Rest of the presentation to susanne, and were happy to take questions when she is done. Chairwoman if you dont mind, lets see if we have any questions about this portion. Sure. Chairwoman commissioner singh . Yeah, i have a quick one. I was wondering is it possible for disclosing businesses are there businesses who are willing to disclose theyre participating in the super green program, to maybe promote in their physical locations, if they have any . That theyre a participant . Yes. In fact, all of them do that. Oh, they do . Yes. I think that has been a motivator for them, too. I think they see in many cases our values are very aligned, in terms of our mission, and they want to promote to their costumers that theyre participating. Great. So we have decals and other things we do. Weve been doing sort of events with some of those costumers as well. Great. That was my only question. Chairwoman thanks. Commissioner mar . Thanks for the great presentation and all of the great work over the past year. It is really exciting to see where things are at with clean power s. F. I just had a question about the move towards renewable california Certified Renewable Energy in the portfolio. It looks like you said there was a slight increase from 48 to 50 in 2019, of Renewable Energy in the portfolio. I just wanted to know, very briefly, what sort of the plan is to get to 100 , and what the timeframe is. Yeah. So. One thing i want to also point out is there are different definitions of renewable out there. There is the state Renewable Portfolio Standard Program which defines deniewbles that renewabt are eligible for compliance in that program. And there are other ts technologies, like large hydro, that deliver clean energy, that while not eligible for that state program are still renewable resources. And when you look at clean powers total portfolio, when you account for some of the hydro electric that were also acquiring, it is much closer to, like, 90 . So i werent to point that wantt out. There are two things coming up in this next year one is the capital plan that i mentioned before. The other is our 2020 integrated Resource Plan, which is due in the spring of next year. So we are starting both of those. Those are happening on sort of a parallel paneling. And that integrated Resource Plan is a its an 11year plan, and its out to 2030, which happens to coincide with the city and countys target of eliminating Greenhouse Gases from our electric supply. We use that plan to support our longterm planning effort to get the city to Renewable Power. We prepared one in 2018, our first plan. Were building from that. And really diving much deeper into local resources. But to answer your question, that planning vehicle is really where the pathway for achieving that goal will be developed. And i think were going to be looking at a number of scenarios, but our sort of base case is that we will ramp our sort of certified Renewable Power supply up to about 70 by 2030, with Something Like about 30 of hydro in our mix to achieve that overall goal of eliminating Greenhouse Gases. But in this next planning cycle, we will look very closely at various scenarios, how decarbonizing other sectors may impact that, and whether we may need to source from other supplies, other than hydro, for example. So i hope i answered your question. There will be more information coming on the how were getting there over the next six months. Yeah. Chairwoman i just have a question, also, about your partnership with businesses. Are you also partnering with the department of environment about their Green Business yes, absolutely. Very closely. Chairwoman is there such a thing as a super Green Business award . There heartbeat hasnt been,. Chairwoman you might want to think about it. Interesting idea. Chairwoman the ones that are already green, they may want to up it to super green awards. Certainly for a company that helps us get other companies involved. Chairwoman yes. And they actually really like that they have that award because it makes them look green be environmentallyfriendly. I think if they were a super green and then your outreach, are you doing an evaluation on how successful every outreach event is . Yes. So we keep records of how every event went in terms of contacts with individuals. We track upgrades that happen either at the event or around the event. Sometimes consumers actually sign up through our staff that are located at the event, at a table. Other times there is just a conversation, and they go home and do it online. So we keep pretty close track of that. If youd like to hear more stats about how it is performed over the past year, wed be happy to come back. Chairwoman i just want to make sure that we are getting good response from our costumers who are not english speakers, or mono lingual chinese or mono lingual spanish, that were doing adequate outreach and that were getting good results from them. Sure. Another initiative of the s. F. P. U. C. , is weve established an equity project, really focused at ensuring that the program and any services we provide sort of related to clean power s. F. Prioritizes equity in its outreach and its design. That is something that is ongoing now, and were going to be gathering some information from the community to really try to inform that work that i mentioned ementioned earlier on programs. It relates to who is aware of the super green opportunity and who is taking advantage of it, too. Chairwoman great. And also our use of nonenglish newspapers, that type of thing, i think is really great. Okay. Thank you very much. So, mr. Merckelson, maybe on legislation that is pending at our state level. Thank you, mr. Heims. Name is susanne merckelson, and im happy to be with you today. Were currently at legislative summer break. That