Goldhammer golddahmer, im sorry, i dont know what is with me today, from sfgovtv. Madam clerk, any announcements. Clerk silence all cellphones and documents should be submitted to the clerk. Chair fewer i wanted to everyone to know that we will need to recess this at 11 20 to 12 00 noon. So lets start. Madam clerk. Can you call item number 1. Clerk item one was to the call to order and recall call. Would you like me to call item two. Chair fewer yes. Clerk the approval of the lafco minutes from the november 15, 2019 regular meets. Chair fewer any questions or colleagues . Seeing none, any Public Comment . Seeing none, lets approve the minutes of the meeting. And we can take that without objection. Do ied i need a second. Thank you very much. And madam clerk, call item 3. Clerk the presentation and discussion on the cleanpowersf local Renewable Energy report. Chair fewer and we have barbara hale with us today. The general manager at the San Francisco p. O. C. And were here to present a draft of our clean powersf local Renewable Energy report. Ill go through a number of slides here and well review, lets see if i can get this powerpoint to work with me. And if we could get it on the screen, that would be great. Thank you. Im not quite sure why its not advancing. Okay, now we got it. So here we go. Well review the items here, background to put the report in context and the method that weve taken to identify the candidate sites for local and other Renewable Generation project opportunities. Our findings and our next steps. The report is part of a larger planning process at the San Francisco p. O. C. , and the cleanpowersf and a integrated plan. To preview what well conclude with, we will be with capit funding approval, highvalue candidate projects that have been identified through this process and it will be, valiateed with evaluated with further planning and preliminary design work and candidate projects that continue to show value and constructability will be evaluated for funding and construction through the citys Capital Planning process. So lets talk first then a little bit about the integrated Resource Planning process and how this reporting effort that weve gone through fits. Under state law, the San Francisco p. U. C. Has to have an integrated Resource Plan every two years. In this plan we model a range of supply and demand sensitivities. The objective is to develop the least cost, best fit portfolio of the Electricity Supply that meets Program Goals over a 20year period, including local development. The integrated Resource Plan analysis allows for better understanding of the costs and the Energy Delivery impacts excuse me of candidate resource projects. Including local renewable projects into the cleanpowersf clean Energy Supply portfolio. Sorry, im struggling a bit today. Local planning excuse me is part of this regular cycle. Our Renewable Development has long been a part of the San Franciscos clean energy initiatives. I certainly dont need to tell this commission that. The board urged the San Francisco p. U. C. To develop this plan. The local Renewable Energy report findings inform our staterequired integrated Resource Plan and ultimately the city capital plan. Thats the process by which cleanpowersf will develop and fund local projects. The city Capital Planning process is the same process that the city has used for about the past 20 years to develop and fund the Program Portfolio of local Renewable Generation projects. And just to take a minute on those, through our retail electricity program, the sa San Francisco has projects on cityowned property, including this building that were in right now. You can see the data here, 8. 25 megawatts of solar generation and about 27 million invested. Thats funded by the net operating revenue from the sale of electricity under the program. And we have more projects in the pipeline, 1. 5 megawatts more, including storage and those are in development and construction. So thats the background and context. Now lets talk about the approach that weve taken in this report to identify candidate projects that could be developed and funded through the cleanpowersf program. Three project categories were analyzed for Cost Effective development in city, cityowned sites, regional cityowned sites and other opportunities in and near the city. Sites were evaluated for suitability to develop within the five to 10year timeframe. Candidates were candidate sites, excuse me, were identified as capable of exports power to the grid to serve cleanpowersf and had no identifiable barriers to development. Candidate sites were rated. A high suitability rating means that the site is worth further time, further planning and analysis to determine whether a renewable project should be implemented at the sites and funds requested. A medium suitability rating was assigned to site where is a barrier will need to be addressed before we spend more time on the Renewable Development at the site. So that could be Something Like a structural upgrade that we know that needs to happen before we put the weight of a solar system on it. For electric Resource Planning and procurement purposes, the city defines local as the nine county bay area. This approach provides a preference to projects that are located in the region through our bidding process, access to increased resource diversity, and so that we can access the wind and geothermal resources