on cca, it is the will of the people. and it is years and years and years of heavy lifting, of -- i don't think that the lifting has been completed yet. but i'm certainly going to be in a position to make sure that all the parties are heard. i would assume that we'll have a number of conversations at the commission level. i would hope that we would get some assistance from your office, after hours, and during the business day. but i think it's pretty clear that san francisco, with the help of this board, obviously the help of this mayor, is the innovation capitol of the world. and i think sometimes it's easy to organize around no. i reject the short path, as does ramone, oscar, and tim pollson. we like to organize around yes. it can cause us to lose friends, sometimes. but often times, i think that when we're representing the interest of our members, we move forward on landmark historic things. we find new friends along the way. so i'm pretty excited about what's transpiring. i'm also excited about the real potential for

i have supported the concept of cca for the entire time i've been in public life. but we know that there have been previous attempts to move this forward which i was not as comfortable with what we have today. i think there have been a number of changes in recent months and weeks that have made this better. first, i want to highlight what mr. harrington has stated, the fact that we are seeing potentially 10 times efficiency in how we are investing our public dollars and being able to reduce carbon emissions, that is a very notable fact. i think the fact that we are going to be providing choice to consumers, we -- none of us can predict exactly how this program will go but i think it will drive the market, both the private sector as well as what we're doing with city government, to improve our level of efficiencies. i did have concern some months ago about exactly how we were thinking about the opt-out provisions but i think the changes that have been made, the six months of education that we are going to be asking the puc to consider, the fact that we're talking ab

and if you don't like cca under ed harrington, you're not going to like cca under anyone else. so let's take a vote. >> president chiu: if i could remind folks in the chamber we have a board rule that prohibits folks from expressing support and applause or objection with hissing to various comments. if you could respect that, that would be appreciated. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: i appreciate supervisor campos' comments. to be clear that is not changing the opt-out nature of cca. we cannot do that by state law. what we're trying to do is make it better. and to me, for us not to -- this is something -- the first time i heard of it just now was when supervisor wiener mentioned it. but to talk about not working on it, which is the main issue of contention not only here on the board but to the public, to agree to continue this for a week to me is saying we're not willing to work on programs to make them better for san francisco janice and i think that is the wrong approach. so me it's take it as it is, shove it down our throats the way it is today. it can get better

from my point of view i think there is nothing absolutely wrong about having a cca program but i think it could have been strengthened with stronger opt out provisions as well as ability to recover some of these reserve expenses through the program. so those are the reasons why i dissented in committee committee. i am offering amendments to the items before us to try to get closer to those components that i'm most concerned with. unfortunately i have to apologize to the sponsor and of course the department. we were not able to circulate the amendments early enough to really get a thorough conversation so i apologize for that. i know sometimes here happen on the fly. so just wanting to re -- the conversation or some of the amendments and then to have i'm sure a very robust conversation about it. the amendment or the motion that i would be making is to add to page 5 the wording further resolve the initial phases of clean power sf will offer service only to those customers who have indicated desire to be included in the initial marketing of the program. i should mention that these are ame

i want to echo comments that i support the -- of cca but there are a number of issues that i have with the current form of the proposal. i think first and foremost is what came out of and is mandated by state law being an opt out type of program. i think it is the wrong way to legislate, to cause it to be an opt out program. it smells of coercion. to me, if this was a voluntary program, or we could create a mechanism where we knew that the people that were being offered cca and that were being asked to increase their energy rates had at least indicated that they wanted to do so, that to me is a big deal. second of all, we talk about the economic impact, a loss of jobs here in san francisco, reduction of the hetch hetchy fund balance which would result in general fund implications. but as also as supervisor chu mentioned, having a reserves that are not borne by the cca ratepayers but instead are borne by the entire ratepayer base for the puc, which is why i'm going to obviously supporting those amendments. for me, colleagues, i think at the end of the day it really comes down to the con

of a cca. the ability to purchase power or aggregate purchasing power to get a different product or different deal for your consumers. i also don't think there is anything wrong about having additional consumer choice. i don't think that is a bad thing. inherently what troubles me, the reason why i won't be supporting this is it don't think it goes far enough to, one, to build the reserve that is funded really by individuals using the program. if we were to have shaped a program where we were phasing in or we are asking people participating in cca to actually pay for the reserves that we are as a city at risk for, that would be something i would be more comfortable with and i think is much more appropriate. i think that would free up funding from the city to pay and invest in other programs like go solar if the city had chose to do that or go pay for other energy federal court si programs to help reduce energy usage, *ets. that is one area that i think i would have liked to see a different appr

to the extent that's a concern i actually think cca provides an opportunity for us to get out of the business of doing business with shell. because it allows us, down the road, to create a build-out that will enable the city and county of san francisco to create its own energy, generate its own energy. with that i wanted to given the general manager of the public utilities commission an opportunity to make some remarks, and again i want to thank mr. harrington. i have had the honor and the privilege to work with you in the last few years. and as far as i'm concerned you truly are the gold standard of what it means to be a public servant. and the fact that you have been involved i think gives this program the credibility that it needs. and so i want to thank you. mr. harrington. >> thank you very much. ed harrington general manager sf public utilities commission. i know we spent a lot of time last week in the budget committee. i was asked to give a brief overview to make sure you were aware of what was in the program. i'm joined by barbara hale and todd rydstrom our cfo and assistant

