Reminder: Per our bylaws, Leadership Group meetings are confidential

Working Council

June 7, 2018

NetApp, 1345 Crossman Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, Building 3, 1st floor

DRAFT AGENDA

7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation

8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder

Welcome New Member Company Representatives

8:10 a.m. Guest Speaker

Board President Dave Pine, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

8:45 a.m. President's Report

● New Staff Member: Jessica Cade

● Health Cybersecurity Conference – Friday, July 20

● Education Summit – Friday, August 17

● Celebrating Immigration – Thursday, August 23

8:50 a.m. Presentation – Employment Training Panel

Center for Economic Mobility, San José Evergreen Community College District

9:10 a.m. Discussion / Legislative Action Items

● SB 1072 (Leyva) | Regional Climate Collaborative Program – Environment Committee

Recommends “Support”

● AB 2195 (Chau) | Natural Gas: out-of-state sources: Greenhouse Gases – Environment

Committee Recommends “Support”

9:25 a.m. 2018 Home Run Goal Update - oral report if time permits.

Education Energy

Environment Government Relations

Health Housing & Community Development

Tax Policy Tech & Innovation Policy

Transportation Foundation

9:45 a.m. Adjournment

Next Meeting: July, 12 – UCSC Silicon Valley Campus, 3175 Bowers Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95054

2018 Working Council Meeting Schedule

January 11

February 1

March 1

April 5

May 3

June 7

July 12

August 2

September 6

October (Strategy Conference)

November 8

December 6

Working Council Thursday, May 3, 2018 7:30 am – 10:30am Applied Materials – 3050 Bowers Avenue, Bldg. 1 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Members Present: Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group Christina Zigliotto, Apttus Angela Kung, AT&T Sara Broadbent, Avaya Michael Turpin, Bay Area News Group Joshua Russel, Bank of America Matthew Brown, BD Biosciences Patrick Quinn, Blach Construction Kathy Duong, Canyon Snow on behalf of Lam Research Amanda Myers, ChargePoint, Inc. Alan Jepsen, City National Bank Leah Toeniskoetter, Deloitte Mona Tierney-Lloyd, EnerNOC, Inc. Jamie Lawrence, IBM Ron Jew, IDT Steve Joesten, Infinera Molly Barber, Inphi Oscar Gonzales, Insikt Brent Davidson, Intuitive Surgical Terrell Sweat, Johnson & Johnson Jennifer Paedon, Lockheed Martin Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford Jessy Borges, PG&E Anthony Lin, PG&E Ron Gonzales, Presencia LLC John Tang, San Jose Water Company Jennifer Malutta, San Jose State University Michael Wallace, Santa Clara University Lauren Fernandez, SAP Craig Robinson, Silicon Valley Bank Jonathan Cowan, Stanford Health Care Blair Swezey, SunPower Corporation Debra LaTourette, SYNNEX Corporation Erin Brennock, Synopsys Janikke Klem, TechCU John Hogan, TeenForce Megan Mix, Wells Fargo Bank Marisa Phan, Wells Fargo Bank

Via Call-in option Lennies Gutierrez, Comcast Jennifer Adams, Plantronics David Chase, Western Digital Staff Present: Alysa Cisneros Dan Kostenbauder Kendra Schultz Angelica Cortez Michael Lomio Heidi Sickler Margaret Daoud-Gray Tim McRae Connie Vieaux Paul Escobar Matthew Quevedo Megan White Alexandria Felton Nancy Sanchez Nathan Ho Nardin Sarkis AGENDA Carl Guardino called the meeting to order at 8:00am and reminded the group participants of meeting discussion confidentiality so that people could speak candidly. Self-introductions followed. District 7 and District 9 Candidate Forum 11 Candidates (5 from District 7 and 6 from District 9) participated in the Candidate Forum. District 7: Chris Le – City of Oakland Tax Auditor Jonathan Fleming – Engineer/Businessman/Parent Maya Esparza – Veteran Advocate/Teacher Thomas Duong – Senior Loan Officer Van Le – Board Trustee District 9: Kalen Gallagher – School Board President/Entrepreneur Pam Foley – School Board President/Business Owner/Mother Rosie Zepeda – Communication Instructor/Businesswoman Sabuhi Saddique – Community volunteer Scott Nelson – Educator/Parent Shay Franco-Clausen – Director/Count Commissioner/Mother

Each Candidate gave an opening remark and answered a few “lightning questions.” Each candidate also

spoke to the topics of: Statewide Housing Bond, RM3, Evergreen Senior Homes Initiative and the Google

development. Each candidate ended with a closing statement.

