is this process, and i think you both admitted it, is not the kind of process that we should really be conducting when we are looking at a project like this. there has got to be much more robust community engagement before a fence goes up to be able to say community members, hikers, runners, we have discovered and we have some documentation and data here that shows there has been an adverse impact on our watershed and we are proposing to do an infrastructure project, a radar project, we would love to get your input and understand what we can do to still provide access while we're moving forward with this project. what i seem to be hearing both from the public and our general managers is that that process didn't happen. to hear that it's in the hiking books and on the websites and there are signs pointing up the

mountain, i mean it seems there's been some number of years where there has not been inadequate signage and quite the contrary. people have been given permission to go. to put up a fence doesn't feel good. >> given permission by outside parties who have indicated this is a fun trail to go use. as soon as i heard this i directed my staff, find any place that there is access going on that shouldn't be in our watershed. i want to hear about it right now because we are stewards of that watershed. if we can find them, we will engage in a process. i think coming from the point of view that our job is to protect the watershed and provide reasonable access and i think we can do that. that's why i brought up that connector trail that is probably the best solution in this case on a larger scale. >> and is there a sign on the gate that says that there will be a meeting to discuss the connector trail and receive

input? >> not yet. >> well, it seems like that should happen right away. that seems like the minimum amount of effort that we can put in and i think there's additional steps to be able to respond to this question of people who for decades have been accessing these trails and they've been doing it because there hasn't been a sign telling them not to, whether it's our fault or not. >> you want to say a few words? >> manager of the bureau of environmental management. i'd like to clarify something. i think there are two ideas here and two thoughts that we have to consider. one is this project which is very important to the whole water enterprise as well as the wastewater enterprise. the mitigated negative

declaration examined all of the potential impacts that this project could have and the impacts are in the declaration. we have the environmental review officer signed off on it. the mitigation measures are there for the butterflies and for all other possible -- you know, the wood rat and i forget what another one is but deb can provide it. everything is covered in the mitigated negative declaration. closing of the gate is a wider watershed matter. it is not part of this project. yes, we need to protect the watershed. yes, we provide access to the watershed. but all of that is a watershed matter that should be discussed within watershed planning, watershed management, and so on

and so forth, but not within this important project. this had nothing to do with it. it's not covered. if you look and read -- which i'm sure you have -- the mitigated negative declaration, there is no mention of closing a gate. so it's not part of this decision that is in front of you. i would just urge you, because of the importance of the project, to adopt the mitigation, the declaration and to also -- i'm getting very emotional because i feel very strongly about it -- >> irina, the issue -- i think we understand or at least we convey that the project initiated the assessment of the habitat. >> correct. >> and we didn't realize that the habitat had been impacted.

so watershed management made a decision to cut off access because it was having an impact. that is what the understanding is. so separate from the project. did the project identify what the mitigations would be if the project moved forward, not how to manage the watershed. >> commissioner moran. >> commissioner moran: i take your point and that's helpful. if the gate closure and that trail issue is, in fact, separate from the project, if those steps are not part of mitigation impacts, first of all, it's appropriate and i would feel very comfortable proceeding with the project and taking our actions to do that. for the second issue, it is -- i

think clearly the way we went about doing this was unfortunate. i am sympathetic to protecting the watershed. there are an awful lot of impacts that come with human contact. that said, i would hate for this to get tied up in a large and complicated project. i would think that the connector has a bunch of different issues like increased access through access through the cahill ridge trail. it goes along the ridge. that has some sensitivity to it. this would seem to be amenable to a more limited resolution, and i would just encourage, first of all, for staff to talk to the folks who have appeared here today and others and to be open to a solution that deals with really the completion of existing trails that already go

up almost to the top of montara mountain. those trails exist and the impacts have existed for a long time. and to be open to a fairly limited solution that gives access to higher ground and looking to the other side of the mountain. if that can't happen, then that can't happen. i think we should be open to that and not just say that this will have to be resolved as part of a much larger and more complicated project. >> i have a question for either the chair or general counsel. so if we took action on the neg dec and moved that forward, which sounds like it makes sense in general just to protect the watershed and to move the project forward, do we need like a secondary motion that just says that there will be work done to make sure that the public has a process to get

