Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 9, 2011 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT

3:00 pm
program geographically. we want to offer our program to areas of the city -- to all of san francisco, starting with areas of the city the most likely to say yes to the program and stay with it. the fact that san francisco is the verse -- diverse. the low tier customer is the average customer. we're seeing lower price premiums with the flat gen. we will be able to offer our services to all customers in san francisco ultimately. we're geographically targeting it so that we can phase folks in
3:01 pm
strategically. supervisor campos: maybe the general manager will want to add to that. my point is that we want to make sure that this is available to people who are low income and that the lack of resources will not get in the wake of this program being available to them. supervisor mirkarimi>> certainll be offering it to everyone. there is a care program that offers a discount. that stays in existence. we will have to talk about how we deal with low income people. we do not have the exact numbers of how to do it. the care program is about 20% discount now. that is already in the program. that cover virtually the entire bill. it is our section of the bill that is differentiated.
3:02 pm
the low income programs still exists. supervisor campos: you will calculate that for this program? >> we will try to figure out how that fits into this. supervisor campos: commissioners, did you want to ask anything? >> it is a related point. slide 8 shows the province. each one is color-coded. it is not identified with those referred to. is that related to interest levels? >> they are not meaningful. it is just so you could see where these it coast were. >> there is no breakdown of interest? >> there is no information there. >> i am the interim executive officer for san francisco lafco. i have a brief presentation. i know we have thrown a lot of data at you today. i did want to say that this
3:03 pm
program designed by sfpuc is different from where we originally thought the program would be back when it was adopted by the board of supervisors in 2007. through the process of hiring numerous consultants and having numerous reports, the board adopted a final implementation plan a couple of years ago that revised the original intent of our cca program to say that our rates would be competitive with pg&e, understanding the product we would offer, we would not be able to meet or beat pg&e to be able to offer it to all our citizens at all tiers. marin is only going to the higher tier in their program. we will be targeting in making hours available to all tiers.
3:04 pm
ordnance still requires we have the low income assistance and follow the care guidelines as well. we will be figuring out how to provide that in this program. the program will be zero dedicated nuclear power, unlike the current pg&e offering. that is another point not looked at in the survey and in what you heard today from our pollster. that is another way we can possibly market the program given that there is no dedicated nuclear power. supervisor mirkarimi: if i am not mistaken, the pg&e composition of nuclear power is about 20%. >> i believe it is slightly higher than that. it is about 20%. supervisor mirkarimi: what is their contribution sourcing on renewable energy at the state level?
3:05 pm
>> we're thinking 17%. it is growing. i think they would refute that and say it is higher. it is one of the other reasons why the sfpuc came to the conclusion that in marketing, we may as well go out and market the program infinitely different from the products pg&e is providing to you. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree. i think with all of the concern and discussion about nuclear power that if we can reliably segregate an option that would not be nuclear-driven, i think that would appeal to a lot of people in san francisco. >> i do, too. supervisor campos: did you want to add something kristin >> i want to echo that on the marketing angle. -- did you want to add something? >> i want to echo that on the
3:06 pm
marketing angle with nuclear- free. it seems like the energy money and accessing that would be key to looking at the financing, the low income question, the rate payer structure, and all of that. i wonder if there's a sense of timing on that and where that is. >> i am going to ask miss hale if she would like to speak to that. it is an integral part of the program. it is not something we are presenting today. today, we wanted to give you where we're going on the renewable energy portion of the program. in terms of energy efficiency, that is an integral part of the plan. we will provide that at a later time on how we plan on addressing that. that would mean having people use less energy, right? >> i am talking more specifically about the pg&e energy efficiency money. at the state level, we're working to try to get access to that to fund for residency
3:07 pm
programs. is there a chance that by the time we roll out next summer that it would be available and could change the rate structure? >> there is a chancy could be. we have to temper their optimism. we have been arguing at the california public utilities commission that the administration of those funds collected by pg&e from san francisco residents and businesses should be the responsibility of the cca for quite some time. because of our lack of success in the opinion, we have included the change in legislation that we're working with senator leno on. we have had hearings of the senate committee on that legislation. it made its way out of committee with lots of direction to continue to work with members on some of the key provisions.
