Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 13, 2015 5:30am-6:01am PDT

5:30 am
authority of the energy gition so that one layer of complexity is removed. the result is more los angelesity in program design and we have really enjoyed that the past few years. we want to pause and explain the claimable savings we often bring up here, this is a standard retrofit, we have a 60 watt incandescent light bulb going to a 10 watt led lamp. the claimable savings here you would expect would be 50 watts, but in fact what the program can claim is only 8 watts. so the math makes sense, you would say 50 watts but unfortunately the program is only able to claim and incentive ieds that smaller amount because that is the amount that's above the state's title 24 code base line. this is something that we've been able to break through with the barren program and something we hope to do with other programs. the bay run has given us this interesting proof of concept.
5:31 am
the success has been remarkable. in 18 months of bay run we have served 9500 residential units. it's built on our expertise with programs. bay run is flexible, comp prehence and accessible. we've expanded on this long-term model of energy watch but we want to do more for all our customers moving forward. we think that cca gives us the opportunity to do that. we want to more completely account for and incentivize project savings. we know that we might not start right away with the cca's energy efficiency program, but we can't help but think about what the next generation of energy efficiency program might look like. again, we know we want to aegt for all energy savings so we can increase the increase to the customers on
5:32 am
chillers that have the same limitation on title 24 base line. this will allow customers to break through and do those deeper energy savings measures. all these projects deliver real green house gas energy savings and they are crucial to achieving both san francisco and the state's aggressive environmental goals. we also know that a future program will need expressable and affordable financings. financing will be very impactful if it is accessible and affordable. our staff has considerable experience with pg&e's on bill finance program which has a minimum $5,000 loan and the application review is quite lengthy because they are not a bank and don't want to be in the business as such. some of our contractors avoid these on bill financing completely. there is talk at the cpuc of private financing but we fear higher rates for small customers. our department has
5:33 am
led on the long road to a viable pace program and we think that will be a key offering to midand large size customers. again, we want to address small customers moving forward. this is what a comprehensive program might look like. this is a multi use build not guilty chinatown. in a future program we'd like to work with all the ray payers in a long-term phased project. we would start on the ground floor and do the led lighting we have done in so many of our other projects. then we'd move into our restaurant downstairs, we would build on our cool savings program, a pilot we are doing right now, looking to more accurately account for the savings from this project. we would move to the residential units upstairs and finally with actual energy savings we'd be able to address the heating and hot water systems in the basement that have been left to slowly fail in the basement. the official
5:34 am
life of these older boilers -- this is the new boiler here -- is 20 years but we see many of these running many decades later and they are there as too costly to retrofit. finally after moving through all the spaces with energy efficiency then we could do on site renewables. we'd like to build on our sun shares program, the bulk purchasing program. future programs might even have an energy storage element which would create us to have a microgrid storage system on site. the result is an even stronger long-term relationship with a customer. these projects provide long-term savings in return to both the programs and the customers. they are more efficient with staff project management time and our marketing dollars by limiting the amount of marketing we need to do and on site visits. they avoid stranding the (inaudible)
5:35 am
increasing energy costs and putting our businesses at risk every day we hear this on all of our site visits. we also would like to see continued job creation in the manufacturing, sale and installation of energy efficient technology. we have the vision. the next step is to work with our partners like the puc to determine a timeline. we have a powerful future here. we believe cca will help san francisco bridge our current energy efficiency work and the promise of clean renewable future. we will continue to lead not only with our innovative ideas but also innovative methods of implementation. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you for your presentation. we have questions from the committee. supervisor mar. >> can i just -- i would love to just bookend this with some final thoughts, would it be okay? >> please. >> i want to -- thank you,
5:36 am
kathleen, that was outstanding -- we're very proud of our energy efficiency team and what they have been able to accomplish, the real improvements that san francisco residents have seen. i want to just highlight a couple things kathleen said. one is about timing and the other is about partnerships. we have been working very closely with barbara hale and her team over at puc over how the timing of this might roll out. there's a lot going on with respect to the launch of cca and in parallel with that we'll be working with michael and with barbara to anticipate what we need to do at the cpuc to get permission to launch our own independent energy efficiency programming. i don't -- we don't know when that final result with the cpuc will be finished. however, it may not coincide directly with launch. but what will happen at launch is we will continue
5:37 am
the current programs that we already have, so there will not be a break in service, but the actual launch of the new cca informed energy efficiency, the timing on that is a little bit questionable. we don't know exactly how long that will take. we're looking very carefully at the experience of sonoma and marin as they are involved with a similar request with the puc it's going to be very important that san francisco stay engaged with the puc for us to overcome some of these regulatory barriers by the iou's, by the utilities, we need to demonstrate that a cca is a different entity and should be treated differently. that will be a journey we will go with our fellow cca's to the cpuc, but i want to say there's a very very tight working relationship right now between the san francisco puc and the department of the environment and i'm excited to see where that takes us. thank you.
