want to thank cal broomhead on the years of bringing me up to speed on the green jobs creation and how challenging that is, but i think with the great work of the staff of the department of the environment be this really really helps our clean power sf program. i wanted to thank cal also for the establishment of the new energy efficiency task force. i think in april it's going to the rule's committee. it has members of put air, emerald city, labor small business and other leaders that will be on the energy efficiency task force to helpfully support the task force and raise awareness in the neighborhoods too. i wanted to acknowledge we're working with guillermo rod rod from the department to make sure we're going to support the work going on, but i'm pleased with how there's a great connection and good timing and the partnerships that miss

rafael just mentioned. i'm very, very pleased. thank you. >> thank you. i'm curious, moving forward, what kind of action legislatively that might be needed from lafco or the board of supervisors to help strengthen the work that can be done with energy efficiency moving forward. do you have any recommendations that are coming forward for us? >> beyond be what director rafael added, yes. anyone else from staff? >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power at the sfpuc there may be an opportunity for you to lend your voices of support to our efforts to get california puc authority to expand pg&e rate payer dollars to expand our energy

efficiency. there may be an opportunity there to engage. we weren't at this point envisioning bringing any specific legislation for energy efficiency to this body or to the board. that could change but at this point we weren't anticipating that. >> thank you. >> cca program. >> i'm not sure if you've identified funding that was approved by the voters in the housing trust fund for energy efficiency. i had put the language in the housing trust fund that, the language was originally called the home owners stablization fund and at the last minute it was changed to the housing stablization fund. i wanted to create a funding stream that could be available for households, single family homes to be able to access. some of those funds are available for distressed mortgages and there's a new program that's being made by the mayor's office of housing

around distressed mortgages but there's also eligible uses that are around energy efficiency as well. there is also discussion about how these funds could be used to help lead to incentive for legalizing in-laws. the difficulty is the city has not worked on how to program these funds into these programs and i think that's an area where probably there is office of housing, which is very focused on affordable housing construction, has not seen the effort made to creating these programs for this funding stream for energy efficiency or these other ways to support single family homes and i think maybe the department of the environment can play a role working with the mayor's office of housing to help get some meat on the bones to see these programs come to fruition. >> and if i could i'd like to suggest that the coordination that we're engaged in today between the department of the environment and the san francisco puc on the cca front might be a good vehicle to sort

of program it in so that we don't have multiple administrative efforts but a consolidated effort. >> i was not aware of that but i wrote it down. first thing i'm going to do is find out more. thank you. >> it's a little bit of money, but --. >> but if we can leverage and it hasn't have the same restrictions we have when going through the public --. >> other questions i have, moving forward, i also serve on the air district, the bay area air quality management district and we have a big debate right now about our energy future moving forward, trying to look at -- one of the ideas that's come forward in terms of what we could use as a region are some incentives to actually move towards new building construction that is not just energy efficient by also is a

noncarbon future for these buildings, so non-combustion heating systems, the boilers wouldn't be boilers any more, they would be something else that we could put in place, and that's a place where i think there could be work that we could enhance through legislation moving forward and has the department of the environment worked on these types of ideas? >> yeah, we are very much now looking at updating the rico, which is the residential energy conservation ordinance, we may be coming back to you hopefully soon with some measures for existing buildings. when we talk about new construction we're doing a lot of work now looking at the roof, what do we want to do about green roofs and solar, looking at electric vehicles, electrification, this boiler aspect is another wonderful piece of that. how do we get away from natural gas? that is what you're talking about and when you look at our green house gas

emissions, we're doing great on the electricity side, we have a path forward. what we need to do is tackle our fuels, whether those are natural gas use or gasoline. >> we have a huge explosion of market rate luxury housing in san francisco. i'm not sure, the majority of these buildings are they going up with systems that are actually non-carbon, are they actually maximizing efficiency, are we seeing solar on these buildings? and if not i think it's worthy of putting some requirements on especially the market rate luxury housing that the exploding the city to be able to put these requirements on them and i think the department of the environment weighing in on that would be really helpful. >> we are definitely excited about the opportunities for heat pumps replacing combustion heating for water heating and space heating. there are real -- and solar water heating, of course. unfortunately for tall high rise buildings once you get over about 10 stories, the

