Transcripts For SFGTV 20141216

Use the same metric that the enernex report uses per million spent we had about. 4. 42 jobs and those are actual construction jobs on the site measured through the citys elation system. Sure. I dont want to get into and the enernex report says you could have five to seven i think jobs per million spent and, construction job is what the title says and its just that kind of huh that kind of conversation that i am referring to. I want to make sure there werent substantive concerns that you perhaps didnt present today. No. There wasnt a substantive conversation. It was really just a preview of what the report covers, a preview of the comments we had at the staff level about the report. We have not had a briefing to our commissioners of the draft. We have been asked to put together a briefing of this version. Now, it sounds like mr. Fried refers to as the final version so that seems the version to have a briefing with the commissioners with and thats what were planning on doing. Were planning on collaborating with him and his staff to put together the pros and cons on the issues at the staff level were expressing some concern about. I hope that is clearer. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner crews. Okay. As every month im going to just struggled with this microphone. Thank you both for your comments on the enernex report. I think cleanpowersf is an important step forward for San Francisco really to halt the devastating effects of Climate Change and to make Renewable Energy a reality for San Francisco residents, so i do have a few questions though so i guess i can start with you ms. Hale with my questions. What are the plans to well, let me just back up. I know that you talked about target Jobs Creation or you talked about Jobs Creation in terms of using the model that the puc uses versus the model thats in the enernex report. Do you or does the puc have a target goal for the jobs that would be created to answer your questions about just feasibility and preference in terms of cleanpowersf . To be just to be clear on my comments. We are not questioning the methodology that was used by enernex. The elations report that i referred to that the city uses is a tracking of the construction jobs per city sponsored project, and i was just referring to that system for purposes of relaying the information we have from the 5megawatt solar system we installed just as a benchmark of actual construction jobs for a San Francisco solar project, renewable project. With respect to target job targets from the cleanpowersf program we do not have job targets from the cleanpowersf program work that we have done so far. That was that is something that was identified and were certainly happy to see that enernex report certainly at the staff level at least happy to see that the enernex represent put some thought behind what the jobs potential is, and frankly thats part of the reason why i am spending time and thought on that part of the report because i feel that was a gap going into this process, and i think the enernex report attempts to fill that gap. I want to make sure its done in a robust way. It appears to be done in a robust way with respect to the methodology and i would like to see the numbers unpacked a little bit. What were seeing is a total and i am asking what the pieces that get you to the total so we can better understand it and benchmark it against our own experience like at sunset. Sure. Are these same numbers ever requested in pg e jobs . I dont have first hand knowledge of that. I dont know. Yeah, i dont know. I dont think its requested in the context of the California Public Utilities Commission review of pg e expenditures. I dont believe it is in that setting. It maybe in some other though. Sure. [inaudible] i want to make sure were talking apples to apples when we talk about Jobs Creation as far as City Projects goes, city and county and then also on a state wide level just so that were holding cleanpowersf accountable to the state or the enernex report as to pertains to cleanpowersf in the same method and reporting standards that we do for all others. And i think mr. Fried referred that the enernex methodology and the actual model that the City Controllers Office uses, the controller ted eagon uses when he puts together information theyre not the same model but they have similar methodologies and i dont know if mr. Eagon was considered whether he considers it apples to apples or mixing up of fruit there. Yeah, in my discussions with mr. Eagon said theyre slightly different models but basically the same depending on the category of the work that youre doing the jobs will come out slightly different but they should be pretty lose and they use similar methodologies how they do it. You talk about the jobs on site, how much money is spent into the economy and translates to more jobs down the line so it uses similar methodology but a different model so the output various slightly but you should be close and pretty close if they run it through the city model with the numbers of ours and close but not exactly the same to the citys models and enernexs models. Thank you for clarifying. I am less concerned about the methodology especially with ted eagons comments and more concerned whether were holding enernex to some additional hurdles, so that the puc understands just whats included in terms of Jobs Creation. I want to be sure that when you said we want to get the message right that were not skewing that, the message that the puc wants to use to perhaps stall or halt this project. So i am just