of the different mixes and happy to answer questions as well as my colleague [inaudible] is here with us. >> thank you. supervisor tang >> i have a question that can be answered by [inaudible] or puc. first i'll say i'm a huge supporter of clean power sf and excited if we can launch this in the fall and think that both the initiative measure and ballot measure before us today are trying to achieve i think great goals which is inform our customers about where the true source of pow er is coming from. i think we all share the goal of providing 2 clee power the customers. one of the questions i have, i know go solar sf is sited as something that may not be included in the measure and the reference to category 3 for the general public, i know you reference california puc code 399.16 so

under sickz 3 of that porz thf code, what are some of the other categories that would fall under that? for example one of my concernicize potentially we can go outside california, we could obtain power that is potentially not clean and green so wonder if puc or [inaudible] can speak to that issue because i think is valid one the initiative measure was trying to address. >> i'm happy to take a stab at that. so, under california state rules and the code that you cited the state created 3 sort of buckets or categories, we call buckets or proctcontunt categories. the first categories is a bundled renewable energy product. that means the purchases of the

renewable energy acquired the energy with a renewable energy cred squt the underlying electricity prior to the generation of that electricity. it means the electricity was dlinch today the state of california. it doesn't mean the resource is located in the state, it could be located on the boarder, but under the law of category one resource has to deliver into state of california. product content category 2 is also resource that could be out of state but by definition has to deliver energy into the state of california and it can be formed and shaped thmpt idea is you can buy a predictable amount of energy according to demand needs and delivered to the state of california. >> what is in the actual code it says firmed and shape, what

does that mean? >> the idea is renewable resources are extremely variable. you can't dispatch them is the term we use in the electric industry to meet demand in real time. specifically i'm referring to a subset of renewable energy but probably the most abundant and that is solar and wind. those resources generate when the wind is blowing and sun is shining. we all use electricity at various times of the day and when we turn on the lights we expect it to boo on. wind and solar may not generate when we need it. the idea-retail electricity providers have to match the sources of energy to the demand as close as they can in real time. we do that by arranging the energy with the grid operator. the idea of firming

and shape sg you produce a specific amountf renewable energy and that energy is delivered into the grid but you can using all the resources in the grid shape it? into a profile that supports your consumers demand. the same amount of renewable energy is produced from that product as from the product content in category one product and the product conitant cat tent 3. renewable yeents are merely documentation that a given amount of renewable energy is generated and delivered to the grid. >> okay. so, then just going back to my question, for category 3 that is the only category where potentially we would go outside of the state

unless it is on the boarder and delivered within california but that is the category where potentially we could purchase renewable energy credits? >> the category 3 are sort of the most liquid, they are the most easily traded. it doesn't have to be a out of state resource though. bucket 3 category 3 recks are also produced in california. the idea is that when you buy a renewable energy credit you bought it separate from the underlying electricity. when i described category 1, by definition you have to buy the renewable energy credit with the lickticity. product 3, that energy can be sold to a 3rd party and acquire the underlying wenewable energy credit attribute. it is a way

to address the varability of renewable and originally intended to spur the market for renewable energy. >> in what-i know we can't anticipate the future but in what situations would we want to utilize category 3? >> um, for community choice aggregation program, we are approaching resources today with a focus just on product content category 1 resources. product conitant category 3 is really sort of a resource that would allows us to fill gaps. i think mr. freed referred to emergency situations where we may a contract with a particular resource that for some reason goes off line but

we were expecting and really needed the renewable energy to be produced to meet our overall content objectives. the bucket 3 resource provides flexibility in times where our product content category 1 resource isn't available and to fill in sort of the small percentages of renewable energy short falls that might occur because of a mismatch of supply and demand. generally speaking, under state rules the state rps is structured to limit the number of unbundled racks, it is capped. >> can you state for the record what that cap is? >> it is believe 15 percent of the rps requirement for the

retail seller and think today that is in the range of 5 percent of the overall sales. >> okay. 5 percent. and i fully understand if we had to use category 3 and if it is outside california it doesn't necessarily mean it is unclean energy and that there are situations where we may need to utilize that. i think my concern just stems from i think what sparked the measure in the first place or what i believe to be one of the underlying reasons for the initiative measure is make sure it is truly clean power and we are disclosing the right information to the customers. my last question is just what steps can puc take as we launch clean power sf just to guarantee that it is clean power and that potentially wree

not utilizing certain categories where we purchase renewable energy credits that may not come from clean sources. >> ya. well, as i mentioned before we rin the process now of developing a request for offers for our initial power supply for clean power sf launch and that request for offers will only ask potential suppliers to deliver the bucket 1 category 1 resources to the city to supply its cca program. under the program all resources that sell energy to resale seller have to be certified by the state and they also have to track the renewable energy credits they