means that all bills must have passed, at the policy committees, in their second house. Weve seen some movement on a few of the bills that weve been watching. Some will not be advancing this year. The first one i want to talk about is ad56. We updated you on this before. The s. F. P. U. C. Is opposed to this bill, along with cal c. C. A. It would designate an existing state agencies as a central buyer, procuring energy, including c. C. A. S, like clean power s. F. Last week the bill failed enough to get votes, which makes it a twoyear bill, meaning it will then carry over to next years legislative session, but will not pass this year. The author has indicated he is interested on working on different proposals. We plan on engaging on this issue, via cal c. C. A. , as well as on our own. The next bill is sp155. This concerns p. U. C. s review of renewable portfolio standards and integrated Resource Plan requirements for lowserving entities such as c. C. A. S cal c. C. As has been opposed to this bill, and we have shared their concerns. It would reduce c. C. A. S flecks abilitc. C. A. Sflexibility. Cal c. C. A. Has worked to negotiate compromised amendments, and the author has agreed to put those into the bill. They address those concerns we had with p. U. C. Procurement. We are expecting to see the amendment in print very soon and well continue engaging on that bill as well. And then lastly, i wanted to talk about a ab1054. It was the urgent see bill concerning wildfires and utility financial stability. It passed last weekend and was already signed by the governor. This one one of the governors Top Priorities this year. It was motivated both by wanting to make victims of recent fires whole, as well as, you know, looking at a potential Credit Rating downgrade. So the bill establishes two separate wildfire funds that the utilities can choose to participate in. A Liquidity Fund and an insurance fund. It also requires additional gridhardening measures. And it also includes a safety certification process for those utilities. As youre probably aware, there were some additional amendments added friday evening, on july 5th. These are problematic. If San Francisco does decide to go ahead with the acquisition of pg e assets in the city. These late, lastminute amendments would expand p. C. U. s authority over those that acquire the forprofit assets. Given that it was urgency legislation, the timelines did not allow us to make amendments to the bill during the bill process. Our entire delegation, senator weiner and schue voted against the bill. And the mayors of San Francisco and oakland called out concerns with some of the lastminute amendments, and then a resolution from the board of supervisors which supported the bill, only if amendmented amended to removt lastminute legislation. Right now mayor breeds office is in contact with governor newsoms office about addressing these concerns. Meanwhile, were continuing to move forward with our study on public power options and remain committed to finding a solution that provides safe, reliability electricity for the city. Chairwoman any comments or questions . Are there any sort of limitations due to the fact that this was an urgency bill, are there any sort of limitations within its provisions that might sort of help us get around it is hampering the ability for us to potentially look at municipalization down the road . It is an urgency bill, but it is still a bill, and it actually takes affect immediately as an urgency bill. What we would be looking to do and what the Mayors Office is speaking with the Governors Office about is about other ways of amending that bill. You can amend laws that are already in existence. So thats essentially what we would be looking to do. So looking towards the next legislative session, potentially . Yes, or potentially this year. Chairwoman i have one question. If senate bill 155 is amended, we would support that . I dont think we would support it. We have to look at the exact language and really analyze it and make sure it addresses all of our concerns. But at the very least, we would were currently not opposing the bill as s. F. P. U. C. We have been engaging with the bill as cal c. C. A. , and so we would talk with cal c. C. A. About removing their position and going towards a neutral position. Chairwoman any other questions or comments . Seeing none, no action is required by this committee, were l we will take Public Comment. Any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three . Good afternoon, again, eric brooks, San FranciscoClean Energy Advocates and californians for energy choice, and im with the California Green party and the local green party. So ill focus more son on future agenda items, ab1054 is far worse than just blocking public power, is does some profound things that are even worse than that. I want to focus, again, on local buildout. It is reassuring to hear from mike heims that they are going to have a plan next year for some kind of Renewable Energy buildout, but i dont think thats going to change what i said, that it is not the s. F. P. U. C. s role to do the kind of buildout were talking about. The numbers we just saw are really troubling. So 70 is not 100 by 2030. And, also, it doesnt make any sense to count large hydro because thats already there. Its not newly built Renewable Energy. That doesnt solve any of the problem of the climate crisis. We need to build new Renewable Energy resources and efficiency and storage, and we need to do it locally because of line loss over Long Distance transmission lines, and because of the fire danger of longrange transmission lines. We need to build Renewable Energy in our own community and in this region so that 100 of our energy comes from renewables by 2030 from our region. The more were locally