at the staff level were just looking for understanding how the total number thats listed there under a heading construction jobs breaks down. Were just looking for more transparency on the math. I think the methodology provides this information but the way its shared in the report doesnt disclose that information, and so im just asking for more disclosure on that so i can say okay in San Francisco our experience at sunset per Million Dollars spent was about half of a person. Thats an actual construction job and not indirect or induce the i dont have a way to do that because it doesnt list that job component of the total. Thats all i am asking for and i think the data is all there. Its not in the report so i think its easy for enernex to sit down with us and show us how they got to the total and then well have that information. How its presented in the report if San Francisco typically calls all Jobs Construction jobs im not sure thats what happened in the examples that were given like americas cup because i didnt read those reports, not in my wheel house to do that but if its the citys practice to do that then fine. I think you know when you read about it in the trade press or in the newspaper those folks need to understand what that number is. Its not just a construction job number. Sure. I actually watched the sf pucs meeting so i am familiar with your report out to the commissioners and to me i didnt see a lot of concern on that side in terms of the commissioners on those types of concerns, so i think its perhaps coming from the staffs side. Yeah. Thats what i have been saying at the staff level because thats what i am referring to. We provided staff level comments on the report and i summarized those on the report to my commission on tuesday. Okay. Great. Just sort of moving on are there i always talk about going forward. Are there plans to bring back kim malcolm now that we have some sort of forward looking documents . So kim malcolm took leave. It was at her request. We granted it and it expires on january 31. Okay great. And then if either ms. Malcolm or someone else was engaged or some preliminary weights can be set as you know, a suggestion to the commission to the puc that they can start to begin to think how these would compare in these areas for cleanpowersf so that we can just start moving forward. I mean it sounds like the enernex report is a path forward and i want to see were not stalling things with waiting on a meeting. I think on the staff side creating some of the suggested rates or preliminary rates could be a way that we could move the ball. So the enernex report provides good information. It does not describe a new program. I understand that but its also set out said in the report some of the things cant be done until the sf puc sets the rates. And we cant set the rates or we cant propose rates to our commission until we know resource mix, costs, size of the program. We put all that data together with the policy guidance we got from the commission for 100 renewable programs, 2030megawatts in size, that kind of information was known to us and we put the program together. Now, were seeing enernexs report suggesting that the same sort of approach that sonoma clean power and others have taken that renewable content among 100 renewable. We havent taken that question back to our commission. I am hopeful as enernex presents their thoughts at this joint meeting we will feedback from the commission to do that work on. Great. Remind me again when the next Commission Meetings are. We just had the december meeting but what about in the new year. The second and fourth tuesdays of every month. Okay great. Okay. And i think that concludes my questions and i want to thank staff or thank the commissioners for bearing with me as i ask a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner mar. I wanted to thank commissioner crews for reviewing the puc commissions meeting because that helps us to understand that its staff lack of clarity on enernex, some of the data, and i agree with my colleagues, others that have said there is so much urgency with the Climate Crisis in front of us to move cleanpowersf forward and if were only talking about redefining the construction jobs or something that seems tiny to the broader overall picture of what were trying to accomplish and i think this plan set forth by enernex and i know we hear Community Input on this is setting a manager, available, and achievable plan for San Franciscos future. I wanted to say that the enernex report doesnt talk about the soon to be established San Francisco Energy Efficiency task force. That Say Community driven body with groups from the grassroots Environmental Justice movement and Emerald Cities and other groups working with the department of the environment that that can be another body that is helping to move the build out and the local efficiency projects forward so my hope is that we integrate that Community Driven body in addition to what were doing suggested by the report and i wanted to thank jason fried and barbara hale and others and like my colleagues i have anxiety how slow this has been and i dont want to see anymore barriers and delays. Thank you commissioner mar. Commissioner breed. Thank you. I just wanted to some clarity from ms. Hale. It seems like the only concern with the puc is the lack of clarity around the job component in terms of the local build out and how that whole formula has come together. Is that correct . Barbara hale, assistant general manager at the sf puc. I used that as an example of the sort of thing i know already