access to what they've traditionally had to get up there without dealing with the environment. i don't know if that's legally possible or if that's a movement because i'm with commissioner moran in that this is something that i think we as puc people are -- as stewards are -- should be moving on despite some of the impacts to the local residents. >> i too would like to decouple these issues, if possible, and really -- i don't know, i don't think we can take action on the second one because this action is specific to the radar installation infrastructure project and the watershed access piece seems like a separate issue that has then ended up because they are connected but separate issues. >> so i would say that if this project wouldn't -- if it wouldn't go forward, we still

would block access because of what we found. so i think that's why we should sit down with the folks and talk about a solution. but again the project when they assess the situation and identify the impact to the habitat, the mitigation identified how you mitigate that project. so the project -- they identify how to do that, but the access to the trail is something that we need to work with separately. >> so you're also saying even if we didn't approve the radar project, access would still be blocked. >> exactly. >> so they are two separate issues. >> when you said decouple the issues, i'm used to meetings

where we have to make notice for any actions we take here. i'm getting used to that. >> i agree, these are separate. however, i also think that the folks who are on the trail and using the trail are assets. once we communicate to them and they understand, i'm sure they want to protect the watershed just as much as we do. they can come up and help us understanding this is what we have to do. we also want to do this. so we work together coming up with something, but they're assets and they're valuable and their input is valuable. i'm glad that they came so they can help with their expertise and the years they've done -- they may have other ideas about how to get to places. i think that could be very useful and helpful to us. >> so what i would do is i would direct steve to meet with the folks forthwith and report at

the next meeting on what position solutions that we can make happen and some preliminary timelines of that. but again we talked to research agencies lg and identified the impact. >> i don't think we need to talk about that yet. i think it's important for them to know what our bottom line is and how we can reach their bottom line and come up with something together because we have a responsibility and we can't at this point do much about that, but we can work other things out. there are more eyes on the trail to work things out. i think that could be important. >> if i might, with that

understanding and commitment from staff, i would move the it item. >> i'll second. >> a motion to approve with that condition of a staff report -- >> no. >> okay. >> that's direction to staff as we would normally do. this is just approve the project has been presented to us. >> through the chair if we could put something like that in the minutes that you are suggesting is possible, i would not be opposed to that. >> i think we would like to as a commission direct steve ritchie through the general manager to engage with the community that use this space and clearly have a deep connection to the montara mountain to figure out and understand what the access issues are and to try and really respond to what their concerns are as much as possible.

i think we should do a lot more putting a sign up there as soon as possible saying these conversations are underway. i don't know if it's external affairs that's going to take on looking at all the maps that are pointing people up there, if there's going to be a fence. i think it's incumbent on us as an agency to be good stewards and say we are stewarding our watershed and we want to engage you in that process, while understanding that you would like access and have those conversations. if you can bring a summary of that back and begin those conversations in the next month and reach out to the community, i think this commission would really appreciate understanding that. >> i would put one qualifier on that. we have a broader community. so one of our big stakeholders is the california native plant society. they've been asking about the project as well because of things they've been seeing. and we're all seeing more and

more on social media. social media has taken a large role in this. we will meet with these groups, but it will be a broader conversation. >> that will be great. >> that's good. >> so there's a motion and a second just for this specific project to approve the radar installation project, whatever it's called. is there any public comment on the motion? we've already taken -- any other final commissioner comments? hearing none, all in favour? aye. opposed. motion carried. >> i'll report at the next commission meeting about the meeting. >> okay. great. thank you. next item. >> clerk: item 10 approve the revised water supply assessment for the proposed potrero power station project. >> revised water supply

assessment. is there a motion? would you like to hear an update on this? >> yeah, i do. >> you want to hear an update, okay. >> again, steve ritchie assistant general manager for water. this is a water supply assessment for a proposed project similar to the other water supply assessments. the commission has recently approved. this one actually was part of the first bunch that we had talked about in the meeting and at the following meetings. for reasons this project had been reworked so the project had some modifications that needed to be built in. so this is simply another water supply assessment that is virtually the same as the last ten water supply assessments the commission saw in the last two or three meetings. >> so the analysis that's included -- >> the same as the others. >> the explanation of the

recommendation, that's all the same? >> yes. >> as we had agreed to before? >> yes. >> okay. >> president caen: comments? any public comment on this item? is there a motion to approve? moved. second? all in favour? aye. opposed? motion carries. thank you very much. we'll now move into closed session and donna will read the closed session items prior to any public comment before we go into closed session. >> clerk: item 13. existing litigation abuon mayen versus city and county of san francisco, et al. item 14, existing litted gas station, federal insurance co cct enterprise versus city and