possibility of being able to have much solar access on the roof is extremely diminished because they have a lot of needs for ventilation and other things through that roof top, so there's a lot of competing needs plus the size and the density of the energy needed may mean it's difficult to replace a natural gas fired boiler with other technology unless we can find some other source for the gas, like bio gas. it's easier to do in low rise buildings. >> thank you. colleagues, any other comments or questions? vice chair cruz. >> thank you. i just want to thank the department of the environment for coming here today. this was something that i was really excited about, to see the presentation and i spoke with mr. broomhead

before, giving me some ideas on what are the possibilities out there. and what i understand is that there is a whole host of ideas and programs and efficiencies that can be made available for clean power sf customers that they just would not have had the opportunity to see even to find funding for or to package the programs together in a way that they just couldn't get from pg&e, which creates the incentive to do more of these efficiencies and that's really what we want, just to lessen the load. so thank you for this presentation. i'm interested to know, i know you're working closely with the sfpuc staff, if this is not -- if the programs are not really slated to be launched in the

initial cca launch, what does the timeline look like? i know there are a lot of moving parts there. >> yes, there are. again, barbara hale, assistant general manager for power at the sfpuc we do plan during this year to make the submission to the california puc to become the administrator of the fund. when they will acting on that is one of the moving parts. we don't know how long it will take them to grant us that authority. and we want to make sure that what we ultimately offer the customers in the program are responsive to the customer needs. so in looking at the marin experience and looking at the sonoma experience, the piloting that sonoma did is attractive to us. we're still talking and evaluating how we might want to

begin the effort, but i think the biggest unknown for us, for the early planning aspects of it, is when the cpuc would act on any filing we would make. and having that assurance of funds is really what's going to make the difference between being able to launch as we definitely know we will with energy watch, bay run, all the programs that the cca rate payers are already paying for because they are also pg&e rate payers, so we know we will have that suite of offerings. the question is what more can we do and how do we achieve the vision that was described towards the later half of the presentation, because that's the overall goal. >> when does that sort of get, i guess the programs, if they are adopted and if the more expanded offerings are part of

this launch, either the first wave or second wave or however it rolls out, at what point do you have an understanding in terms of like a budget reliance with the sfpuc and the department of the environment? >> when the sfpuc responds to our application is when we will know how much of the existing rate payer funds that pg&e currently administers will be allocated to us as the cca provider. >> okay. >> allocated to the city. >> okay, does that coincide with the current budget timeline? >> so they are currently evaluating at the cpuc having a rolling timeline and not a set timeline. >> oh, good. okay. >> we're hoping that with our -- by filing an application during this year we'll be able to be rolled in to that rolling process. and you're right,

historically they did have like a 3 year set time frame where there was a window you would get in and then you'd have to wait. >> and because, from our perspective, and the wonderful thing about bay run, as you know, commissioner mar, is that it's a proof of concept. in a way it's a pilot of what the kind of comprehensive programs can be. right now bay run is a very small amount of money. energy watch is about $7 million to bay run's $450, $350,000. so it's a very small window of what's possible but because we've already done it as soon as there's sort of that mental sufficient evidence of launch, you know, where we are very confident this is going to be real, then we're going to start planning. as you know for any program to launch there's a ton of planning that goes on first and we'll have a little bit of that luxury of time to plan so that when we know the amount of money that's -- we'll have a menu of things we can do and depending on how

much funding the cpuc allocates to the cca, there's a little bit of argument, as you can imagine, between pg&e and cca's between who gets the public good charge money and how much and that hasn't been settled yet. that's why barbara hale and i have a hard time planning our budgets for additional resources. we know what we have now and as kathleen said we're fully expected to keep going where we are now, but that additionality is tough and it's tough no know how much and when. whether it's legislative or not, the voice of this body needs to be heard at the california public utilities commission. i mean if you look at what's going on internationally now, there's tremendous understanding that green house gas production emissions happen at the city level and we are fully equiped to make those happen if we have the freedom to do it right and that's the message we need to deliver to the california

public utilities commission who i think, i believe share our same goals, i expect. >> i'm seeing a lot of opportunity as well. you mentioned other cca's that currently exist but there are also many in the making as well. so these are all places or people who are working on these to be able to be part of the effort to get the rules we want. okay, i think we have no more questions on this part of this agenda item. mr. fried, do you want to take us to our next agenda item? >> the next part would be the assistant general manager, barbara hale, presenting the cca update itself. >> thank you, mr. fried. so i have three things to talk about today on cca first off is to announce that we have an acting director, i'm very happy about that personally, and