were looking for better clarity on now that we received what is referred to as the final report. Okay. Is there a list of questions or a way to coordinate a meeting with you and enernex and mr. Fried in order to address some of the issues in order to be all on the same page especially when we have our joint meeting about this particular report . Yes, as i mentioned its my intention to collaborate with mr. Fried to go through the report and understand the various issues, have an opportunity to document write something up in a summary way. My commission asked for that prior to the joint meeting. We received this report on the afternoon of monday of this week. Okay. Okay. Got it. Prior to that we provided a multipage comments on the prior version. Im looking for a little time here to work with mr. Fried to identify any outstanding issues that we may still have and to summarize that for my commission. And i appreciate that, i guess it just feels like theres more excuses and thats been a bit frustrating because part of it is it just feels as though any excuse to try to prevent us from moving forward in this direction, and i do appreciate the fact that you just received it on monday. You need the time. I totally understand that. I have actually received two drafts before i got the final report and theres not a significant difference that i could tell. I know that folks from the advocate community have provided feedback on their suggestions that we have been able to incorporate, so i guess you know, yes, i respect the fact that you need time, but i think our patience is run out, mostly because the rates havent been set. We have done this report. We are just providing information in order to make it easier for the puc when in fact the puc if they have this information they should be moving forward with a plan for clean power directly themselves, so i think im just you know, my patience is left the building a little bit, and i am sorry to express frustration here today, but we as members of this body doing everything we can to try and make it easier, and its just not happening, and that is a very frustrating thing to see, and its clear from my perspective because puc hadnt set rates that the puc doesnt have the will to do this and i want to figure out a way to get them to do this, and this report is not a report thats meant to get the puc going as much as its a report to be a road map to explain what the options are, what we have available and so some of the details that youre looking for that youre concerned about are not necessarily details that should derail us from moving forward in this process, so i just want to see us move forward. I am frustrated. This is a long time coming. The excuses are just you know, not working for me anymore, and so im just hoping we can move this thing forward a lot more quicker than we have. So if i may. I am not standing before you today providing excuses. That is not my intention. I apologize if thats how how i am presenting to you today. Thats not my intention. My intention was merely to give an example of the kind of thing that we commented on the prior draft that i think still needs additional work in order to accurately represent what this cleanpowersf program could provide to San Francisco. Thank you. Could provide to the region, could provide beyond the region. Thank you for that clarity. Thats so thats an example. So if this report is with your feedback if the report is solid what then . Whats the next step . Because thats what were ready to do, is the next step. So i understand the next step to be that our commissions are jointly be presented the reports findings. At the staff level i am looking forward to hearing the responses of my commission from what they learned from the enernex report and the dialogue they can have you at the public setting in the joint meeting. I think that is an opportunity for us at the staff level to get Additional Guidance what work we should be performing to be responsible to our commissioners needs so thats what i am looking for at the staff level as a next step. I do want to say i believe were among the first of the commenters on the prior draft providing feedback to mr. Fried on the 20th of november and in advance of the commitment for your meeting in early december for your meeting today, and i expect that we will be equally responsive and collaborative with him prior to the joint meeting so that we can get the Commission Good information to then give us guidance from. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fried is there a reason why we chose to do the joint meetings, do a presentation with both the puc and lafco rather than separate presentations with feedback . It partly deals with costs of having their entire team here. Also if you do a joint meeting questions that come up with one can be talked about with everyone in the room instead of one of us going first and one going second and having a joint discussion. At the end of the day if we cant get a joint meeting i will go down the dual path. I need to make sure we have the money to do two presentations and very little is left. I havent gotten last months bill from them and to see how much is available but the goal is to get all together and have questions with one group and the other and not aligning properly. Got it. And the last thing is how much time do you think it would take to make the revisions or the clarifications that the puc may have as it relates to their concerns with some of the issues in the report . Not really i think in my opinion i think we addressed their concerns they gave