3:08 pm
that has been a longstanding part of our cca program and regulatory effort to get that pot of dollars available to us for direct administration. >> if there is anything this body could do to support that effort in a resolution, whatever you might need, i would put that fourth. >> thank you. supervisor campos: miss miller? i am almost done. our program goal was to be 51% renewable by 2017. we exceed that with the current plan. an important part of the plan is the face iphase in. the second phase is to layer in city operated resources. that is an integral part of the
3:09 pm
plan. we need to start the first phase in order to get a steady stream of income that we can use to build our own facilities. that will be in subsequent phases. with that, that concludes my presentation. supervisor campos: 82 pand thank you to puc and lafco staff. supervisor mirkarimi: this is a milestone. i want to thank you for helping to shepherd this along the way. i have been serving as live co- chairman for four years. i am happy to see commissioner campos now in that role. this is the long road of about eight to 10 years. there has been no conversation
3:10 pm
like what is taking place today in that eight years that has provided us more than just anecdotal data. now we have directional steps. we have different departments in the city more unified with a focus that is becoming more structured towards an objective that is delineated by a set of goals and principles outlined by both public policy, has been passed on ordnance level, and by a number of commitments expressed by the organs of city hall to go in the same direction. i do not want to leave this room without reflecting on the fact that there is a bit of a milestone in this discussion. i want to extend my compliments to the puc and lafco staff and to the commissioners for
3:11 pm
remaining open-minded and vigilant about asking the right questions that have helped us to a right that this particular place. i can only hope that we continue to move forward to a place that delivers before the year is out acc cca program. that will be history for san francisco. supervisor campos: thank you to the parent members of both commissions and the staff and to the people who over the years have been working on this. that includes the past general managers and the leadership of others as well. let's open it up to public comment. members of the public will have three minutes to speak.
3:12 pm
>> good afternoon. i am eric brooks representing the green party and our city. i have worked intensively on this for the past seven years or so. i would agree with the commissioners that this is a milestone. however, i would also point out as i did in my letter that you received through emailed that we could be in a much better place if we were handling this differently. i want to get to some of the specifics that are raised in the email. -- that i raised in the mill. to the study data itself, some of the key flaws i indicated in my e-mail, it only gathers information from residential customers. most of the electricity sold in san francisco is too large
3:13 pm
commercial customers. without that information base, we are not heading in the right direction. we do not have the proper information base to make decisions like this. i would argue that because of that, the study itself has a big flaw in it. the biggest problem i see with the proposal of the san francisco public utilities commission itself is the idea that commissioner torres was getting at. that is the higher cost of the product to consumers. in marin county, they have been very conscious of this from the beginning. even though they have a procurement only system, they have bent over backwards to keep its price truly competitive with pg&e. it has been very difficult. it has not been always perfect. it has been much better than the proposal would suggest. the thing that mitigates this is
3:14 pm
that when you do the full bill out of energy efficiency with solar and wind that advocates have been pushing hard for for the last seven or eight years, you build up a set of assets. with the efficiency, you lower the rates considerably over time such that you can amortize the entire product over 15 or 20 years and do not need to offer a product that is more expensive. that is why it is crucial that before you approve any contract on just this track that the sfpuc wants to pursue of the procurement model that marin is pursuing, you also need to make sure that the advocate track of doing the bill that we got them to commit to is done at the same time.
3:15 pm
not as phase two, but as a dual track to lower the cost. [tone!] needed higher than 70%. -- we need higher than 70%. supervisor campos: thank you. any other members of the public who would like to speak, please come up. >> good afternoon. i am with the san francisco de area sierra club. the sierra club has always supported this program. we think it is a great move. we would also agree that we would like to see the strongest local gold out eventually. we want to see clean power sf running as soon as possible. i am very excited to see that it
3:16 pm
is 100% ruble and will have no dedicated nuclear power. that is very important to sierra club since we are against all forms of nuclear power. thank you. supervisor campos: public comment is closed. commissioners, this is a discussion item. unless there is anything else to add, madam cleark, please call item five. we can now hear from mr. campbell. >> and the director of the committee choice abrogation program. this is a brief item. a lot of it got covered in the discussion earlier. the big items -- one is the
3:17 pm
generational reflecting coming up. that has been discussed as a key element that will drive how we time the program and how we design our rates. the other is to give you a status update. the commission continues to move forward on -- the california public utilities commission continues to look forward on how it charges the fees charged to customers. we're hoping it will help the fees to be reduced. that is in the face before the proposed decision even gets -- in the phase before the proposed decision even has an initial ruling. last week as miss hale -- lastly, as ms. hale was noting, we have been sponsoring sp 970
3:18 pm
that helps to clarify and clear up a lot of issues with the statutes to make the climate for cca more friendly and to level the playing field. thanks to the good work of miss hale, don weiss, the sierra club, and others, that was able to get through committee as barbara and noted. that is continuing to move forward. we're hoping to get some relief there as well. supervisor campos: commissioner moran? >> to have any idea on when they're likely to act on the fee issue?