outside of san fran. Those are represented in the orange and blue bubbles on this map much the county. And larger project opportunities, because we have, you know, less space constraints. Lower costs than for construction than in the San Franciscoonly view and an opportunity to balance the higher costs San Francisco projects with lowercost projects, providing Economic Development in the bay area. That balancing helps us to maintain our affordability for the cleanpowersf customers. Lets take a look at the cost data for these different locations, resource types and size. Along the horizontal or the xaxis you can see three locations, sort of buckets, with different project utilities. And utility scale with large projects in california is shown there on the left. And the first four projects. And then the nine county bay area. And then in city on the right. The blue bars show the average cost per megawatt of electricity generated by the different projects. The red line that goes through the middle there represents the average supply cost of the cleanpowersf portfolio today. Around 55 to 65 a megawatt hour. You can see how different locations and costs compare to that average. We have to get the mix of locations and technologies right to protect affordability. Theres a tradeoff between the cost of local energy and the amount of it that can be procured and still maintain average supply costs to maintain affordability. If we procure local projects at an average of about 80 a megawatt hour, which is shown on the xaxis there at the extreme left, local content can be up to 30 of our supply portfolio without increasing average supply costs. Thats represented by that green band at the bottom. So at the 80 point, you can see about 30 of local content. Higher local costs as we move along the horizontal or the xaxis, will decrease the total percentage that we can procure or increase our supply costs. So we need to balance our local Renewable Development goals and our affordability goals. That is the dynamic that were looking that were working with as we plan local Renewable Development. Now lets look at the specific projects that the team evaluated. Staff evaluated 132 incity sites across multiple agencies and they are identified on the right on this map. The dots represent the sites. And the bigger the dot, the larger the generating capacity at that location with the dot color representing the suitability rating. So you can see a large green dot would be an attractive opportunity for us to evaluate further. So how do we screen these sites . First, we have prioritized sites that could support projects with more than 250kilowatts potential capacity. The remaining sites were then evaluated to identify the potential risks to determine to determine suitability for development by cleanpowersf. Age contactedded to determine at the host what their preferences are at the site and to learn more site detail. The analysis was conducted to determine potential onsite generation and associated costs, suitability ratings were assigned. So now lets drill down a little deep or that part of the approach. Sites were evaluated looking at these criteria for nearterm Development Structural improvements that might be required and if there were risks to the ass threat might be identified and the technical export limitations, and whether theres onsite usage that is more than the possible generation. And contractual risks and competing usage. The host Agency Preferences and goals as i mentioned were identified and discussed and then we conducted our cost analysis. For cityowned sites, the 132 sites reviewed we identified 14 to medium to high suitability, 9. 3 megawatts for high suitability, and 6. 6 for medium and project costs ranging from 79 a megawatt hour to 151. For regional sites, six sites were reviewed and three were identified as medium to high suitability, representing about 44 megawatts of total potential. And costs ranging from 32 a megawatt hour to 104. We also looked at storage, about 20 megawatts of storage opportunity was identified at sites that are owned by the city in city or regionally. And here we have the incity sites identified as both medium and high suitability. So youre seeing some specifics here with the average cost between 88 to 130 a megawatt hour. At the top are the four highly suitable sites and those are all owned by the sfpuc and we identified no barriers to development at this point in the planning stages. The medium suitability sites are have issues that need to be addressed before we would propose moving forward with the project. For example, structural upgrades that are planned for the reservoir. And then we have here the regional and the cityowned sites. These are lower costs regional projects and they can really help us to do this balancing handling that diname that i can i talk dynamic that i talked about, with some of the lower lowercost students. It supports us achieving a higher portfolio Renewable Energy content from cityowned sites. Some of these candidate sites are pretty strong and we recommend further planning and development of these opportunities. Others include offshore wind and its an emerging technology and were not recommending well, we are recommending that we further evaluate and potentially identify partners to go together on potential offshore wind. Were also looking at development of a Disadvantaged CommunitySolar Program. The