county of san francisco, unlitigated claim, the mint collection hoa versus city county of san francisco. 17 the roman catholic archbishop of san francisco et al. versus city of county of san francisco. 18 is pacific gas & electric orthopedic surgeoning. item 19 is city and county of frisk versus pacific gas & electric company. no. 20 is the city and county of san francisco versus pacific >> okay. we are now back in open session. item

items 13 through 17 were settled and -- there was recommendations to settle those and move those forward to the board. is there a motion on whether to disclose the discussions that we had during closed session. >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all in favour? opposed? any other new business, commissioners? >> i would like to have a discussion of policy on how we go forth with talking to the public about issues that we do. i mean, if it's consistent with our community benefits package or whatever, but we need to have a policy on how we go forward with the public, especially in lieu of what happened today. if there's not a policy, then we need to go through one. >> could we on our september agenda have a -- what our

current policies are, what we do. all of us were taken aback with what happened with the mount mountain. just to make sure we can avoid these situations in the future. >> i'm sure they will happen. >> any other new business? hearing none, meeting is adjourned.

sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill.

. >> the san francisco carbon fund was started in 2009. it's basically legislation that was passed by the board of supervisors and the mayor's office for the city of san francisco. they passed legislation that said okay, 13% of the cost of the city air travel is going to go into a fund and we're going to use the money in that fund to do local projects that are going to mitigate and sequester greenhouse gas emission. the grants that we're giving, they're anywhere from 15,000 to, say, $80,000 for a two year grant. i'm shawn rosenmoss. i'm the development of community partnerships and carbon fund for the san francisco department of environment. we have an advisory committee

that meets once or twice a year to talk about, okay, what are we going to fund? because we want to look at things like equity and innovative projects. >> i heard about the carbon fund because i used to work for the department of environment. i'm a school education team. my name is marcus major. i'm a founding member of climate action now. we started in 2011. our main goal it to remove carbon in the public right-of-way on sidewalks to build educational gardens that teach people with climate change. >> if it's a greening grant, 75% of the grant has to go for greening. it has to go for planting trees, it has to go for greening up the pavement, because again, this is about permanent carbon savings. >> the dinosaur vegetable

gardens was chosen because the garden was covered in is afault since 1932. it was the seed funding for this whole project. the whole garden,ible was about 84,000 square feet, and our project, we removed 3,126 square feet of cement. >> we usually issue a greening rft every other year, and that's for projects that are going to dig up pavement, plant trees, community garden, school garden. >> we were awarded $43,000 for this project. the produce that's grown here is consumed all right at large by the school community. in this garden we're growing all kinds of organic vegetables from lettuce, and artichokes. we'll be planting apples and

loquats, all kinds of great fruit and veggies. >> the first project was the dipatch biodiesel producing facility. the reason for that is a lot of people in san francisco have diesel cars that they were operating on biodiesel, and they were having to go over to berkeley. we kind of the dog batch preferentials in the difference between diesel and biodiesel. one of the gardens i love is the pomeroy rec center. >> pomeroy has its roots back to 1952. my name is david, and i'm the chamber and ceo of the pomeroy rehabilitation and recreation center. we were a center for people

with intellectual and development cal disabilities in san francisco san francisco. we also have a program for individuals that have acquired brain injury or traumatic brain injury, and we also have one of the larger after school programs for children with special needs that serves the public school system. the sf carbon fund for us has been the launching pad for an entire program here at the pomeroy center. we received about $15,000. the money was really designed to help us improve our garden by buying plants and material and also some infrastructure like a drip system for plants. we have wine barrels that we repurposed to collect rain water. we actually had removed over 1,000 square feet of concrete so that we could expand the garden. this is where our participants,

they come to learn about gardening. they learn about our work in the greenhouse. we have plants that we actually harvest, and eggs from our chickens that we take up and use in cooking classes so that our participants learn as much as anybody else where food comes from. we have two kitchens here at the pomeroy center. one is more of a commercial kitchen and one is more setup like a home kitchen would be, and in the home kitchen, we do a lot of cooking classes, how to make lasagna, how to comsome eggs, so this grant that we received has tremendous value, not only for our center, for our participants, but the entire community. >> the thing about climate, climate overlaps with everything, and so when we start looking at how we're going to solve climate programs, we solve a lot of other problems, too.