that's mike heim, the gentleman to my left. mike had been an analyst with us years ago when we first began working on the cca project. he went off to new york, it was, and got his master's degree there in energy management and policy, worked as a researcher, university of columbia, and worked for the port authority as a senior energy analyst. then we wooed him back. actually, we didn't, he just loved california -- and he's been working with us as our regulatory and legislative affairs manager for some time now. so he has really deep understanding of the whole cpuc process and the rules of engagement on cca and will be leading our team toward the finish line at least on an interim basis. and that brings me to my second topic, which is the schedule and sort of where

we're at and our legislative reforms. the schedule had envisioned we'd be bringing legislative reforms to the board of supervisors and, in particular, the reforms we're looking for would give us authority to use standardized power purchase contracts for longer durations than we currently have authority for. we'll also be asking for the authority to enter into energy supply contracts for up to 20 years in duration. with a total contract cost that are greater than $10 million dollars and longer, as i said, 20 years, longer than 10. so the current charter requirements are to bring contracts like that to the board of supervisors for approval. if they exceed 10 years in duration or 10 million

dollars in expenditure. and so we're working with the city attorney on the delegation of authority because it is a charter delegation --. >> (inaudible) charter. >> it's taking a little bit longer for us to work out exactly what the boundaries would be, the parameters would be, of that delegation of authority. so we'll probably be coming to you in your board form in about two, three weeks with a proposed wltion. -- legislation. >> would that be a charter amendment? >> i understand that's happened a couple of times before, it's not completely unheard of, but it's taking a little longer for us to understand at the department what that means and for the city attorney to work through what kind of parameters are helpful for us and comfortable

for the city in its delegation of that authority. >> and there aren't any other examples of that delegation of authority already? >> not in this particular context. we have had waivers in the context of, waivers of admin code in the context of energy procurement, supply contracts, and that's a little easier to get our heads around. we have examples of that, we've done that before as a city, but not delegation of the charter authority with respect to supply agreements. >> and can i ask what is it about these power purchase agreements or these purchasing agreements that requires a change? what is the nature of them? >> so part of what we're trying to achieve with the change in allowing us to contract for more than 20 years is the ability to bring into the cca program, into the city's portfolio of energy supply, projects that can be

financed and built at a pace that allows us to meet the demands of the cca program. clearly an overall goe of the city for the cca program has been to have new generation, new renewables, not just purchases. we can have effective purchasing authority under the existing rules and with the ability to contract just a little bit longer term and that's what the waivers component of the legislative reform will bring to you, will allow us to do. but to really be able to say to you, we think the cca program will result in new generation being built, not just what we own, but also out there in the market place being built to serve us, we need to be able to contract with the counter party for 20 years at least because then they can finance that project and have it be built. so i think that's

what's really motivating that aspect of the reforms we bring to you, is to try to be responsive to have that as part of the cca program sthoo sthoo so the idea would be that potentially one example would be that we contract with this one provider who is using some of the proceeds to finance the construction of generation facilities while they are providing us with some power. >> yes. i can imagine that with this authority we could go out to the market place through a request for offer asking the market place specifically who, at what price would you bring us newly constructed renewable power. and they would submit to us the price, location, characteristics of the project, and we could engage in a letter of commitment, non-binding

letter of commitment in response to that so we would know that were we to strike a deal with that contractor, with that counter party, they would be able to go out and finance it and build it, fresh and new, the idea. >> thank you. >> so that's the legislative reform packet that we think we'll be bringing 200in two, three weeks time. we're working through the details with city attorney, want to make sure we get this right. it's been impressed upon me that delegation of authority is something that -- well, we've done it before, we don't do it a lot, and we have to make sure we take the time to get it done right. we had anticipated bringing it 200earlier in the schedule. bringing it to you later in the schedule will not affect it overall. in terms of what's out ahead of us besides the legislative

reform, this month we'll be bringing to our rate fairness board the not to exceed rate we've proposed for both our basic cca service, if you will light green part, as well as the upscale, do more, be greener part of the program, the dark green aspect of the program. we'll be bringing those rates to the rate fairness board, they have agreed to meet on april 17th. that's earlier in the schedule as opposed to later so we were late on the ledge reform but we're early on the not to exceed rates, we heard a lot of interest in advancing that and we're responding to that by advancing the schedule to that. i'm not sure they'll be able to vote on that, they'll be comfortable on voting on that the first time they hear it, but we will be prepared to bring it to our commission