state capandtrade funds are available for this. And it would support a green tariff and Community Solar programs that would serve disadvantaged communities here in San Francisco. We have identified an opportunity to develop about two megawatts of solar through that opportunity. And then we are also developing a feedin Tariff Program where this is a Procurement Program that encourages private citizens, private sector Property Owners, to develop renewables and make that generation available to us. We would purchase it, we wouldnt own the solar system, we would just purchase whatever theyre willing to sell to us at a set tariff rate. We think that could support 2 to 10 megawatts of Solar Development in San Francisco by 2030. So what are our next steps now that we have pulled this information together . We intend to continue planning and development of the high suitability candidate sites. Were proposing a cleanpowersf capital plan, the First Capital plan for cleanpowersf that would support that planning and anticipate the project construction. As you know, the members of the board of supervisors who sit as commissioners know, that the Capital Planning process is a rolling 10year plan. So we would be identifying in the early years and funding the further planning and Development Work that ive talked about for highly suitable sites. In the later years we would show the actual costs of owning that site. Having that developed facility. And we will, meanwhile, keep an eye on the medium suitability sites to position ourselves to partner with the host agencies as those sites are improved. And we will not be doing any further work on low suitability sites at this point, as is our practice on the hechi sites and though we wont do further work on those suitability sites, we will keep our eye on those sites because their suitability may change. We will propose to move forward on the feedin Tariff Program and the Disadvantaged CommunitySolar Program and work with other agencies as i mentioned on offshore wind as that you know, as that developing technology here in california emerges. Of course we do everything with engagement with our community. Heres the outline of our engagement plan where we will together with the integrated Resource Plan be working with Community Members to explain ourselves, to hear what they have to say about our proposals. Meanwhile, the Capital Planning process will move forward through the california sorry, the San Francisco p. U. C. s budget process and the Capital Planning committee process. We anticipate that the capital plan approvals to fund the recommended next steps will happen by the end of this fiscal year. Be completed by the end of this fiscal year. With that im happy to take any questions that you may have. Chair fewer thank you very much. So any questions or comments from my colleagues. Commissioner singh . Yeah, i had a question about the graph at the beginning of your presentation, the cost for offshore wind, i think that it was the most variable, at least there was a large projected because its an Emergent Technology that is not fully proven yet or has not scaled. You nailed it, thats exactly why. Thank you. Chair fewer supervisor mar i mean, commissioner mar. Thank you. I just thanks for the presentation. You bet. It all looks very good. I just had a few questions on theres that slide where you listed out the medium to high priority sites. Umhmm. I just want to understand how you decide on whats high and whats medium as im looking at that slide. Some of the ones that are in the medium category seem to have a lower cost, for example, the University South basin, or even in my district the Sunset Reservoir south basin . I think that most of those we saw challenges with the structural readiness for the reservoirs to be developed. And for some of those we have in we can see that the water Enterprise Capital plan includes the structural improvements in later years and so we know that that current barrier is going to be overcome. And so we factor that in well, its medium now and were keeping our eye on it and it could move up to high and get funded in our 10year capital plan as those improvements actually happen. Great, yes, thanks. And i had a question around and i think that a program that pg e had in place where they provided incentives for homeowners or Property Owners to install solar. And then theres an arrangement where extra plus energy that is generated by the private homeowner can be transferred back to the pg e grid. So i was just wondering if that was something that we were considering as well using cleanpowersf . Actually, commissioner, were already doing that and we had a program go solar sf and that the cleanpowersf customers can participate in. We have a net metering rate that allows them to be paid for the energy they spill back on to the grid. So, yes, were doing that already. Umhmm. And just one last question on that have we considered incentives to to kind of expand solar solar installations in homes as a way to sort of generate Renewable Energy to the buyback . Yes, so we do have under the gosolarsf program, we do provide incentives for lowincome, nonprofits, that are higher than the incentives that we pay to other Property Owners for placing solar on their roofs. It also includes a local hire component that participants in the program are required to use contractors who meet our on hire local participants. An