President’s Report

New Staff member: Dan Kostenbauder, VP of Tax Policy Welcome to Dan! Energy & Sustainability Summit – May 24 Hosted by Oracle, Redwood City – “Powering forward in an age of disruption” For more information / sponsorship opportunities contact Mike Mielke (mmielke@svlg.org), Tim McRae (tmcrae@svlg.org), Heidi Sickler (hsickler@svlg.org) or Kendra Schultz (kschultz@svlg.org).

Celebrating Immigration – June 21

DACA, Dreamers, Doers and Defenders Event at Villa Ragusa, June 21 Please contact Shannon De Atley-Johnson at sjohnson@svlg.org for questions / sponsorship opportunities. Campaign Update Fundraising Goal: $2.75 million SVLG Contribution: $750,000 Endorsements Goal: 150 144 Elected Officials and 27 Organizations Speaking Events: 50 Speeches to 4,000 23 speeches to 1,350 people College Campuses: 25,000 Fliers with 25 Classroom Presentations 1,500 Fliers, 4 Presentations Member Company Engagement: 20 Town Halls to 2,000 Employees 1 Town Hall Completed with 6 Booked. Voter Circle: 75 Elected Official Endorsers Sending out 25,000 Voter Contacts Beta test of 2 Endorsers Completed - 50 Endorsers Connected with system. Caltrain Stations: 20 Stations with 10,000 Fliers Fliering Started this week! Community Fairs, Festivals and Farmers Markets: 20 Events with Flyers to 6,000 People 8 Events Completed with outreach to more than 1,440 People Media Outreach: Endorsements from Key News Outlets SF Chronicle, Mercury News and East Bay Times Final 48: 192 Volunteer Shifts at Caltrain Stations Regional Measure 3 Voter Circle Matthew Quevedo presented on VoterCircle. Please let Matthew know if you would like to sign up for a 90 minute volunteer shift or to send out the VoterCircle message to your group of contacts. Please contact Matthew at mquevedo@svlg.org Consent Item Approval of April Working Council Minutes A motion was made and was seconded. Motion to approve minutes was approved by voice vote, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions. Discussion & Legislative Action Items SB 1000 (Lara): Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Labeling Standards – Energy Committee Recommends “Oppose Unless Amended” Issue: SB 1000 would require the Energy Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Air Resources Board to develop:

- Minimum charging speed recommendations for public direct current fast charging and electric vehicle batteries

- A timeline for requiring all public and ratepayer funded residential charging to include sub-metering capabilities, if in the best interest of ratepayers

Recommended Amendments: - Allow the market to continue to dictate the minimum charging speed of EV infrastructure and

battery charging capacity. - Allow ratepayers living in multi-family dwellings to voluntarily install sub-metering (billing) for

residential charging stations. - Consider incentives to encourage the use of charging stations when there is excess grid capacity. - Consider optional incentives that encourage heavy duty electric transportation to use excess

grid capacity. April 17: Unanimously passed by Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications April 24: Passed by Senate Transportation & Housing April 26: Referred to Senate Appropriations Consent Calendar Oppose: None on file. Support: None on file. Fiscal effect: TBD by Appropriations A motion was made by Energy Committee Recommending “Oppose Unless Amended” The motion passed by voice vote 0 opposed 1 abstention AB 2127 (Ting): Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: Assessment & Roadmap – Energy Committee Recommends “Support” Issue: AB 2127 would require the Energy Commission to prepare a biennial statewide roadmap of charging infrastructure needed to place 5 million electric vehicles on California roads by 2030. April 11: Unanimously passed by Asm Communications and Conveyance April 23: Unanimously passed by Asm Transportation Committee April 25: Referred to Asm Appropriations Consent Calendar Support: Advanced Energy Economy (sponsor) Electric Vehicle Charging Association CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates California Trucking Association Environment California Sierra Club California State Association of Electrical Workers California State Pipe Trades Council International Union of Elevator Contractors Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers Oppose: None on file. Fiscal effect: TBD by Appropriations. A motion was made by Energy Committee Recommending “Support” The motion passed by voice vote, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions

