my name is doctor ellen moffett, i am an assistant medical examiner for the city and county of san francisco. i perform autopsy, review medical records and write reports. also integrate other sorts of testing data to determine cause and manner of death. i have been here at this facility since i moved here in november, and previous to that at the old facility. i was worried when we moved here that because this building is so much larger that i wouldn't see people every day. i would miss my personal

interactions with the other employees, but that hasn't been the case. this building is very nice. we have lovely autopsy tables and i do get to go upstairs and down stairs several times a day to see everyone else i work with. we have a bond like any other group of employees that work for a specific agency in san francisco. we work closely on each case to determine the best cause of death, and we also interact with family members of the diseased. that brings us closer together also. >> i am an investigator two at the office of the chief until examiner in san francisco. as an investigator here i investigate all manners of death that come through our jurisdiction. i go to the field interview police officers, detectives, family members, physicians, anyone who might be involved with the death. additionally i take any property

with the deceased individual and take care and custody of that. i maintain the chain and custody for court purposes if that becomes an issue later and notify next of kin and make any additional follow up phone callsness with that particular death. i am dealing with people at the worst possible time in their lives delivering the worst news they could get. i work with the family to help them through the grieving process. >> i am ricky moore, a clerk at the san francisco medical examiner's office. i assist the pathology and toxicology and investigative team around work close with the families, loved ones and funeral establishment. >> i started at the old facility. the building was old, vintage. we had issues with plumbing and things like that. i had a tiny desk.

i feet very happy to be here in the new digs where i actually have room to do my work. >> i am sue pairing, the toxicologist supervisor. we test for alcohol, drugs and poisons and biological substances. i oversee all of the lab operations. the forensic operation here we perform the toxicology testing for the human performance and the case in the city of san francisco. we collect evidence at the scene. a woman was killed after a robbery homicide, and the dna collected from the zip ties she was bound with ended up being a cold hit to the suspect. that was the only investigative link collecting the scene to the suspect. it is nice to get the feedback. we do a lot of work and you

don't hear the result. once in a while you heard it had an impact on somebody. you can bring justice to what happened. we are able to take what we due to the next level. many of our counterparts in other states, cities or countries don't have the resources and don't have the beautiful building and the equipmentness to really advance what we are doing. >> sometimes we go to court. whoever is on call may be called out of the office to go to various portions of the city to investigate suspicious deaths. we do whatever we can to get our job done. >> when we think that a case has a natural cause of death and it turns out to be another natural cause of death. unexpected findings are fun. >> i have a prior background in

law enforcement. i was a police officer for 8 years. i handled homicides and suicides. i had been around death investigation type scenes. as a police officer we only handled minimal components then it was turned over to the coroner or the detective division. i am intrigued with those types of calls. i wondered why someone died. i have an extremely supportive family. older children say, mom, how was your day. i can give minor details and i have an amazing spouse always willing to listen to any and all details of my day. without that it would be really hard to deal with the negative components of this job. >> being i am a native of san francisco and grew up in the community. i come across that a lot where i

may know a loved one coming from the back way or a loved one seeking answers for their deceased. there are a lot of cases where i may feel affected by it. if from is a child involved or things like that. i try to not bring it home and not let it affect me. when i tell people i work at the medical examiners office. whawhat do you do? the autopsy? i deal with the a with the enou- with the administrative and the families. >> most of the time work here is very enjoyable. >> after i started working with dead people, i had just gotten married and one night i woke up in a cold sweat. i thought there was somebody dead? my bed. i rolled over and poked the body. sure enough, it was my husband

who grumbled and went back to sleep. this job does have lingering effects. in terms of why did you want to go into this? i loved science growing up but i didn't want to be a doctor and didn't want to be a pharmacist. the more i learned about forensics how interested i was of the perfect combination between applied science and criminal justice. if you are interested in finding out the facts and truth seeking to find out what happened, anybody interested in that has a place in this field. >> being a woman we just need to go for it and don't let anyone fail you, you can't be. >> with regard to this position in comparison to crime dramas out there, i would say there might be some minor correlations. let's face it, we aren't

hollywood, we are real world. yes we collect evidence. we want to preserve that. we are not scanning fingerprints in the field like a hollywood television show. >> families say thank you for what you do, for me that is extremely fulfilling. somebody has to do my job. if i can make a situation that is really negative for someone more positive, then i feel like i am doing the right thing for the city of san francisco.