it is a construct of state rules that regulate how we form a cca. we are not able to structure an opt-in, by i think would be better. i know people who want to be in the program get in the program. i think our best intentions for outreach, we are still going to have people who don't know they are in this program. that is just the nature of having a program where you are automatically enrolled. how many times have we automatically enrolled in a magazine thing to realize later we are in it. i think that is a concern. i just want to know a bit about the connection charges. for one, opting in, opting out, you are proposing a $5 fee. as you said that could be different. it could be zero or higher or lower. who and when do you determine that level? >> that is part of the process that goes to rate fairness and to the puc as the rate schedule and that comes to the board of supervisors. >> is the $5 meant to be a nominal amount to have people reflect or meant to cover some administrative charges? >> again, we are not counting on any money so that is what it

marin was the first cca, but they have a mix. we appropriately as san francisco are moving forward 100% green energy. it is the only way we will solve this problem. it is already too late to make a change from where we are. if we don't do anything, your kids, your grandkids are going to face a world we can't imagine. that will be scary as all get-out. i urge you to make this vote, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is chris wright, the executive director of committee on jobs. our group was involved around business tax. in larger discussion about needed revenue and funding for investments in city services in our community. before you is a program that is the exact opposite of the investment. this multimillion dollar contract fails to create jobs or renewable energy and exposes most vulnerable san franciscans to rate increases. to the controller's report electricity cost will increase by nearly 80%. just to break even. additionally city government is charged higher rates by the puc to pay for this program. the end r

a possibility and beginning with the father of cca in san francisco assembly member tom ammiano as well as state senator mark leno, supervisor mirkarimi who chaired lafco for a number of years as well as former state senator carol mington. i want to acknowledge the work of the city attorney. the city attorney's office has put a number of hours to make sure this is a legally sound and defendable a program as we possibly can have so i want to thank teresa mueller, john soleil and members of her team. a special thanks to the advocates of community choice aggregation who over the years have rallied behind this effort which at the end of the day is really about providing consumers a choice making sure that ratepayers in san francisco have opportunity to not only have clean energy but to have a meaningful choice, to make sure that there are other players in the business of providing energy beyond the utility that has had a monopoly for so long. the last point that i want to make is that i want to acknowledge that we have heard from members of the labor community, and specifically the labor co

another high level consideration thinking of cca as environmental point, mr. harrington mentioned it is powerful towards reducing the overall carbon footprint but the state law has certain imperfections or let's just say equity programs in using ccas as environmental policy and directly connects to the opt-out character. if you do not opt out of the program, you will pay higher rates for 100% green power and take the city toward the climate goal. however, if you opt out you have no responsibility. the burden of the city's climate plan falls entirely on those who do not opt out. it is worth consideration by policy makers, that there are tax measures on energy use, on electricity use that could discourage people from using electricity if they are deciding or finding themselves in a program still using brown power. in other words, the city could adopt a tax on brown power alongside that would have the effect of reducing price difference between clean power program and the other. that would essentially give customers a more robust choice between brown power and a

this is not perfect, not everything we want out of a cca but really does make a small difference towards a goal that is so far away. we have such a long road to walk towards energy independence and transitioning away that any bit can make a huge difference. the larger mission is really to popularize the idea of community ownership, to make it so that everybody sees that they can have a hand in owner their energy future. that is the real difference green power can make. the first technology that makes it available to take ownership back from the huge corporations, to change from a top-down to grassroots to decentralized model of green energy. though the cca is only a step in that direction, that is crucial so i urge you to support clean power sf and help us take that crucial step. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is walter pope. i am a member of the sierra club here in the bay area. i think that the position of the sierra club is generally known now so at best i could just give a general outline to what the see rear club is standing for. the main thing i think is consider

i am going to be voting in favor of cca today. i had been hoping that we could add some additional language about the opting in versus opting out. unfortunately, as we discussed before, that didn't happen. i will be completely candid. i struggled mightily with this contract. in the past, i have been expressed public support of cca, and have always indicated that it would depend on the contract. i very, very meticulously and carefully evaluated this contract. i believe that competition is a good thing. i know that pg&e has talked about wanting to offer their own alternative. and i think that's a good thing. and i look forward to that competition. i believe that this is a wise investment. we will be investing funds from puc power enterprise. i think that that investment is capped. i believe the city's exposure under this contract is quite limited, and what we do have an opportunity to do here is to move forward with clean energy. i've looked carefully at what's happened in marin and spoken with two members of the county board of sup

those of us who have talked about cca in the last few years wanted to launch cca so we not only had a contract before you but at the same time we had a build-out that could be approved at the same time and move forward at the same time. what we have is a program that has evolved in the last few years with the goal of making sure we have community choice aggregation, that we do so in a way that is fiscally responsible and minimizes financial risk to city and county of san francisco. that is why we have approached this in a phase, through phases. phase one the contract and phase two in a fiscally responsible way it is something that will happen once we have a source of income out of phase one so we can then begin the process of doing our own buildout to generate our own energy and contracts like the one before you are no longer needed. that is the objective, that is the goal. the goal is not only to make this happen. but as you will hear from the puc, you will hear from the department of the environment, the program of ccs is something that is an integral part of what the city is trying

though the cca is only a step in that direction, that is crucial so i urge you to support clean power sf and help us take that crucial step. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is walter pope. i am a member of the sierra club here in the bay area. i think that the position of the sierra club is generally known now so at best i could just give a general outline to what the see rear club is standing for. the main thing i think is considered what are the dynamic long-term perspective versus a static short-term narrow scope, myopic view of this issue. the world is in a transformation, we can see that. that is, of course, obvious. an economic crisis and also an unprecedented global change in the n environment. this is a very optimal program. first of all in terms of just the benefit cost ratio in the long term it is going to generate jobs. even in the short term. that would be good. these are new jobs, new technology. the challenge is we have something technically feasible but is politically feasible. do we have thought forms and institutions that block the way? the summit is