3:19 pm
on the exit fees. >> there is no timeline set that is published. given where things are and having worked at the sfpuc for a number of years, they are taking final briefs. i would expect a decision from them in the next several months. a month or two after that, the commission may act. it is a big issue for cca and direct access. it is one that the cpuc a wrestle with for a while and the way making a decision on because of the political realities. supervisor campos: is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item five? public comment is closed.
3:20 pm
item six? >> legislative update on community choice every nation issues. supervisor campos: it is a related item. mr. campbell? >> a cut ahead and did items five and six together. supervisor campos: supervisor mirkacommissioner mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am wondering if the exit of one may give us an opportunity to send a message to pg&e that we sit down and talk question if they are headquartered here in san francisco. we have gone through a number of disagreements and battles like proposition 16. based on the information we received through their
3:21 pm
shareholders' meetings and the board of directors that have bubbled out about the reason why they wanted him gone, it had to do with the fact that he had to be recalcitrant and not very engaged on a positive level with municipalities in pg&e service jurisdictions. i do not know if that particular reason for the exit would help to flavor the quality. i would like to grab the opportunity on behalf of the city to say that we would like some co-existence through the cca. let's try to find a way to have that kind of common respect. i wonder how formally we can do it. i legislated an invitation, kind of tongue-in-cheek, after proposition 16 to invite mr. harvey to come be with us. i did not get his message if he called. i am thinking at this time,
3:22 pm
there may be somebody there at pg&e who will take our in t invitation seriously. >> hope springs eternal. we had a similar conversation at our commission meetings. we will pursue that. we will see if that is something that can be combined effort by the puc and board of supervisors. supervisor mirkarimi: may be mayor lee can also offer a formal invitation. let them dismiss other higher elected officials or something. let's make this invitation to the point where it would almost seen impolitic for them to end north it and do everything we possibly can. if we are going towards it, i
3:23 pm
think today is a signal that we are. i think it needs to come out in the open about where they are. >> the relationship would be improved by easier dialogue. supervisor campos: would be helpful to do a formal invitation on behalf of lafco and the puc? >> let's do some feelers with pg&e. some combination may be the way to do it. we may come back with a recommendation. supervisor campossupervisor mir: something, potentially. we need to figure out what that would look like. supervisor campos: you do not want to post a letter and "the guardian." colleagues, any questions on
3:24 pm
item six? is there any member of the public who would like to speak on the item? see none, public comment is closed. >> i do not want this first meeting with our new chair -- joint meeting with our new chair to conclude without saying thank you for the four years of leadership from our past chair supervisor mirkarimi. we would not have gotten to the day or get to the finish line without your leadership and advice. i want to publicly thank you for everything you have done to help cca laid the groundwork. supervisor mirkarimi: i have been share for five years. supervisor campos: public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to
3:25 pm
comment. >> eric brooks from san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization our city. this is for both commissions, but especially the san francisco public utilities commission. i believe you received an e-mail from me there is even more scathing than the one you got for me today about treasure island. i think i mentioned in the e- mail i mainly focused on a problem with projections and preparation for tsunami dangers. that is just the tip of the iceberg of some serious problems that have arisen with the treasure island project. the state of california is threatening to remove redevelopment funding from redevelopment projects.
3:26 pm
the anchor developer and staff have decided in the last month to completely change both the funding and government structure of this thing. it is sort of like redevelopment. what it means in real terms is that this treasure island project -- many groups have already raised many problems with it on the environmental impact report like transportation, sea level rise, as tsunamis, etc. this project will in up with about 20% less funding than it had before. that has created a profound pressure on the project itself. not only have staff and the developer's proposed to cut the affordable housing component of the treasure island project from 17% -- by 17% from what is now,
3:27 pm
but they have a situation where we're going to do to mitigate problems all depend on future funding from revenue of the project. in the last month, we've seen the mayor's office staff, other stuff, and the developers scrambling to make this look like it is ready to go win is not. -- when it is not. there has been a major cut in funding. please read my e-mail. i try not to send too many. it has some key information about tsunami danger that is very scary. to lafco specifically, the other thing changing the size the funding is the governance structure. the planning department and board of supervisors will get a little more authority. however, the treasure island development authority will be
3:28 pm
getting a lot more walled off authority than it used to have. that is a serious question. i think maybe lafco should take a look at that. supervisor campos: public comment is closed. before we move on to the last item, let's go back to items 4, 5, and six. i would ask that we have a motion to continue that. there is a motion by commissioner mirkarimi that is seconded. without objection. madam clerk, call item 10. >> adjournment. supervisor campos: the meeting is adjourned. enjoy your weekend. thank you again for all the work that has been done. ♪ ♪
3:29 pm
[horns honking] [siren wails]