>> chair fewer: good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the january 17, 020, regular meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i'm sandra lee fewer, the chair. and i'm joined by gordon mar, and shanti singh and our clerk, and i would like to thank michael baklazar and jason

goldhammer -- golddahmer, i'm sorry, i don't know what is with me today, from sfgov-tv. madam clerk, any announcements. >> clerk: silence all cellphones and documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> chair fewer: i wanted to everyone to know that we will need to recess this at 11:20 to 12:00 noon. so let's start. madam clerk. can you call item number 1. >> clerk: item one was to the call to order and recall call. would you like me to call item two. >> chair fewer: yes. >> clerk: the approval of the lafco minutes from the november 15, 2019 regular meets. chair fewer: any questions or colleagues? seeing none, any public comment? seeing none, let's approve the minutes of the meeting. and we can take that without objection. do ied i need a second. thank you very much. and madam clerk, call item 3.

>> clerk: the presentation and discussion on the cleanpowersf local renewable energy report. >> chair fewer: and we have barbara hale with us today. >> the general manager at the san francisco p.o.c. and we're here to present a draft of our clean powersf local renewable energy report. i'll go through a number of slides here and we'll review, let's see if i can get this powerpoint to work with me. and if we could get it on the screen, that would be great. thank you. i'm not quite sure why it's not advancing. okay, now we got it. so here we go. we'll review the items here, background to put the report in context and the method that we've taken to identify the candidate sites for local and other renewable generation project opportunities. our findings and our next steps.

the report is part of a larger planning process at the san francisco p.o.c., and the cleanpowersf and a integrated plan. to preview what we'll conclude with, we will be with capit funding approval, high-value candidate projects that have been identified through this process and it will be, valiateed with -- evaluated with further planning and preliminary design work and candidate projects that continue to show value and constructability will be evaluated for funding and construction through the city's capital planning process. so let's talk first then -- a little bit about the integrated resource planning process and how this reporting effort that we've gone through fits. under state law, the san francisco p.u.c. has to have an integrated resource plan every two years. in this plan we model a range of

supply and demand sensitivities. the objective is to develop the least cost, best fit portfolio of the electricity supply that meets program goals over a 20-year period, including local development. the integrated resource plan analysis allows for better understanding of the costs and the energy delivery impacts -- excuse me -- of candidate resource projects. including local renewable projects into the cleanpowersf clean energy supply portfolio. sorry, i'm struggling a bit today. local planning -- excuse me -- is part of this regular cycle. our renewable development has long been a part of the san francisco's clean energy initiatives. i certainly don't need to tell this commission that. the board urged the san francisco p.u.c. to develop this plan.

the local renewable energy report findings inform our state-required integrated resource plan and ultimately the city capital plan. that's the process by which cleanpowersf will develop and fund local projects. the city capital planning process is the same process that the city has used for about the past 20 years to develop and fund the program portfolio of local renewable generation projects. and just to take a minute on those, through our retail electricity program, the sa san francisco has projects on city-owned property, including this building that we're in right now. you can see the data here, 8.25 megawatts of solar generation and about $27 million invested. that's funded by the net operating revenue from the sale of electricity under the program. and we have more projects in the pipeline, 1.5 megawatts more, including storage and those are in development and construction. so that's the background and

context. now let's talk about the approach that we've taken in this report to identify candidate projects that could be developed and funded through the cleanpowersf program. three project categories were analyzed for cost effective development -- in city, city-owned sites, regional city-owned sites and other opportunities in and near the city. sites were evaluated for suitability to develop within the five to 10-year timeframe. candidates were -- candidate sites, excuse me, were identified as capable of exports power to the grid to serve cleanpowersf and had no identifiable barriers to development. candidate sites were rated. a high suitability rating means that the site is worth further time, further planning and analysis to determine whether a renewable project should be implemented at the sites and funds requested.