initiate with a state accounting system called regius. all of the projects and energy we transact with for the cca program are tracked in regius and we can retire certificates and account for specific serial numbers generated. when i talk about certificates these are category one resources. every bucket relies on renewable energy credits. that is the way that we are and all retail sellers verify they received what they need and we are also required to report that to the state so they can verify that we complied with the minimum state requirements. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you very much. so,

we can open up the item for public comment. any member of the public like to comment, please come forward. >> good afternoon again supervisors [inaudible] eric burke representing san francisco green party [inaudible] and also san francisco clean energy advocates. so, specifically to what supervisor tang was just asking about, the key-we heard the details technically of what renewable energy credits are. the key with the measure being promoted by pge alleys is not whether renewable crediterize good or bad, the key is that ballot measure states that the sate city of san francisco

can't buy those credits but pge. that is just ridiculous and think pge alleys putting this forward should think about what it makes them look to the public. let me get to the other important aspect of the ordinance ballot measure and that schnookler issue. i have done work on clean power sf for 11 year jz a big part is knocking on door squz calling people on the phone and i explained this to thousands of people and the number 1 comment and get from people i have to convince is, i got the thing from pge and see in their advertising that they are the

greenest utility in the country because they have over 50 percent green house gas free electricity. the reason that pge is able to get away with that is they claim nuclear power is green house gas free and clean. green house gas free it isn't true. anyone who knows the energy industry knows that a nuclear power plant because [inaudible] a lot of other inputs, even given nuclear power plant produces from 15 percent up to fifen 0 percent of green house gas emissions over the life time of a gas plant. the measure you have before you will make it so that the public is able to get a actual honest accountsing of what is clean and green and end

decades pgebsing the public about whether it is energy-- >> thank you very much. any other member of the public like to comment? >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is hunter sturmen with [inaudible] we have 20 thousand members working for 28 different utilities in northern california. in san francisco it is pge and muni [inaudible] we are sponsoring the truth in energy initiative measure placed in the qualified ballot. frankly if supervisor or the chair had been interested be would have participated in the presentation and gave information about the measure. as for the issue in front of the committee today we have no position on this measure at

this time because we understand there has been some changes and may be changes in the future. there are 2 aspects that need to be changed and strongly urge you to amend them. the first is the measure promotes the use of renewable energy certificates and they are a failure. it is something we oppose frd years whether pge uses them or smud or palo alto or any other energy including clean power sf. r they do not produce renewable and promote renewable projects. they cover dirty fossil fuel power with pieces of paper. that is a rec. this changes a calculation. state law is very clear and the measure in front

of you is not. nuclear power ist norenewable, no one said it is renewable kwr no one want tooz relyoon it, but it is green house gas emission 3, the state of california says so it continues to be that way. it will continue to be that way until nuclear power plants are retired. we ask you to consider-- >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none we'll close public comment and colleagues i would like tamotion to have this very small amendment accepted into the ordinance and it is on page 3. it is adding the language, and resources set forth in the rps under public utility code

399.30. that will be the amendment. supervisor cohen >> i would like to second the motion if that was the motion. >> okay. thank you for your second and colleagues we take that without objection? the sponsor of the ordinance is not here, supervisor-prez president breed but we have pr visor wiener christensen and myself back the measure. this measure wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the ibw meser mr. sterns talked about that we talked about here in committee today. we would rather not have to go forward with it but we feel in order to protect the clean power sf

program and be clear about the type of energy provided and what people who provide energy in san francisco should provide so there is consistency this measure is going forward with your support colleagues. like to motion that we move this motion to >> july 27 >> july 27, special rules committee meeting. >> it is amended to the monday meeting. >> okay. >> just to clarify on supervisor avalos amendment, i believe you circulated paper copies to the other members on the committee but to clarify the for the public, the amendment also strikes the words, and from large hide roelectric facilities including but not limit today the hetch

hetchy facilities page plea line 12-13 and in the very last line of that section 2102, correct the typo changing, does to do. >> thank you for pointing that out. that is the amendment we have aurmd taken just to clarify. i did kind of make a motion so think have visor cohen may be seconding and supervisor tang. >> i'm fine with the amendment. i just want to make comments before we take the vote on the measure. i brought up the question that i did because ultimately i want to insure we are able to laurch clean power sf in 2016 and it is a competitive program where we offer rates and they crum petitive and we provide clean power. i don't want to do anything that would harm that launch so will support the

measure but think there are valid concerns but today i'll support the measure before us. >> great, thank you. so supervisor cohen. >> i don't have much to add other than i will support the measure today and seconding the amendment and i do think it is interesting one of the benefits of the democratic process is when a initiative comes on the ballot we have a opportunity to counter and offer different perspective but the thing that is consistent is it allowstuse talk and drill down to the issue. i think that if it were not for the measure that-the pge measure, the issue that mr. hunter stern spoke of, i appreciate the level of