5:38 am
>> thank you, that's great to hear. commissioner mar. >> i wanted to thank miss bryant for the very positive presentation, really clear the difference between bay run and the energy watch program, given pg&e's involvement in the other one. as a member of the executive committee of abag i think it's a great example of how regionally it can support empower sf as we look at the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency. i want to thank cal broomhead on the years of bringing me up to speed on the green jobs creation and how challenging that is, but i think with the great work of the staff of the department of the environment be this really really helps our clean power sf program. i wanted to thank cal also for the establishment of the new energy efficiency task force. i think in april it's going to the rule's committee. it has members of put air, emerald
5:39 am
city, labor small business and other leaders that will be on the energy efficiency task force to helpfully support the task force and raise awareness in the neighborhoods too. i wanted to acknowledge we're working with guillermo rod rod from the department to make sure we're going to support the work going on, but i'm pleased with how there's a great connection and good timing and the partnerships that miss rafael just mentioned. i'm very, very pleased. thank you. >> thank you. i'm curious, moving forward, what kind of action legislatively that might be needed from lafco or the board of supervisors to help strengthen the work that can be done with energy efficiency moving forward. do you have any recommendations that are coming forward for us? >> beyond be what director
5:40 am
rafael added, yes. anyone else from staff? >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power at the sfpuc there may be an opportunity for you to lend your voices of support to our efforts to get california puc authority to expand pg&e rate payer dollars to expand our energy efficiency. there may be an opportunity there to engage. we weren't at this point envisioning bringing any specific legislation for energy efficiency to this body or to the board. that could change but at this point we weren't anticipating that. >> thank you. >> cca program. >> i'm not sure if you've identified funding that was approved by the voters in the housing trust fund for energy
5:41 am
efficiency. i had put the language in the housing trust fund that, the language was originally called the home owners stablization fund and at the last minute it was changed to the housing stablization fund. i wanted to create a funding stream that could be available for households, single family homes to be able to access. some of those funds are available for distressed mortgages and there's a new program that's being made by the mayor's office of housing around distressed mortgages but there's also eligible uses that are around energy efficiency as well. there is also discussion about how these funds could be used to help lead to incentive for legalizing in-laws. the difficulty is the city has not worked on how to program these funds into these programs and i think that's an area where probably there is office of housing, which is very focused on affordable housing construction, has not seen the effort made to creating these
5:42 am
programs for this funding stream for energy efficiency or these other ways to support single family homes and i think maybe the department of the environment can play a role working with the mayor's office of housing to help get some meat on the bones to see these programs come to fruition. >> and if i could i'd like to suggest that the coordination that we're engaged in today between the department of the environment and the san francisco puc on the cca front might be a good vehicle to sort of program it in so that we don't have multiple administrative efforts but a consolidated effort. >> i was not aware of that but i wrote it down. first thing i'm going to do is find out more. thank you. >> it's a little bit of money, but --. >> but if we can leverage and it hasn't have the same restrictions we have when going
5:43 am
through the public --. >> other questions i have, moving forward, i also serve on the air district, the bay area air quality management district and we have a big debate right now about our energy future moving forward, trying to look at -- one of the ideas that's come forward in terms of what we could use as a region are some incentives to actually move towards new building construction that is not just energy efficient by also is a noncarbon future for these buildings, so non-combustion heating systems, the boilers wouldn't be boilers any more, they would be something else that we could put in place, and that's a place where i think there could be work that we could enhance through legislation moving forward and has the department of the environment worked on these types of ideas? >> yeah, we are very much now looking at updating the rico, which is the residential energy
5:44 am
conservation ordinance, we may be coming back to you hopefully soon with some measures for existing buildings. when we talk about new construction we're doing a lot of work now looking at the roof, what do we want to do about green roofs and solar, looking at electric vehicles, electrification, this boiler aspect is another wonderful piece of that. how do we get away from natural gas? that is what you're talking about and when you look at our green house gas emissions, we're doing great on the electricity side, we have a path forward. what we need to do is tackle our fuels, whether those are natural gas use or gasoline. >> we have a huge explosion of market rate luxury housing in san francisco. i'm not sure, the majority of these buildings are they going up with systems that are actually non-carbon, are they actually maximizing efficiency, are we seeing solar on these buildings? and if not i think it's worthy of putting
5:45 am
some requirements on especially the market rate luxury housing that the exploding the city to be able to put these requirements on them and i think the department of the environment weighing in on that would be really helpful. >> we are definitely excited about the opportunities for heat pumps replacing combustion heating for water heating and space heating. there are real -- and solar water heating, of course. unfortunately for tall high rise buildings once you get over about 10 stories, the possibility of being able to have much solar access on the roof is extremely diminished because they have a lot of needs for ventilation and other things through that roof top, so there's a lot of competing needs plus the size and the density of the energy needed may mean it's difficult to replace a natural gas fired boiler with other technology unless we can find some other source for the gas, like bio