this is a radical project, and to be a part of it has been a real honor and a privilege to work with those administrators with the sf carbon fund at the department of environment. >> san francisco carbon grant to -- for us, opened the door to a new -- a new world that we didn't really have before; that the result is this beautiful garden. >> when you look at the community gardens we planted in schools and in neighborhoods, how many thousands of people now have a fabulous place to walk around and feel safe going outside and are growing their own food. that's a huge impact, and we're just going to keep rolling that out and keep rolling that

>> we take a lot of pride in what we do. the electric shop covers all of waste water, so out of this location here, we cover everything from oceanside to southeast plant and all the computations including treasure island and yerba buena. we have all the preventative responsibility, maintaining maintenance and also keeping up with work orders from operations. i would say one of the things fortunately for me is the staff is incredibleably motivated. the staff here knows what to do, how to do the job safely, and it makes my job incredibly

easy. >> they know the job, and they know the challenges, and i think it's all about personal pride. they want to do a good job. from our maintenance group to our i.n.c., dedication to the people. when they're going home, and they're crossing the bay bridge, and they get a call that there's a problem with a pump station on treasure island, they return to work. they turnaround in westbound traffic and get back to work and get this pump back in line, and i can't tell you how much that means to me as a boss and the city and county of san francisco. >> as a group, if they didn't do what they do, the streets would be flooded with waste and gray water, and it could become a health hazard. we take a lot of pride in what we do, and we do the jobs right, and you walk away fulfilled that you've done the

city a >> chairwoman: the meeting will come to order. this is july 19, 2019, meeting. i am sandra lee fewer, and i am joined by

commissioners jordan mar, matt haney. today we have john carroll as the clerk. and i would like to think the staff at s.f.gov tv for recording today's meetings. >> please ensure you have silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices. and all documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you please call item number two. >> item 12 is approval of the lasco minutes from the may 22nd, 2019, rescheduled meeting. >> chairwoman: do any commissioners have any changes to the may 17th meeting? >> none. >> chairman: seeing none, do any members of the public have any comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes?

so moved. >> chairwoman: motion by commissioner singh, and sected by commissioner mar. we can take these minutes without objection. mr. clerk, please call item number three. >> the community's aggregate community report. >> chairwoman: we have susan mercelson with updates and state legislation. and mr. hyam. i'm sorry, mr. global. >> we were hoping you could switch to number four. >> agenda item number 4 is the city of san francisco's tenure capital plan. >> chairman: them. heather graham is here to make a presentation. >> good morning, good afternoon, my name is

heather green, and i'm the director of capital planning for the city of san francisco, and our deputy resilience officers. i was asked to present here today to give a little bit of city-wide context to the clean power work and the capital planning that will happen there. i'm here to provide an overview of our city-wide capital planning. i will try to be brief in my comments, but if you have anything you would like me to pause and talk about further, then i'm happy to do so. our tenure capital plan is a constrained 10-year plan. we are in year 13, and it captures $39billion of planned i investments. what is helpful here is to know how the capital plan helps us. it helps us to have conversations and to

understand priorities as we are gathering input from stakeholders, because this is a plan that is to represent all of the stakeholders. the conversations we have with your offices helps us produce something that really reflects the will of the city. we do this every other year. we just approved the most recent one, as i said, and it is on departments to give us information about their buildings. their infrastructure needs and so on. we're coordinating and collecting, and we're a small office that tries to make sense of everything we receive. and we do some data-gathering of our own on the facilities' conditions, primarily. and we take all of the requests and organize and prioritize them into the plan, which you guys have all seen. and we make recommendations that capital planning committees, and the draft and proposed form goes to the mayor and board, ultimately, for approval.

in the capital plan, we have some narrative contents and financial tables. we think about our resilience context, and we have long-standing funding principles that helps us make difficult decisions about what to do first. that is always hard to do. we present an overview of a capital outlook, kind of how are we doing against our deferred, aging infrastructure needs. and we have a few ongoing programs, and our two primary debt programs. and then the plan is broken into service area chapters to help it make it more digestable. how do we think about this? our city has some known resilience challenges, and these are the kinds of things we think about when we think about what is most important. we have risks from

earthquakes, from sea level rise and climate change, and af enforcement araffordabilitythat we can't igd the aging infrastructure itself, of course. these are funding principles. the capital plan has tiered funding principles. so you can see most importantly we try to address any legal or regulatory mandate, protect life safety, enhance resilience, and ensure sustainability. these are things we're straight-up obligated to do as a city. and we want to promote economic development. and in this most recent capital plan, we had some language bowe about equity in the proceeding plan, and we ask departments to tell us how they're doing that -- what we hear about their priorities. this is the capital outlook i was referring to.