AB 1796 (Muratsuchi): Rent Control EV Charging – Energy Committee Recommends “Support” Issue: AB 1796 would allow a tenant in a rent controlled unit to install an EV charging station in a leased parking space if the tenant:

- Pays for all costs associated with the station’s installation and operation - Reaches an agreement with the landlord on the cost of electricity associated with the station if a

separate meter (for billing) can’t be installed. May 9: To be heard by Asm Committee on Housing and Community Development Support: ChargePoint, Tesla, Plug In America, Electric Vehicle Charging Association, Coalition for Clean Air, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, City of Berkeley, City of Santa Monica, City of Emeryville, The Utility Reform Network Oppose: None on file Fiscal effect: TBD by Appropriations A motion was made by Energy Committee Recommending “Support” The motion passed by voice vote, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions SB 1016 (Allen): Access to EV Charging Stations – Energy Committee Recommends “Support” Issue: SB 1016 would:

- Prohibit Homeowners Associations from using their bylaws to restrict the installation of Time of Use meters for EV charging stations.

- Require the electric vehicle homeowner to pay for all costs associated with the charging station’s installation and electricity usage.

April 23: Passed by the Senate under Consent. April 30: Referred to Asm Housing & Community Development and Judiciary Committees Support: ChargePoint, Tesla, Electric Vehicle Charging Association, Environment California, CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates, City of Santa Monica, City of West Hollywood Oppose: None on file. Fiscal effect: None A motion was made by Energy Committee Recommending “Support” The motion passed by voice vote, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions SB 1339 (Stern) Microgrids – Energy Committee Recommends “Support” Issue: SB 1339 would require each IOU to develop and submit an electrical grid resiliency deployment plan to the CPUC and establish a tariff for third party grid resiliency requirements. It would not allow the Commission to permit microgrids that use diesel backup or gas-combustion generation. An alternate motion was proposed by Jessy Borges of PG&E to to bring this bill back to Energy Committee for review. The motion was seconded by Ron Gonzales of Presencia LLC. The alternative motion passed by voice vote, 0 opposed 1 abstention. The Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 – Environment Committee Recommends “Support” Issue: The Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 (Water Bond) would invest $8.887 billion in California water infrastructure. This citizen’s initiative water bond is slated for the November ballot. Investment Priorities

- Safe Drinking Water - Sustainable Groundwater Management Act implementation

- Watershed Restoration - Water Management Programs - Infrastructure Repair - Wastewater recycling and desalination - Stormwater Capture

SF Bay Area Investments: - $200 million to the SF Bay Restoration Authority for wetlands restoration - $250 million to improve interconnections between Bay Area water agencies - $500 million to regional agencies for watershed improvement and management

The Bay Area is also eligible to apply for over $5 billion in additional funds allocated through competitive grants. Fiscal Impact

- CA’s debt-service ratio (DSR) has fluctuated between 3-6 percent since 1995 - Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that this will not increase DSR above 5 percent

Analysis: - Governor’s Water Action Plan estimates $98-115 billion in water infrastructure need, and $1.2

billion in annual need for water management

○ SF Bay Area estimated need is $21.42 billion - Past/future water bonds not sufficient to meet need

○ Prop 68 (June 2018 parks and water bond) is only $1.3 billion for water

○ Prop 1 (2014 water bond) funds have been mostly allocated Support (partial list): Agricultural Council of California; Association of California Water Agencies; Bay Area Council; Bay Planning Coalition; California Building Industry Association; California Chamber of Commerce; Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability; Northern California Water Association; Save the Bay; Western Growers Oppose: Sierra Club A motion was made by Environment Committee Recommending “Support” The motion passed by Voice vote, 0 opposed, 1 abstention Adjourn 10:16am Next Working Council Meeting: June 7, NetApp

Dave Pine was first elected to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to represent District 1 in a special election in May 2011. He is currently Board President and also served in that position in 2014.