a medium suitability rating was assigned to site where is a barrier will need to be addressed before we spend more time on the renewable development at the site. so that could be something like a structural upgrade that we know that needs to happen before we put the weight of a solar system on it. for electric resource planning and procurement purposes, the city defines "local" as the nine county bay area. this approach provides a preference to projects that are located in the region through our bidding process, access to increased resource diversity, and so that we can access the wind and geothermal resources outside of san fran. those are represented in the orange and blue bubbles on this map much the county. and larger project opportunities, because we have, you know, less space constraints. lower costs than for construction than in the san francisco-only view and an opportunity to balance the

higher costs san francisco projects with lower-cost projects, providing economic development in the bay area. that balancing helps us to maintain our affordability for the cleanpowersf customers. let's take a look at the cost data for these different locations, resource types and size. along the horizontal or the x-axis you can see three locations, sort of buckets, with different project utilities. and utility scale with large projects in california is shown there on the left. and the first four projects. and then the nine county bay area. and then in city on the right. the blue bars show the average cost per megawatt of electricity generated by the different projects. the red line that goes through the middle there represents the average supply cost of the cleanpowersf portfolio today. around $55 to $65 a megawatt hour. you can see how different

locations and costs compare to that average. we have to get the mix of locations and technologies right to protect affordability. there's a tradeoff between the cost of local energy and the amount of it that can be procured and still maintain average supply costs to maintain affordability. if we procure local projects at an average of about $80 a megawatt hour, which is shown on the x-axis there at the extreme left, local content can be up to 30% of our supply portfolio without increasing average supply costs. that's represented by that green band at the bottom. so at the $80 point, you can see about 30% of local content. higher local costs as we move along the horizontal or the x-axis, will decrease the total

percentage that we can procure or increase our supply costs. so we need to balance our local renewable development goals and our affordability goals. that is the dynamic that we're looking -- that we're working with as we plan local renewable development. now let's look at the specific projects that the team evaluated. staff evaluated 132 in-city sites across multiple agencies and they are identified on the right on this map. the dots represent the sites. and the bigger the dot, the larger the generating capacity at that location with the dot color representing the suitability rating. so you can see a large green dot would be an attractive opportunity for us to evaluate further. so how do we screen these sites? first, we have prioritized sites that could support projects with

more than 250-kilowatts potential capacity. the remaining sites were then evaluated to identify the potential risks to determine -- to determine suitability for development by cleanpowersf. age contactedded to determine at the host what their preferences are at the site and to learn more site detail. the analysis was conducted to determine potential on-site generation and associated costs, suitability ratings were assigned. so now let's drill down a little deep or that part of the approach. sites were evaluated looking at these criteria for near-term development -- structural

improvements that might be required and if there were risks to the ass threat might be identified and the technical export limitations, and whether there's on-site usage that is more than the possible generation. and contractual risks and competing usage. the host agency preferences and goals as i mentioned were identified and discussed and then we conducted our cost analysis. for city-owned sites, the 132 sites reviewed we identified 14 to medium to high suitability, 9.3 megawatts for high suitability, and 6.6 for medium and project costs ranging from

$79 a megawatt hour to $151. for regional sites, six sites were reviewed and three were identified as medium to high suitability, representing about 44 megawatts of total potential. and costs ranging from $32 a megawatt hour to $104. we also looked at storage, about 20 megawatts of storage opportunity was identified at sites that are owned by the city in city or regionally. and here we have the in-city sites identified as both medium and high suitability. so you're seeing some specifics here with the average cost between $88 to $130 a megawatt hour. at the top are the four highly suitable sites and those are all owned by the sfpuc and we identified no barriers to development at this point in the planning stages. the medium suitability sites

are -- have issues that need to be addressed before we would propose moving forward with the project. for example, structural upgrades that are planned for the reservoir. and then we have here the regional and the city-owned sites. these are lower costs regional projects and they can really help us to do this balancing -- handling that diname that i can i talk -- dynamic that i talked about, with some of the lower lower-cost students. it supports us achieving a higher portfolio renewable energy content from city-owned sites. some of these candidate sites are pretty strong and we recommend further planning and development of these opportunities.

others include offshore wind and it's an emerging technology and we're not recommending -- well, we are recommending that we further evaluate and potentially identify partners to go together on potential offshore wind. we're also looking at development of a disadvantaged community solar program. the state cap-and-trade funds are available for this. and it would support a green tariff and community solar programs that would serve disadvantaged communities here in san francisco. we have identified an opportunity to develop about two megawatts of solar through that opportunity. and then we are also developing a feed-in tariff program where -- this is a procurement program that encourages private citizens, private sector property owners, to develop