5:46 am
gas. it's easier to do in low rise buildings. >> thank you. colleagues, any other comments or questions? vice chair cruz. >> thank you. i just want to thank the department of the environment for coming here today. this was something that i was really excited about, to see the presentation and i spoke with mr. broomhead before, giving me some ideas on what are the possibilities out there. and what i understand is that there is a whole host of ideas and programs and efficiencies that can be made available for clean power sf customers that they just would not have had the opportunity to see even to find funding for or
5:47 am
to package the programs together in a way that they just couldn't get from pg&e, which creates the incentive to do more of these efficiencies and that's really what we want, just to lessen the load. so thank you for this presentation. i'm interested to know, i know you're working closely with the sfpuc staff, if this is not -- if the programs are not really slated to be launched in the initial cca launch, what does the timeline look like? i know there are a lot of moving parts there. >> yes, there are. again, barbara hale, assistant general manager for power at the sfpuc we do plan during this year to make the submission to the california puc to become the administrator of the fund. when they will acting on that
5:48 am
is one of the moving parts. we don't know how long it will take them to grant us that authority. and we want to make sure that what we ultimately offer the customers in the program are responsive to the customer needs. so in looking at the marin experience and looking at the sonoma experience, the piloting that sonoma did is attractive to us. we're still talking and evaluating how we might want to begin the effort, but i think the biggest unknown for us, for the early planning aspects of it, is when the cpuc would act on any filing we would make. and having that assurance of funds is really what's going to make the difference between being able to launch as we definitely know we will with energy watch, bay run, all the programs that the cca rate payers are already paying for because they are also pg&e rate
5:49 am
payers, so we know we will have that suite of offerings. the question is what more can we do and how do we achieve the vision that was described towards the later half of the presentation, because that's the overall goal. >> when does that sort of get, i guess the programs, if they are adopted and if the more expanded offerings are part of this launch, either the first wave or second wave or however it rolls out, at what point do you have an understanding in terms of like a budget reliance with the sfpuc and the department of the environment? >> when the sfpuc responds to our application is when we will know how much of the existing rate payer funds that pg&e currently administers will be allocated to us as the cca provider.
5:50 am
>> okay. >> allocated to the city. >> okay, does that coincide with the current budget timeline? >> so they are currently evaluating at the cpuc having a rolling timeline and not a set timeline. >> oh, good. okay. >> we're hoping that with our -- by filing an application during this year we'll be able to be rolled in to that rolling process. and you're right, historically they did have like a 3 year set time frame where there was a window you would get in and then you'd have to wait. >> and because, from our perspective, and the wonderful thing about bay run, as you know, commissioner mar, is that it's a proof of concept. in a way it's a pilot of what the kind of comprehensive programs can be. right now bay run is a very small amount of money. energy watch is about $7 million to bay run's $450,
5:51 am
$350,000. so it's a very small window of what's possible but because we've already done it as soon as there's sort of that mental sufficient evidence of launch, you know, where we are very confident this is going to be real, then we're going to start planning. as you know for any program to launch there's a ton of planning that goes on first and we'll have a little bit of that luxury of time to plan so that when we know the amount of money that's -- we'll have a menu of things we can do and depending on how much funding the cpuc allocates to the cca, there's a little bit of argument, as you can imagine, between pg&e and cca's between who gets the public good charge money and how much and that hasn't been settled yet. that's why barbara hale and i have a hard time planning our budgets for additional resources. we know what we have now and as kathleen said we're fully expected to keep going where we are now, but
5:52 am
that additionality is tough and it's tough no know how much and when. whether it's legislative or not, the voice of this body needs to be heard at the california public utilities commission. i mean if you look at what's going on internationally now, there's tremendous understanding that green house gas production emissions happen at the city level and we are fully equiped to make those happen if we have the freedom to do it right and that's the message we need to deliver to the california public utilities commission who i think, i believe share our same goals, i expect. >> i'm seeing a lot of opportunity as well. you mentioned other cca's that currently exist but there are also many in the making as well. so these are all places or people who are working on these to be able to be part of the effort to get the rules we want. okay, i think we have no more
5:53 am
questions on this part of this agenda item. mr. fried, do you want to take us to our next agenda item? >> the next part would be the assistant general manager, barbara hale, presenting the cca update itself. >> thank you, mr. fried. so i have three things to talk about today on cca first off is to announce that we have an acting director, i'm very happy about that personally, and that's mike heim, the gentleman to my left. mike had been an analyst with us years ago when we first began working on the cca project. he went off to new york, it was, and got his master's degree there in energy management and policy, worked as a researcher, university of columbia, and worked for the port authority as a senior energy analyst.