independent that way, the easier it is to turn off the longrange transmission lines when there is fire danger. The more autonomous we, and the big, huge rate increases that ab1054 will hoist on ratepayer, will be something that we [buzzer] thank you. Next speaker, please. Jed holtzman, 350 bay area. Certainly back in 2013, it did not look like this was going to happen. Im surprised that i havent heard about, like, the party yet, like the city has finally enrolled party. Im sure theyre too busy fighting off bad legislation, but i look forward to my invitation. The advertisements that we see around town for our city, our power, i think it is a lot more affective than what we had going on before. My hope is hearing what theyre planning on focusing on over the next year with customer programs and kind of increasing super green buyin, that were on the right track in terms of getting messaging out that people actually Pay Attention to. In terms of customer programs, i want to highlight the need for us to Pay Attention to heatpump water heating and space heating, and how people are going to pay in existing buildings for kind of decarbonizing their homes. Berkeley just passed an ord naordinance to ban natural gas pipes in new construction. Well be pushing that throughout the bay area. That is all good for new construction, but for existing buildings, how is the decarbonization of space and water heating going to be financed. [buzzer] we might look at how we may transition, folks, to building decarbonization, at least in more low income communities that will be less able to do that. To the point of 70 Renewable Energy to commissioner mars question, we should really aim to get to 100 california Renewable Energy. If we still have hedgy power, if were lucky enough not to have doubts [buzzer] chairwoman thank you very much. Any other Public Comments . Seen none, Public Comment is now closed. The committees is not required to make an action on this item. Mr. Clerk, will you please call item number five. Item five is an authorization to accept a grant in the amount of 100,000 from the bay area work founders collaborative for ondemand workers. Chairwoman so this is a superexciting item. Im looking forward to hearing more about this area of work since were getting some National Recognition on it. So do you have an update on this item . Thank you, madam chair and commissioners. Brian global, executive officer. Im very excited about this today. The resolution before you would authorize lavco to accept a 100,000 grant. It will help with our survey of ondemand workers. This will be the first time in history of San Francisco lavco that the agency accepts outside funding. We will be able to develop partnerships with outside funders to support the work we do at lavco. It is made up of funders, workers, advocates, and employers, who are working together to build an equitable regional economy. The San Francisco foundation, as im sure you know, is one of the Largest Community foundations in the country, and committed to expanding opportunity. And when i first met and presented to them, they were really excited about the study. The grant is going to support the survey teams work in phase 2, which is the actual datagathering and survey of thousands of ondemand workers in San Francisco. Not only will it be one of the largest surveys, were hoping it will provide the first truly representative survey of Platform Work anywhere in the country. Were going to get some unique insights into the economic circumstances of people working on these platforms. Ill be getting into a little more detail in my executive officers report. I just want to thank rob hope and kaila at the San Francisco foundation, as well as the work force funders collaborative for their investment in our efforts to help improve the lives of ondemand workers. For early advice, when i was just starting the fundraising, i want to thank carmen rohas, and rudy gonzalez, and a big thank you to our survey team who have just been wonderful. Thank you, commissions. Chairwoman any comments or questions from mr. Global . Seeing none, lets open this up for Public Comment. Any members of the public that would like to comment. I see a thumbs up from mr. Brooks. Public comment is now closed. Id like to make a motion to move this with a positive recommendation. Second. Chairwoman seconded. Take that without objection. Thank you very much. Good work. And mr. Clerk, will you please call item number six. Item number six is the executive officers report. Chairwoman mar global, havmr. Global, you havea presentation for us . Yes. Thank you. I have a couple of items. I would like to give you an update on the budget and fundraising progress for our study of ondemand workers. The team is putting together a revised budget, and it is very possible that the budget is going to increase actually, were hoping it will increase and be somewhere in the neighborhood of 450,000. We have been planning and seeking funds for a budget of 300,000. Why the higher cost . It has to do with the options that theyre considering for the survey. The first option would be an online survey. And there are some pluses and minuses to it. It would cost less, but the downside is they really couldnt guarantee a representative survey. Even though it could potentially cover a larger amount of workers. The second option would be to hire survey administrators, and these would be students who would be paid 15 an hour to do inperson interviews by using the services of, say, the top 12 platforms. So, for example, they would order food on door dash, and when the food arrives, they would invite the worker to complete the survey. And the worker would get paid for their time. So the cost of this option would increase because were paying students, were paying workers