renewables and make that generation available to us. we would purchase it, we wouldn't own the solar system, we would just purchase whatever they're willing to sell to us at a set tariff rate. we think that could support 2 to 10 megawatts of solar development in san francisco by 2030. so what are our next steps now that we have pulled this information together? we intend to continue planning and development of the high suitability candidate sites. we're proposing a cleanpowersf capital plan, the first capital plan for cleanpowersf that would support that planning and anticipate the project construction. as you know, the members of the board of supervisors who sit as commissioners know, that the capital planning process is a rolling 10-year plan. so we would be identifying in the early years and funding the further planning and development work that i've talked about for highly suitable sites. in the later years we would show

the actual costs of owning that site. having that developed facility. and we will, meanwhile, keep an eye on the medium suitability sites to position ourselves to partner with the host agencies as those sites are improved. and we will not be doing any further work on low suitability sites at this point, as is our practice on the hechi sites and though we won't do further work on those suitability sites, we will keep our eye on those sites because their suitability may change. we will propose to move forward on the feed-in tariff program and the disadvantaged community solar program and work with other agencies as i mentioned on offshore wind as that -- you know, as that developing technology here in california emerges. of course we do everything with engagement with our community. here's the outline of our

engagement plan where we will -- together with the integrated resource plan -- be working with community members to explain ourselves, to hear what they have to say about our proposals. meanwhile, the capital planning process will move forward through the california -- sorry, the san francisco p.u.c.'s budget process and the capital planning committee process. we anticipate that the capital plan approvals to fund the recommended next steps will happen by the end of this fiscal year. be completed by the end of this fiscal year. with that i'm happy to take any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so any questions or comments from my colleagues. commissioner singh? >> yeah, i had a question about the graph at the beginning of your presentation, the cost for offshore wind, i think that it was the most variable, at least there was a large projected --

because it's an emergent technology that is not fully proven yet or has not scaled. >> you nailed it, that's exactly why. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: supervisor mar -- i mean, commissioner mar. >> thank you. i just -- thanks for the presentation. >> you bet. >> it all looks very good. i just had a few questions on -- there's that slide where you listed out the medium to high priority sites. >> um-hmm. >> i just want to understand how you decide on what's high and what's medium as i'm looking at that slide. some of the ones that are in the medium category seem to have a lower cost, for example, the university south basin, or even in my district the sunset reservoir south basin? >> i think that most of those we saw challenges with the structural readiness for the reservoirs to be developed.

and for some of those we have in -- we can see that the water enterprise capital plan includes the structural improvements in later years and so we know that that current barrier is going to be overcome. and so we factor that in -- well, it's medium now and we're keeping our eye on it and it could move up to high and get funded in our 10-year capital plan as those improvements actually happen. >> great, yes, thanks. and i had a question around -- and i think that a program that pg&e had in place where they provided incentives for homeowners or property owners to install solar. and then there's an arrangement where extra plus energy that is generated by the private homeowner can be transferred back to the pg&e grid.

so i was just wondering if that was something that we were considering as well using cleanpowersf? >> actually, commissioner, we're already doing that and we had a program go solar sf and that the cleanpowersf customers can participate in. we have a net metering rate that allows them to be paid for the energy they spill back on to the grid. so, yes, we're doing that already. >> um-hmm. and just one last question on that -- have we considered incentives to -- to kind of expand solar -- solar installations in homes as a way to sort of generate renewable energy to the buyback? >> yes, so we do have under the gosolarsf program, we do provide incentives for low-income, non-profits, that are higher than the incentives that we pay to other property owners for

placing solar on their roofs. it also includes a local hire component that participants in the program are required to use contractors who meet our on hire local participants. and then the rates that we pay for the electricity that is spilled to the grid are higher than the rates that pg&e pay under their program. so i think we do have both rebate-like incentives and the incentive that comes with that higher price that we pay, encouraging property owners to make that -- make that smart choice. >> chair fewer: thanks. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? mr. brooks. >> good morning, commissioners. eric brooks, californians for energy choice, and our city san francisco. we were preparing comments,

important comments, which we tried to email you this morning. not sure if you got them or not. it was very hard to do that when we only saw this report two days ago. and so, first the positive. this is an excellent report. it's got all kinds of key information that we need to build a renewable energy network in san francisco. but this is not the renewable energy plan that we have been asking for for 15 years. this is not a plan. we do not believe that the sfpuc can be the agency to draft a plan. this -- this report does not create a plan to include energy efficiency, demand response, smart meters. and all of the diversified research, all planned as the sydney, australia, plan that you have all hopefully seen now to be integrated together as

resources to get us to 100% local renewables and regional renewables for san francisco within 10 years as the ipcc recommends urgently. this just isn't that. and we don't blame the san francisco utilities commission for that. their job is to be a conservative enterprise agency to protect the ratepayers. their job is not to develop an ambitious plan like this. we can't urge strongly enough this it's now time for the board of supervisors to take over this planning process, use this information to develop a sydney-like plan, and then to deliver that to the sfpuc for implementation. that's the time for them to bring their conservative approach to the table and make sure that we do it right. we've said this many times and we feel like we're not being heard. the plan needs to shift to the lafco and the board... >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. brooks.