advocase and sounding an alarm to educate on your concerns. >> okay, great. so, we have a motion, seconded to move this item to the july 27 special rules committee meeting. continue to july 27. we'll talk that without objection. next item >> item 6 a ordinance amending the requiring the police and sheriff department to report data regarding detention and traffic stops. >> may i jump in? good afternoon everyone. i'm excited because today we bring forward before you a trangz apparent policy ordinance which is a ordinance which is a benefit to san francisco especially the minority communities as well as helpful to the sheriff and police department. i have several

remarks i want to share with you this afternoon. so, the reason why i suppose this ordinance that will require both the sheriff and police department to collect data on race and gender and gender identity during traffic stops or detains for questioning or performs a consenseual or non consenseual search of a individual. this is a expansion of the information that the police department is already collecting and as of now the department only collects data on race, age, sex during traffic stops. what i'm asking and proposing is we expand the data to include detentions, search and gender

identity related to complaint. the ordinance requires each respective department not only to collect the information but analyze and report the data on a quarterly basis to the board of supervisors as well as mayors office and the human rights commission as well as the police commission. this information collected will include a couple things. first, it will include the name and badge number of all officers involved. the result of the contact so for example, if the contact ended in a arrest, a citation or warning or incident report. there are 3 things that this ordinance focuses on in the spirt of preventing. we are look to

prevent pretextual stops based on race and pretextual stops based on gender related characteristics. also reporting the use of force that the results yield in a unknown injury. over the last year or so we have seen many horrific events were police officers have been abuseed their power either killing or seriously injuring mostly african american or minority men. as we sit here today [inaudible] other men involved in the [inaudible] scandal still have not been terminated. african american are arrested 19 more

times more often than any other race for drug crimes in san francisco. studies show transgendered people across the u.s. experience police violence than non transgendered individuals. a study released in 2015 by the national coalition of anteviolence program showed transgender wemb experience police brutlety of 5.8 percent greater. for transgender of color that is 6.2 times greater. i use the data and information to anchor what i'm trying to accomplish here. i'm not making this up. across the nation there is a movement to reform police practice after the tragied and out cry we have seen in

[inaudible] i'm glad we haven't seen this level of outcrine san francisco and think that speaks to our police department. in response, president obama convened the 24th century police task force that produced a report can w a number of improvements cities should make to improve police relations in the community. many task force recommendations emphasize the opportunity for police departments to better use data and tech naumg to build trust. the police data initiative is helping accelerate progress around data transparency and analysis toward the goal of increasing trust. these 2 areas within the initiative focusing on first, using open data to build transsknaerns to

increase community trust and second, to create internal accountability and effective data analysis. at this time-at the same time i introduce this ordinance assembly woman shurly weber from san diego introduced a similar piece of legislation on the state level and made minor adjustments in this ordinance to reflect the language within her legislation. passing the ordinance will make us the first mu nis palties in california and quite possibly in the u.s. and reporting requirement of the law enforcement agency t. is trully my hope that the rest of the country will begin to follow our example. i'm proud to work community advoicates on the ordinance and would like to thank each of them for their input. first of all, the office of justice has been

tremendous as is the transjendser law center. committee united against violence, human rights commission is unpair lled, the office of citizens complaints thrks youth commission and of course the sheriffs department and police department, we worked collectively hand in hand. colleagues you should have before you received the latest version of theords nns with additional amendments that we made. most of these are clean up language, but one of the most significant changes we made was to the gender identity collection section. this is a interesting prudickiment. in working in sth transgendered community and the police department they felt that requiring police officers to ask a individual for their

gender identity would lead to more harassment so we said complaints filed or a individual self identifies a transjoneder and experienced bias policing based on that fact. i want to acknowledge 2 letters that we received from the youth commission and the new crimial justice task force thf bar association of san francisco which acknowledges the importance of data collection when it come tooz law enforcement and transparency in the respective departments. colleagues, passing this ordinance some of the goals we hope to achieve are reducing unintentional and disproportioninate numbers of detention, arrest and target of minorities and of the transgendered community. it also important creates a bench

mark analysis of where we are with bias that may exist in the law enforcement department and hope of laying a path for the future we will begin to be free of these biases. introducing additional transparency and ofernsight to the police department and rebuild the trust the community has had in the law enforcement department by making this information available for the public to review by again, requiring quarterly reporting to the mayors office and board of supervisors and police compligz as well as human rights commission. avenue wn has their own biases and i want to gater the data to make sure everyone in san francisco has a safe place to live and thrive free of the unintentional targeting by officers. colleagues i hope to have your support on this item as it continue tooz move forward. at this time i would like to