sometimes people ask us, well, how do you know there is so much need in any given direction? and we often point to this backlog, which starts off in the capital plan, like on day one, at $800 million in our general fund department, and this is facilities and right-of-way. we know we have a lot to do, and this helps us to make the case for our programs, continued increases over the years. we see the capital budget each year. if that meets the capital plan recommended funding level each year, we will just be able to address our annual need in fiscal '27. we're continuing to dig ourselves out, literally. it helps us make the case of dollars towards capital with one-time use, one-time need, and it can benefit us for years to come because as we take better care of ourselves, it becomes more affordable to do so.

these are the types of policies we capture in the plan. we make recommendations about the pego program, and it helps us set a norm for funding levels. we have a performance target for our streets that is ambitious but achievable. we have a.d.a. -related policy to improve the infrastructure for those who have accessability challenges, and then we acknowledge, you know, that sometimes enhancements are really urgent, enhancements are those things that are building new or replacing the aging infrastructure. there are two major debt programs we track. they are backed by the city asset, and our g.o. bonds, and you hear a lot about the latter especially. this gives us a sense of how the plan spending in the city is split. and our enterprise departments actually are

the largest pot, being the airport port, the m.t.a., and t.u.c. all of the clean power s.f., and other spending is reflected in infrastructure and streets chapter, and you can see that $8 billion there, and that is the p.u.c.'s 10-year number. and infrastructure and street spending is also capture there. that's the general fund number. something that we strive to do is to capture all sources as best we can. this helps alleviate the pressure on anyone one source and also acknowledge all of the spending potential across programs, so you can see when we consider all departments, that other debt, that greenpeac greenpeac f the party is much, much bigger. so that's an important way that we look at things,

like thinking about all of the different pieces we can bring to bear, so that we use the dollars where they are really needed. because the color of money can be so important. another thing that we do, especially for the general fund departments, is to kind of track what the recommended funding levels means for the ability to fund against what we are able to capture as a need. so, for example, we know that our public right-of-way has tremendous means, and we are only able, even if we go at the capital plan recommended levels, we're only able to fund a little more than half of that need. it is important for us to know what we are able to do and what we are not, so we can be transparent as a city, and deliver on what wecy say we'rwe say we're goingd not others. and just to see how we lay them out, we work with our

office of public finance in the controller's office to look ahead at the full 10 years of our plan and think about where the need is going to hit. so here you see our general fund debt program, the certificates of participation, and both the program and the bond program are constrained. that helps us make, you know, sometimes difficult decisions. the -- in the case of the c.o.p. program, it is 3.25% of annual fund discretionary revenue, is the cap on our overall debt. g.o. bonds we're all familiar with. we know that the affordable housing bond has gone up to $600 million, and we were able to capture that in the capital plan as well. having those conversations ahead of time, making sure that they're documented, making sure it is clear where we need to look, so

we can remember we all agreed to something like that, has been very helpful, and may be helpful to clear power s.f. as well. and the bond is constrained against our property tax line -- that's the red line you see there. all of this planning, i like to remind everyone, is really helpful at the ballot box. in terms of continuing to build constituent trust and accountability, having a plan like this helps us to make the case. and what you see here is the light ble blue line is the publication of the first capital plan, and all of the blue lines are what have passed since then. and as you can see, there is trust problems. on the infrastructure and streets part of the plans -- that's where clean power s.f. is. it is a chapter really with just two departments

reflected, public works, where we talk about all of the right-of-way maintenance that they do, and the p.u.c., the waste water and hedgy enterprises. we capture the p.u.c. and enterprises at a relatively high level in the capital plan. the p.u.c. has its own capital team and project managers and so on. they do a lot of work that we benefit from and are able to capture but are not involved necessary day to day in the programming and prioritizing. but we do try to document the system at hand, what the power enterprise is comprised of. and then there are -- we do have a financial table, which i'll show in a second. and the funds identified there, the $360 million for the power enterprise that is planned over the next 10years is spelled out for the following projects upgrading and

installing new street lights, improving energy-efficiency, providing utility operations to treasure island and other developments, and new transmission and distribution facilities. you can see that planned expenditures are broken by power and water, and then the revenues down below for power are called out. and this s, this i is the level documentation that we have. and we have longer descriptions of each of the project programs, which i'm happy to share with you, if you would rather not have me read out loud, and is available in the plan itself. that's what we see of clean power s.f., and we are very much aware that this is evolving and about to grow, and so just talking with the p.u.c.