>> hi, thank you, chair fewer and commissioners. jedd holsom from 350 bay area. i want to thank the staff for this presentation. i think that this starts to get at kind of the systematic approach that we've been asking for for some time, but as mr. brooks pointed out i think that it's kind of a sub-set of that, in addition to kind of city-owned sites and i think that we have to look at any available sites and private ownership as well that might be low-cost projects. as mr. brooks pointed out, i think that in addition to energy efficiency and demand response, i think that given everything that's been going on in the region for the last couple years, resiliency has kind of increased salience and i think that while we might not be in huge wildfire danger, i certainly -- i just got an sf722

medallion and reminded myself how i'm wholly unprepared to take care of myself for 72 hours after a huge earthquake. so thinking about how we'll keep some of our public infrastructure running in the 100% sure event of that earthquake happening, i think that it should be part of this plan. so, you know, we have been talking to staff about local build outs since 2013. certainly, having staff conversations about kind of what this would eventually look like for a couple years now and we're surprised that we were never reached out to about this. certainly, we would have submitted comments in advance. i think that really a comprehensive plan for about a 400 megawatt load would be 300 plus megawatts. i think that -- i think that this planning process would result after many more steps being completed as maybe 70 megawatts plus storage being

built. so i think that kind of illustrates maybe the quantitative gap. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comments? yes, sir. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jonathan kevlis, i work for a large energy firm. in fact, we're doing retrofitting of your lighting and in the parking lots right now. and golden gateway. i want to praise sfpuc and cleanpowersf for this report. we're excited to potentially to participate in the helping to build this out. i do have two quick questions. actually one quick question. perhaps not so quick. i'm trying to understand where lafco sits in the approval process for this discussion and where the sfpuc board sits and maybe even the board of supervisors. i'm not entirely clear and i'm hoping that someone can help me to understand where the different approving bodies fit into the process and

sequentially as someone who is interested in bidding on the project when it ultimately comes to whatever proven body is, and to have a better understanding. >> chair fewer: your name again, sir? >> my name is jonathan kevalis. i can give my card to the clerk. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. i think that our attorney may be able to differentiate the authority where lafco sits in this position versus in a private maybe conversation separately than this. yeah. because he probably has deeper questions also about the authority, the authority that sits with with the commission and the puc commission and with the san francisco board of supervisors. so i think that those questions can be answered by the attorney. thank you very much. comments or questions from our

colleagues? i actually think -- thank you for public comment. i think that you bring up a very good point is that -- i thank all are also miss hale for this report and i think that it is very informative. it is -- it gets us to answer some of the questions, but, again, i do think that the public comment about an overall plan of how do we get to 100% renewable energy that we are generating ourselves should be probably the overall goal. and this maybe is a step towards that goal, or one piece of how we kind of get there. but i actually think that as the speaker said that that is probably larger than the purview of sfpuc. that plan probably may be in the hands of lafco, i think that this is a discussion we should

have and whether or not p.u.c. is part of a partnership for that. so miss hale, i have a question for you. do you have a rough sense of what percent of our renewable energy portfolio will be produced in city before and after the development of these projects? i see that you gave us a chart here on page 9 that shows 20% local content. but i'm wondering after the sites that you have mentioned as high -- i guess rated very highly that it's doable and cost-effective, do you have a rough sense of what percent it would be of our renewable portfolio? >> it's difficult to nail down that, that number as i stand here. but it's probably in the 10% to 15% as opposed to the 20% to 30% would be my guesstimate knowing what i know today. and i would remark in the