shortly after the rate fairness board adopts it, it will come to our commission. we are on april 14th bringing to our commission the policy, the program design and proposed not to exceed rates so that's at our next puc commission meeting. we'll be making that presentation and getting feedback from our commission before we take it to the rate fairness board. so that's, again, april 14th. >> i'm sorry, that's proposed --. >> program design. >> for light and dark? >> correct. >> and program design. >> right. and by program design i mean what's the portfolio of resources, what do we think we'll be able to offer our cca customers in terms of the product. and i think that kind of gets us to, close to the next lafco meeting so i'll stop there and see if, jason, you had anything

further. >> jason fried, executive officer. first off, as i mentioned, i want to thank them for being the interim director while we wait for the process to move forward. i've been working with mike for some time, i've been treating him as the interim even though he didn't have the title yet. i'm glad to see he will be working with us while they go through the process to get the permanent long-term cca director in place. as i said at the puc meeting i'm thankful they moved the not to exceed meeting up a little quicker. i am disappointed we're not geting the package of stuff changed as quickly as i can but i understand this is a very technical process. it means the board of supervisors will need to work quickly on it to keep us on schedule so that will be on the board of supervisors supervisor's lap so we can remain on target and on

time to get a program launched or get our rfo back so we can get those back and go through that part of the process. on that note, that is what i have, i know they are working very hard on multiple areas at the same time so i've been impressed with how well thefr been doing all this work and trying to stay task. i understand the one delay in this so far is because it's a very technical matter and they want to get it correct. >> i'm ready to talk to regulatory issues if you're read whiy for that, the third commission item. >> as a commission we want to welcome mr. highland, we look forward to working with you and already you have developed a relationship with mr. fried and it's essential we all work well together. we have a huge interest to make sure we are on our timeline this year and we are very eager to get going

here, so welcome and if you want to share anything? >> thank you very much, commissioner, i appreciate it. i just wanted to say it is an honor and a privilege to be able to help the sfpuc and the city get this program going. i'm really looking forward to it, i'm looking forward to working with you and the department of the environment and jason and the stake holders. thank you. >> great, thank you. miss hale >> there's been some activity at the california puc that we wanted to report on. you will recall i have reported a number of times now on their activities with respect to pg&e's green tariff application. they issued their decision, the cpuc, california puc, issued their decision in late january and that decision was forth the schedule for pg&e to file their advice letters, which are the implementation filings that the utilities make after the california commission tells them what they have

authority to do. and that advice letter, pg&e will be providing more specificity around a number of the program's features including final rates for the program that they are planning to launch. the sdis, i spoke to some important issues but also deferred a number of issues. for example, the community outreach and strategy for engaging low income customers, i think that's an important issue for san francisco's interest. options for making the green tariff more affordable in particular and we're particularly interested in the fact that they have deferred consideration of how to incorporate smaller scale renewable projects into the portfolio that's going to be serving the green tariff program. that's of particular interest to us because i think we have some within san

francisco development opportunities that basically can't participate in the program because they have limited it at this point to 500 kilowatts or greater. the proposed schedule for the next phase of the green tariff that they are first going forward with has us hearing from the iou's on april 16th in workshops that will address their procurement, hearing from pg&e at a workshop on april 23rd to address customer site issues and marketing implementation. in particular we're interested in the fact that pg&e will need to address and that's saying how it will comply with the community choice aggregation code of conduct which requires independent marketing of the program in cca areas. then on may 9th pg&e will be filing this advice letter that

addresses the implementation specifics. and that's where they will be announcing their proposed final rates for the program. >> what was the date on that? >> that's may 9th. then on may 29th any comments or protests to that advice letter will be due at the california puc so that's update on the green tariff option issues as they have been filed. we're also following a case there, pg&e's energy resource recovery amount case in that context for cca we're particularly interested in the fact that a number of communities are collaborating and seeking exemptions to the pcia charge that's part of the cca program for customers who

qualify for low income rates. so there's an effort underway to have pg&e do what southern california edison and san diego gas and electric company have already done. they have already exempted their low income care program customers from having to pay a different adjustment that other customers have to pay when they switch from utility default service to cca service. so we're interested in seeing pg&e treat their care customers equally and exempt them here in the pg&e service territory. so that's an issue that's being addressed at the cpuc now. >> what is typically the charge? >> you mean the dollar amount? about a penny per kilowatt hour. >> per kilowatt hour. >> yeah. so as we look at our program economics, our cca program economics, that's