler and the sunset reservoir is a block and that is like nine and you know, like a map has a legend, like one inch equals whatever, and visually you will get a lot more solar and it is from the good folks but it might be worth internally of figuring out what the number is right. >> sure. >> i think that we do. >> it sounds like the numbers are actually very close. >> yeah i will give you my copy. >> sure. >> and we are happy to take a look at that too, at the puc, and you know not every roof is

suitable for the solar and it is interesting when we are talking earlier about the green roofs and lid, and you know, there are opportunities to do more than just solar on san francisco's roofs. >> there are also physical restrictions that currently, the utility does not want more than 5 percent of solar at peak. than the demand that would be in that feeder, or in that distribution area. and so that makes it really impossible to really saturate the city with the amount of solar that we are talking about and however there is an opportunity of using the microgrids that you can island a particular group of buildings. and saturate them with solar and provide the energy storage that takes the excess hour and prevents at peak the system providing power to the grid.

and it absorbs it all and uses that stored energy to provide the power for the rest of the day and evening. >> and having a microgrid is a way of also, doing, or being better prepared for the disasters. and providing more long term energy in case of a state wide black out, or the major earthquake or where the grid goes down for an over extended period of time. >> if you don't mind to take a look and see what and see how they did the analysis. >> sure. >> it just strikes anybody as pretty low and we talk about having the local build out as possible and if we can max out only 7 percent. >> it is actually the numbers are very close. and the numbers that we have and i want to say something about that and i think that the 7 percent number are slightly misleading and that includes all of the direct customers like the stuff of the treatment plant and the huge amount of the large scale and the

industrial use and which no one will expect the roof top solar to be able to offset and i think that the far more meaningful way of looking at this is how many san franciscans could offset the load with the solar on the rao*fs oofs and i think that the number will be higher than 7 percent. >> and if you take out. >> the regular san franciscan we don't think about how much power the city is using. >> in a single family home you can do it, in the home. >> and i mean to speak to sort of president, and i think that is sort of the type of thing that we should be focusing on because, in my mind, you know, small scale solar is never going to offset and whatever it was intended to or never designed to offset the large scale. >> that is right. >> and so maybe, we can try to come up with those numbers and going forward.

>> yeah, just thinking about a large, commercial building and an 80 story commercial building downtown and it has a tiny roof and a giant load that is underneath it. and what is on that roof? a lot of mechanical equipment. and there is not much space and then you are looking at the facade and it is not as effective as roof top solar and so, all of these considerations that you can add that will change the 7 percent and maybe get it up to 10 or 11 or 12 and we are talking about in the teens, as opposed to being very close to 100 percent which is what we want to get to. >> and many of those and how much solar can you put and where is the energy efficiency opportunity that is passed and that is where we should really and consistent with the san francisco policy and the order is energy efficiency first and

that is what we should be investing our scarce resources in. >> happy to take the comments and questions. >> that is a question for commissioner weld. >> i am actually going to withdraw the question in the conviction that this is in fact, the start of a bigger and more robust conversation, and also, because i would like to hear from the members of the public who have stuck with this meeting since its beginning. >> yes. they deserve a gold star for doing that. and maybe, before, commissioner, if, and maybe it a green star, commissioner since it is the joint, never mind. okay, so, commissioner courtney, maybe before we go into the public comment, we do have representatives from supervisor avalos and maybe to address the joint meeting

starting with jeremy from avalos. >> thank you, thank you for being here and waiting so long. >> thank you, president courtney and the commissioners thanks for your time. supervisor avalos could not be here and asked me to read this brief statement, 2008 san francisco enacted the greenhouse goals that were cutting edge and ambition and to the department of environment and claim the action strategies the blueprint to get to the greenhouse commission reductions and the report outlined 35 strategies that will be needed to meet the goals and nearly half of the reductions in the city are from moving to a single strategy from 100 percent of renewable energy and unless we do this, there is really no way that

picture any more. they have shown that the model works and it is not risky and it does not require, the huge amount of reserves that we were envisioning before. and with the addition of richmond, it is serving 125,000 customers, and the county is about to launch its own, and it is starting to see it spread and we think that it could be easier to move forward and a less expensive than we imagined and so, there is, and as miss

hale said that we are exploring two passports and we join and become part of the service or we can develop a in-house program and that model instead of contracting with shell we can use the expertise that we have, to perform those same tasks and also it will bring in the revenue that will balance out the budget of the power enterprise that is struggling at the moment. we understand that the full 19.5 million will not be needed any more, and supervisors avalos, breed and mar have indicated that they will not pass that budget and takes away the money for the other resource and we are hoping to come up to the agreement to to balance the budget and i believe that the supervisors are looking for a couple of assurances and one is to determine what amount of funds that we need, to join the clean energy and launching an in-house, cca without using shell and our own public utility staff. and so, we would like to figure