5:54 am
then we wooed him back. actually, we didn't, he just loved california -- and he's been working with us as our regulatory and legislative affairs manager for some time now. so he has really deep understanding of the whole cpuc process and the rules of engagement on cca and will be leading our team toward the finish line at least on an interim basis. and that brings me to my second topic, which is the schedule and sort of where we're at and our legislative reforms. the schedule had envisioned we'd be bringing legislative reforms to the board of supervisors and, in particular, the reforms we're looking for would give us authority to use standardized power purchase contracts for longer durations than we currently have authority for. we'll also be asking for the authority to enter into energy supply
5:55 am
contracts for up to 20 years in duration. with a total contract cost that are greater than $10 million dollars and longer, as i said, 20 years, longer than 10. so the current charter requirements are to bring contracts like that to the board of supervisors for approval. if they exceed 10 years in duration or 10 million dollars in expenditure. and so we're working with the city attorney on the delegation of authority because it is a charter delegation --. >> (inaudible) charter. >> it's taking a little bit longer for us to work out exactly what the boundaries would be, the parameters would be, of that delegation of authority. so we'll probably be coming to you in your board form in about two, three weeks with a proposed wltion.
5:56 am
-- legislation. >> would that be a charter amendment? >> i understand that's happened a couple of times before, it's not completely unheard of, but it's taking a little longer for us to understand at the department what that means and for the city attorney to work through what kind of parameters are helpful for us and comfortable for the city in its delegation of that authority. >> and there aren't any other examples of that delegation of authority already? >> not in this particular context. we have had waivers in the context of, waivers of admin code in the context of energy procurement, supply contracts, and that's a little easier to get our heads around. we have examples of that, we've done that before as a city, but not delegation of the charter authority with respect
5:57 am
to supply agreements. >> and can i ask what is it about these power purchase agreements or these purchasing agreements that requires a change? what is the nature of them? >> so part of what we're trying to achieve with the change in allowing us to contract for more than 20 years is the ability to bring into the cca program, into the city's portfolio of energy supply, projects that can be financed and built at a pace that allows us to meet the demands of the cca program. clearly an overall goe of the city for the cca program has been to have new generation, new renewables, not just purchases. we can have effective purchasing authority under the existing rules and with the ability to contract just a little bit longer term
5:58 am
and that's what the waivers component of the legislative reform will bring to you, will allow us to do. but to really be able to say to you, we think the cca program will result in new generation being built, not just what we own, but also out there in the market place being built to serve us, we need to be able to contract with the counter party for 20 years at least because then they can finance that project and have it be built. so i think that's what's really motivating that aspect of the reforms we bring to you, is to try to be responsive to have that as part of the cca program sthoo sthoo so the idea would be that potentially one example would be that we contract with this one provider who is using some of the proceeds to finance the construction of generation facilities while they are providing us with some power. >> yes. i can imagine that
5:59 am
with this authority we could go out to the market place through a request for offer asking the market place specifically who, at what price would you bring us newly constructed renewable power. and they would submit to us the price, location, characteristics of the project, and we could engage in a letter of commitment, non-binding letter of commitment in response to that so we would know that were we to strike a deal with that contractor, with that counter party, they would be able to go out and finance it and build it, fresh and new, the idea. >> thank you. >> so that's the legislative reform packet that we think we'll be bringing 200in two, three weeks time. we're working through the details with city attorney, want to make sure we get this right. it's been impressed upon me
6:00 am
that delegation of authority is something that -- well, we've done it before, we don't do it a lot, and we have to make sure we take the time to get it done right. we had anticipated bringing it 200earlier in the schedule. bringing it to you later in the schedule will not affect it overall. in terms of what's out ahead of us besides the legislative reform, this month we'll be bringing to our rate fairness board the not to exceed rate we've proposed for both our basic cca service, if you will light green part, as well as the upscale, do more, be greener part of the program, the dark green aspect of the program. we'll be bringing those rates to

35 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on