response to the concern about what's not in this report that that this report just looks at the local renewable energy opportunity. the integrated resource plan, which will fold this report in, covers energy efficiency and demand-side management and the broader issues that address how we get to 100% renewable. that is a 20-year plan. the city's goal is to be at 100% renewable by 2030. so the integrated resource plan is where you will see that more comprehensive full picture. >> chair fewer: got it. and then my question then about -- you said that it was sort of hard to say what percentages you said, 10% to 15%, but what about the region also? >> that is intended to address regional and in-city together. >> chair fewer: oh, okay, the 10% to 15%? >> yeah. >> chair fewer: okay. and then what are the obstacles towards the development of these projects that we as lafco commissioners and members of the board of supervisors should be

aware of to do our part to bring it actually to fruition? >> part is a recognition that we have -- we will be relying on the facilities of others. those facilities at times need improvement. those facilities host agencies. you know, energy isn't what they're focused on, quite understandably, right? and so having a collaborative opportunities to work with them, knowing that they will have the funding they need to do the structural improvements, that's outside of our control. you have a role in that. those would be helpful areas to address. >> chair fewer: so you're speaking about in city such as san francisco districts, i see -- >> yeah, they're on the list and they have a strong preference for using their electricity on-site and we want to be respectful of that. >> chair fewer: got it. >> sfdph, and sfmta, you know, these are other parts of the

city, organizations, that at times will have facilities that look attractive but once you get inside you realize that they need a lot of work. the port facility is another example of that. so it's part of the broader city picture as to how capital planning improvements happen. because we're, you know, we would come in after those improvements with a solar on-site or storage and solar on-site. >> chair fewer: got it. and then about the storage. >> one other part before we move to storage, if i may. another big piece of this that will be a challenge for us in development is all of these systems connect to a pg&e-owned grid. and we will have -- we have had with the 23 sites that i talked about that are currently operating and funded by the program, we've had challenges

getting those systems interconnected to pg&e's grid. so that would be another area. >> chair fewer: thank you. you know, i think that because we just received this report a couple days ago and we haven't had a chance to fully look at it and this is just sort of a synopsis of it, before i go into other questions i'd like to make a motion, quite frankly, to continue this item to the call of the chair. and so all of the commissioners could -- and advocates would actually have time to digest everything that is in this report. so i'd like to make a motion. thank you, miss hale, to continue this item to the call of the chair. could i have a second? commissioner haney, taken without objection. thank you very much. >> thank you. and i just wanted to thank the staff. my jordan decker and jamie sidell who put this together for us. so thank you for your attention. >> chair fewer: we thank them too. madam clerk, please call item 4.

>> clerk: item 4 is a presentation and a discussion on the scope of work for a renewable energy consultant. >> chair fewer: yes, mr. goeb mr. goebel. >> good morning, chair, good morning, commissioners. going to get my slides. >> thank you for your patience. good morning, bryan goebel, executive officer. today i would like to present our recommendations on the scope of work for renewable energy consultants. i am not proposing local build out plan as you mentioned, chair fewer, but this does get us started. i will soon be issuing a list of prequalified firms who submitted for the r.f.q., the request for

qualifications. and today i'm proposing four recommendations that could potentially involve multiple consultants. first, i want to talk about our goals. we are following up on the great work that winston parsons did in his report on advancing equity in community investment in cleanpowersf. so the goals are to reduce the power outages and disconnections, lower utility bills while prioritizing low-income households and, have the energy infrastructure to promote prevailing wage jobs and training programs. and to deepen lafco's staff knowledge of renewable energy issues. i now want to recap winston's work, and he's here to answer any questions if you have them. first, winston reviewed energy equity models. basically, examining the various frameworks and goals that other communities, other c.c.a.

programs and academics use to define energy equity. so with energy equity, it's not just access to resources, outcomes matter. it's about reducing burdens on low-income consumers, avoiding a disproportionate distribution of the costs or the negative impacts, providing an equitable distribution of access to real benefits and also ensuring a reliable source of electricity and protecting low-income households. winston also reviewed other programs, programs at other c.c.a.s, and while considering the legacy of power generation sites that have had lasting environmental burdens in san francisco. talking here about the patrero and hunters point power plants. he also analyzed the san francisco disconnection data from p go an p imrch and even as -- pg&e and it's first time that this has been available and analyzed. so his findings were concerning.

there were more than 15,000 disconnections annually for non-payment. while many customers do get their service restored, there are significant disparities in electrical disconnections between neighboring zip codes in san francisco. some of these communities have three and a half times the percent of disconnections than others. this indicates that there's a great geographic and even racial disparity in which residents can afford to keep the lights on. he also found the potential vulnerabilities in energy resilience. many of our back-up power systems are fossil fuel dependent and in a sustained disaster like an earthquake or an outage, not only does that harm air quality but they can be unreliable. winston made this note in his report that we have an aging population in san francisco that does rely on energy dependent equipment on a daily basis.