team here, looking forward to working together and offering any benefits that we can from our years of producing a plan like this. i'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments? none? that was a very thorough presentation. this is opened up for public comment. any members of the public like to speak on this item? mr. brooks, good to see you. >> good to see you all, too. eric brooks, san francisco clean energy advocates and californians for energy choice. so just to kind of reiterate where i've said before, if i were the head of the s.f. p.u.c., and the power enterprise, that is the plan i would put together because the p.u.c. is an enterprise department that is supposed to focus mainly on a conservative approach and protect rate-payers.

so there is nothing wrong with what the s.f. p.u.c. just showed to you. but it shows that. s.f. p.u.c. is not the place where we're going to get a city build-out that will reverse the climate crisis. produced locally and regionly by 2030, which is what it is going to take to overcome the crisis. when ab117 was created, it put the elected body in charge of the program, and that's the clean s.f. board of supervisors. that's where we need a city-wide buildout plan to come from. it is so important that you hire a contractor as soon as you can so we can get that plan planned out so that we don't have to try to put a square peg through a round hole and ask the s.f. p.u.c. to to somethindosomething they're not designed to do.

i know i've said that before, but it bears repeating. according to the puicc, we've only got 10 years left. so we need to do a massive build out of renewables, efficiency, and battery storage in this city. the way that is going to happen is through the board of supervisors. thanks. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you, chair fewer and commissioners. jed holton for the 350 bay area. and it is nice to be here and to see everyone. i look forward to diving more into this process and these numbers. i've never really paid attention to our city's capital planning before. i'm curious if, you know, 3.25% -- people don't like having a lot of debt, but they also complain a lot about the city. if that were jacked up to 3.50, if we were able to

meet our backlog substantially earlier than 2027. to the specific issues of clean power s.f., and a local buildout of renewables and efficiency, i noticed in the plan document that renewable development was getting a million a year in the capital plan, and energy-efficiency was getting a million a year also. that's what it looked like in the sheet that was shown. i guess to eric's point, a million a year for renewables, and a million a year for efficiency is better than zero, but in terms of looking at a long-term strategic, what we actually need, what we want, it is, of course, not remotely meeting those. so i think this really is -- this information is what we need to kind of provide -- to kind of do a gap analysis in terms of where are we now? what are we planning now? >> chairwoman: how many resources? >> exactly. that gap in kind of

renewables and efficiency that we still want to add on top of our current capital planning would be kind of what we would hope that the contractor that the r.f.q. will be able to result in, with a comprehensive plan and developing the work force in san francisco. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. we do not have to take action on this item. thank you very much. thank you very much, ms. green. mr. clerk, will you call item number three again. thank you. >> item number three is the commune choice aggregation activities report. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. mr. heims?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. michael heims, i'm the director of the clean s.f. program for the public utilities commission. nice to see you all again. i wanted to make one quick comment before i provide our content here about the last presentation, and more a point of clarification about some of the materials you saw at the very end of that screen. what ms. green was the existing capital plan for hedge gey power. and some of the values that were noted, one million dollars a year, those are related to the hedgy capital plan. we're starting the development of the very first clean power capital plan -- >> chairwoman: so it will have its on capital plan? >> yeah. and having the idea of

ms. green come here was to start a foundation on the capital planning process, and we're going to build from that, and talk a lot more about what the p.u.c. is going to do. >> chairman >> chairwoman: >> today i'm going to cover our usual customer enrollment update that we provide every meeting. and we're going to provide a high-level year-end review. we just finished a fiscal year, and we thought it would be appropriate to take a moment to reflect on what has been accomplished. and we're going to provide an update on state legislative activity, which has been hot. so as i think we've reported before, we sc now have now enrolled more than 400,000 customer accounts into clean power s.f. as of this past week, we have a 3.4% opt-out rate in the program, or 97%