us from the final draft, but if there are more clarifications i need to see what they were to find out that but its a question do we want to keep things the way the city does the other reports or differently from the other projects at the city do at least at the board level so not knowing the comments i couldnt give a exact time frame but if its simple like the title of a line in a chart needs to be changed that could be something that is simple and done. If its something more intense than that i would really need to know what it was. Okay. When do you anticipate a joint meeting . We requested dates from the puc to coordinate schedules. I havent got any dates at this point and i am continuing to try to work with ms. Hale and the rest of the puc staff to find when joint dates can be established but i havent gotten dates from them. Okay. Thank you. Can i just ask for a clarification or make a suggestion . I dont want to really have a joint meeting where were arguing over this kind of thing about the jobs and it probably makes sense to deal on a staff level with these types of questions. Make sure that we know if there is a difference of opinion we know exactly what it is because i have a sense that when we go for the joint meeting we want to be asking the commission to do something and that is to dedicate staff to bring back a program and to set rates. That program would potentially not include shell so they have to go design a Different Program than what was before them initially. We may want to ask them to design a program that includes this deep green and light green, you know, the two which hasnt been designed before. We would need to work with sf puc staff to do that to get it presented to their commission. I see this we have the report but the point of the report was to answer some questions about our last program, and i think weve gotten some answers. I think mr. Fried wants to hear your feedback about what enernex is saying about recommendations, which is what should the program be . Should it include a shell . Or is now our program Something Different . So i dont know how we would and i dont think were going to get a joint meeting in january. I mean just knowing that were already half through december and knowing how the sf puc calendaring goes. Its just very difficult. Its always difficult to schedule those. Maybe if we have a budget we could bring enernex for you to have a discussion how you see the Program Given what enernex is telling us that when we have the joint meeting were able to have some specific questions, and that maybe a board issue. The board may have direction there. I think that i appreciate that, and i do i would like to see on the staff level some sort of mr. Fried to keep me at least i am sure other commissioners posted on the resolution with the puc about the issues of the report, and whether or not there can or cant be a resolution; right . Because there maybe items that are in the report that at this point cant be changed or there wont be an agreement in some instances, so i want to know when we get to a point of resolving whatever the issues are or not resolving them so we can move to the next faidz of having a presentation. I am open to doing it jointly or doing it separately, so thats where i am at. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner lindo. First i want to thank counsel for suggesting the plan and perhaps having a separate meeting. I think its a good idea for us to have an action, a vote, to have a presentation that we can then give to the puc and say this is how we see this plan working, and this is what we offer to you, and after having a discussion with enernex and a discussion internally to say what is it that we want . Because if we start discussing it the way i see it with puc it starts changing before our eyes and i would like us to have something solid because there is room to move a little bit but at the end of the day this is what were presenting and the way we would like to see it. I think there are staff issues to deal with before the discussion with enernex but a question i have for ms. Hale i am assuming when this gets presented to the puc commission that staff will be providing a recommendation of some form, and i have heard that youre anxious and exciting to continue this discussion, but with all issues dealt with that you believe the staff may have are you telling us youre recommending that puc accept the cleanpowersf . Im unclear by what you mean accept the cleanpowersf. Adopt it. Well, we have made presentations in the past to recommend the adoption and implementation of the program. The enernex report isnt making a recommendation for a new program and so what i am hoping to get out of the meeting is some guidance on what Program Elements the commission would like to see, and then we can do the good staff work to present to them what their idea would look like in terms of an Overall Program offering and the rates we would use to support that program would be. It would be that sort of a process i think that i would be looking forward to. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner campos. Thank you mr. Chair. Just quickly i think the main objectives should be to move this quickly, as quickly as possible, just to provide some context for why joint meetings have happened before to be honest is really to keep pressure on the Public Utilities commission. Our experience with this project has been that unless were in the same room hearing directly from them about what their concerns are the experience in the past has been that new set of concerns would