the good news to all of this is that there are opportunities to respond to these issues. and lafco, given its special studies authority and work on cleanpowersf is uniquely poised to propose policy solutions to make positive changes. i just want to say that i'm pleased to see that cleanpowersf has already included a number of recommendations. winston identified it in his report in their equity framework. some of the focused areas and recommendations that winston identified are complementary to cleanpowersf goals, and serve to advance the energy equity. but they're outside cleanpowersf's scope or role. so this is where lafco, through the expertise of our renewable energy consultants can supplement the work cleanpowersf is doing. among other tasks at the last meeting chair fewer requested that we explore these issues further and return with some solutions, along with the

complete technical and financial analysis and potentially even legislative strategies. so we hope that the renewable energy consultants lafco contracts with will be tasked with performing technical analysis so that we can offer the commission further nuanced findings and ready the solutions. i want to move on to the recommendation. my first recommendation is to explore in greater detail basically winston's findings. and to process and to further analyze the data. and there is mordata to analyze -- more data to analyze. pg&e did have additional disconnect data in san francisco, that should allow us to understand in greater detail the nature of disconnection disparities and their causes. the cpuc notified lafco that

the data set for winston's initial analysis did contain some errors. these errors are minor, but they're still worth accounting for as we want to ensure the greatest degree of accuracy possible when performing the analysis and making policy recommendations. next would be a deeper analysis of the disconnection causes. these could extend beyond affordability and include language barriers, and we want to examine proposed policy solutions and get feedback from a variety of stakeholders on what those policy solutions could be. and we have also been reaching out to supervisors to brief them on the findings and -- and what we found in their particular districts and we have more of those briefings scheduled in the coming month. my second recommendation is to bring on a renewable energy consultant to assist the lafco

staff. this is a pretty simple one and one that i have talked about for a while now. we would add expertise, for example, to provide feedback to the p.u.c. through their capital planning process. and to provide feedback on the projects that were mentioned in the earlier presentation. and so, again, the goal is to add expertise to staff and to help us to provide better feedback and recommendations on all aspects of cleanpowersf. the third recommendation is to explore the feasibility and the implications of pilot legislation for solar plus storage at affordable and senior housing sites. again, the purpose of this recommendation is to ensure that our most energy dependent populations aren't left in the dark or immobile or worse during an outage. so the first thing that we'd like to do is to define the capabilities of solar plus storage at senior and affordable housing sites.

and analyze the feasibility and the financial implications of passing regular cost savings of on-site or nearby solar and storage on to residents at affordable and senior housing sites. we also want to explore the feasibility of prioritizing with community input piloting locations and cleanpowersf's equity and geographic and demographic target communities and senior housing sites. and, of course, we'll collaborate with the city departments to determine what, if any roles, each respective department could play. i just want to note on this that the nearby counties recently issued an r.f.p. for solar plus storage projects with the goal of being more prepared to weather the pg&e power shutoffs and configuring even some of these projects in a way that supports at-risk populations.

and the fourth recommendation is to determine what gaps in the clean energy workforce development exists that cleanpowersf could address. winston's research found that many of the trainees involved in these clean energy programs, these are individuals getting trained, for example, on how to install renewable energy systems, don't actually get paid. so here the goal is to identify the gaps in these programs and see how we can make it as equitable as possible. are there room, for example, -- is there room for improvement in these programs? and what are the obstacles? if we can better understand those obstacles, then we can try to recommend the policy to eliminate them. maybe some of these programs don't have enough funding. maybe some workers have difficulty staying in the programs because they don't have access to child care, for example. these are the types of issues that we would look into. so dependent on your feedback,

the next steps would be to determine cost and funding for all of the consultant work, for recommendations, one through three. and then to develop and issue requests for proposals for consultant work on those recommendations. i believe that the recommendation number 4 on workforce development, that the lafco staff could take that on along with its interns. and this is not an action item today but i would love your feedback. and winston is here as well in case you have any questions that i can't answer. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's take public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item? >> good morning again, commissioners, eric brooks, californians for energy choice and our city san francisco. so just to continue on the theme of the previous item, all of the things that we're seeing are good things, they're important things to work on, but i'm sure that they we