retention rate. that's about 4/10ths higher than when we reported to you in may. our super green upgrade rate is 1.6 particulars, a tenth of a pe percent higher. and that's just 1% lower than our department goal for super green when we launched the program. i will comment before we conducted the very large enrollment, we were actually over our goal for that initial enrollment. i think we were at about 6%. so we're building it back up, and it is one customer at a time. so as i mentioned, we just

wrapped up fiscal year ending 2019. as syth yo i think you know, it has been a really big year for clean power s.f. we have a few slides to reflect on what has been accomplished by the city. first, the total number of accounts enrolled by the program has jumped from 88,000 to more than 400,000 in just one year. that is 312,000 increase, almost 360% year over year growth. and we've maintained low opt-out rates during this time period. i mentioned 3.4%. that is lower than the 5% to 7% we had been actually forecasting to. that puts that into context is little bit for you. while managing this large enrollment process, we have managed to continue to get a significant

number of costumers to opt up to super green. at the start of the fiscal year, we had about 3420 businesses and homes enrolled, in the past 12 months, we've nearly doubled that number. that's about an 80% jump year over year. this is an area we'll be pushing hard on in this upcoming year, increasing these numbers. we're working on an employee upgrade challenge. this is something that we're focusing on to coincide with energy awareness month in october. we're going to be working with the other bay area community choice aggregation programs to target employees of major 100% renewable companies that have signed up in our respective communities, to try to target their employees to upgrade as well. we're going to be expanding our super green digital campaign. we intend to continued to

hold events and work with advocates. we've done phone banking in the past with various advocate groups, and we'll continue that effort. and generally, we want to try to build our super green community and awareness of that community. we've had a number of businesses, like the new wheel in bernal heights, and yoga in the mission sign up. a number of these costumers are featured on a new web page that we've added on our website. we call it "the super green spotlight." so if some of you want to see some of the partners that have agreed to let us disclose they're a customer of ours, and also we're doing some co-marketing with. so, of course, along with our jump-in enrollment is electricity sales.

our average program energy program increased from 63 megawatts to 240 megawatts average for this past fiscal year -- excuse me, from 2018 over to 2019. we're forecasting that our average sales for this current fiscal year will be about 340 megawatts average. that's accounting for a full year of sales with all of the costumers we enrolled over the past year in the program. in actuality, it is about a 540% increase in our demand as a result of the enrollment over the past year. with the significant growth and demand, the p.u.c. has also had to significantly increase our power supplies to serve the program. and we've been able to do that while also delivering

more renewable energy and clean power to san francisco. to put this in perspective, procedure to launching clean power s.f. in 2015, the renewable energy content was about 26% of its total power supply mix. in 2018, clean power s.f. delivered a portfolio that was 48% california certified renewable energy. this year we're expecting at least 50% california certified renewable. to deliver that percentage, we've had to increase our renewable energy purchases by 300%, so th

>> we've also made some progress on program development. we expanded our net energy meeting enrollment to more than 8400 customer accounts. energy meters supports costumers with clean powered solar. and we also launched a new peak-day pricing pilot program for large commercial costumers in may. it provides incentives to customer to reduce their electricity on days in the summer when demand on the grid is the most extreme. it happens to be that the reduction that comes along with this also happens when emissions on the grid, the greenhouse gas

emissions are the highest. customer programs is an area that we're going to be focusing on in the coming months and year, as we seek to roll out more complimentary services for clean power s.f. costumers, with a goal of facilitating more and local investment in clean energy technologies and furthering our efforts to reduce san francisco's contribution to global climate change. and last year in our review, but definitely not least, in support of our massive enrollment effort, the s.f. p.u.c. communications and power teams have been getting the word out through all means necessary, including mailing, hitting the streets and going directly to our costumers. we sent more than a million enrollment notices over two major enrollment periods that occurred in

july and april. we contacted over 180 organizations in the community that represent our electricity consumer base in one way or other. we conducted over 35 presentations, and we staffed 68 communities events with content in six languages. and we -- recently our team was at the one richmond community party, and we've been participating in every sunday streets events, and last week we were at the mission, and we're getting positive reaction from people at those events. that's sort of a snapshot of what has been accomplished. i think it really has been a banner year for clean power in san francisco, and so with thanks for being here i'm goin