out what, and the public utility commission, and so we will see if we can get the concrete actions and move forward with the goal of launching a cca. by july 21st. >> can you give us the other items on his list because you started with un, if you could give us the other, unless it was just the one. >> let's see, i think that the two assure sanses is preserving enough funds to be able to and seeing the concrete actions and it will be our goal, and i think that we can figure out a portion of that 19.5 million that can be repurposed for the other purposes, thank you for your time. >> real quick. >> and i think that the purposes of this conversation, but not this conversation, by itself, right? i think that we established that goal. and i think that we know that we are going to continue to have this conversation to your

point and flush it out. the jobs, conversations is also a part of that conversation, and it is going to be coming up again and again. >> and i was talking to the president in anticipation of your testimony, and one thing that i would like to see, and when we began to see and talking about the bill out. and we were given an organizational chart, and that organizational chart was it was attractive to the building trades. and so, i would just hope that as you continue doing the good work that you are doing, we and there seems to be two options that at this point, where the jobs might be, whether they are in the public sector or the private sector, whether there is training components, you know, what kind of, or what do the bids look like and then we probably may also have to anticipate the conversations about environmental impacts and the like, and so obviously, you know, we are going to be

engaging this entire dialogue but i am asking that we kind of t, up the jobs conversation as well and if you are inclined to do that. >> and i appreciate that and i think that supervisor avalos is a member of the local higher ordinances and made the job promotion one of the issues and i think that the original clean power had 2 million set aside for the planning of the build out for the clean power sf and i think that anything that we can do to get that thing moving and you know, on a parallel track, even to the cca willing great, and i think that looking to explore as much as we can, the pipeline, of solar projects, and in-line, high dro and anything else and i think that it will be great to move along, and i think that we see the cca as sort of a long term funding vehicle, i think as we develop a revenue, base and a customer base, we can use those revenue to fund those job training programs and after we establish a pipeline and after we establish, a credibility and with a few years in the market, we can start to issue the

revenue bonds against those funds to expand the jobs component and the build out of the renewable power. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and jason,? >> jason freed, executive office, lasco and kind of dragging, jeremy took some of my talking points and i am going to skim over those and talk about another stuff and first off i wanted to mention that i appreciate the commission on the environment and the commissioners who are asking the questions of something that really was not in the presentstations and that the 100 percent renewable energy, goal that the city in the climate action strategy plan and one thing that struck me and it was pointed out to me by supervisor breed's staff and connor who had to leave because he had to go to another meeting and could not stay this long, and during the presentations earlier discuss, pued the discussion about fire, and the impacts that that is happening on the puc and this position, and throughout the impact that is having, sewer, and the fact that you know, ocean waters are

rising and that is getting into the sewer system and those are all things that are climate related and it is meant to try to expel sell and 100 percent removal is something that we need to work towards and do and that is why when the staff was basically instructed to stop working on clean power sf, lasco picked up the ball and has gone out and within the last month, we have had a new contractor start working on some of the questions, and to address some of the questions, commissioner courtney that you raised about creating jobs and we have 12 tasks that we are looking at and we have started task one and getting that going and the first that we looked at is without a shell of energy in place and if you have the puc does a lot of the work that shell is going to do for the program and what does that mean for the bod om line budget and that first half came back and said that without any additional staff needed by the puc. and does the cca program, or could pay, the power enterprise department, and somewhere between 600 to 1.1 million dollars annually to help to fix the budget problems and it does

not solve the entire problem and you are talking about the energy efficiency and the top priority and anyone in the industry will tell you that the energy efficiency is something that you should do before you put the solar on the roof and you want to reduce the load as much as possible and whether it is a $800 million that the cpuc controls and the program can apply for and in talking with the staff and both, with both groups is that you know, somewhere between 4 to 6 million dollars a year could be brought in and that is real money that could be spent for

the city for residential customer and not the large commercial and the folks that can afford to be paid. but the renters who do not have the access to the green finance that the home owners have. and we can move that in the right direction, i have more comments, but my time is up. >> thank you jason for your commitment and all of your hard work. >> all right. perhaps, maybe we could hear from the public and maybe try to summarize our thoughts collectively. >> i think that we should hear public comment. >> all right. >> members of the public that would like to comment? on any of items 4 a, through e? please come forward. >> yes? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is denise and i have these cards that i would like to pass out, and i have these

made up and no and i noticed the vehicles, when we stopped to pick up the people, and it could be for up to ten minutes or even more. and so, i am going to read this from, how much is idling costing new york the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the neighborhoods and services committee occurring may , 15, 2014, will new york city drivers, they waste, in the fuel burned while idling, and it also inflicts more wear and tear on the engines leading to more high maintenance costs. new york has feed for the people who idle more than one minute adjacent to schools and three minutes for the rest of new york city. we in san francisco, don't have

an equivalent law. and i happened to use a para transit quite a bit. and no matter how many letters i write to the para transit about their drivers idling their vehicles, and i have given copies to this commission as well. i don't get any response, and they continue, and the drivers continue to idle and i have to continually ask them to please not to do that and so here is one, clever, and one funny little situation. and did, and the one driver that i had, idling to 20 minutes when he was looking for a passenger, i said will you please turn your motor off? and he said i can't, afford