As chair of the SF Bay Restoration Authority, chair of the San Mateo Countywide Water Coordination Committee, and a member of the SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the San Franciscquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, Pine works extensively on the intersecting issues of flood control, sea level rise and tidal land restoration. He played an instrumental role in the passage of Measure AA, the nine county Bay Area parcel tax to fund shoreline projects that will protect and restore the Bay. In addition, he is active in transportation issues and serves on the Caltrain Joint Powers Board and the San Mateo County Transit District Board.

Supervisor Pine previously was a school board member for the Burlingame School District from 2003 to 2007 and the San Mateo Union High School District from 2007 to 2011. He is also a past president of the San Mateo County School Boards Association.

Before focusing his career on public service, Pine worked as an attorney representing start-up and high-growth technology companies. Pine is a graduate of Dartmouth College, and the University of Michigan Law School.

1

Date: June 7, 2018

To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council

From: Kendra Schultz, Energy and Environment Associate; Mike Mielke, SVP Environment and Energy

RE: SB 1072 (Leyva (D-20))– Regional Climate Collaborative Program: technical assistance

Issue SB 1072 would establish Regional Climate Collaboratives to help build capacity in under -resourced communities to access state climate resources, and direct agencies that provide targeted funding for under-resourced communities to provide the technical assistance necessary for those communities to compete for climate resources. Action Environment Committee recommends a support position on SB 1072. Background SB 1072 would assist under-resourced communities in accessing statewide public grant monies for equitable multi-benefit climate resilience projects. The bill takes a three-pronged approach to help disadvantaged communities utilize existing climate resources: (1) establish Regional Climate Collaboratives that leverage local leaders to provide capacity-building activities1 (2) direct state agencies2 that have funding mechanisms targeted towards under-resourced communities to provide technical assistance to those communities to apply for the funding, and (3) coordinate and align investment policies and processes to remove barriers for application. The Regional Climate Collaboratives, in concert with the other mechanisms, would increase access to state funding for climate resilience projects for under -resourced communities. To ensure Collaboratives are achieving this desired outcome, the bill directs them to submit an annual report to the Legislature detailing an outline of the activities conducted, including technical assistance, capacity building, meetings, and projects. In 2012, SB 535 (de León) directed 25 percent of the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities. In 2016, AB 1550 (Gomez) clarified that 25 percent of the proceeds must be spent on projects located in disadvantaged communities. The Regional Climate Collaborative Program, administered by the Strategic Growth Council (Council), would be funded by GGRF monies, and supports climate mitigation and resilience projects in disadvantaged communities. Analysis Multiple state agencies administer programs that allocate targeted funding to under -resourced communities, but many communities lack the knowledge that these funding opportunities exist, and the capacity and expertise to submit competitive grant proposals. Through a Climate Collaborative model, SB 1072 leverages existing local leaders and organizations to help build capacity and awareness of available opportunities that lead to local climate transformations. Furthermore, many philanthropies have expressed interest in investing money in under-resourced communities, but do not know which communities those dollars would best serve. This bill will help direct philanthropic dollars to communities that have the capacity and wherewithal to implement those funds. Targeting dollars to under-served communities does not ensure they can access and effectively implement those resources. SB 1072 directs agencies to provide technical assistance to the hardest-to-reach communities so that they can implement existing resources. Agencies would also be directed to coordinate and align processes and guidelines for investment opportunities to remove barriers to application and maximize climate adaptation benefits for every dollar requested. The state recognizes that under-resourced communities have a great potential to contribute to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, and reap economic development opportunities through

1 Applicants eligible for a collaborative include but are not limited to: community-based organizations, nonprofits, small businesses, local government agencies, joint powers authorities, tribal governments. 2 Applicable state agencies and departments include but are not limited to: Strategic Growth Council, Natural Resources Agency, Dept. of Conservation, Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Dept. of Transportation, State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, State Air Resources Board, Dept. of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board

2

renewable energy, energy efficiency and other resilient infrastructure investments. This bill supports climate change mitigation while valuing social and environmental equity. Funding SB 1072 directs the Council to annually award competitive grants to Collaborative applications as moneys are appropriated by the Legislature from the General Fund. The bill sponsor estimates that each collaborative will cost $250,000- $800,000 to fund staff time, convening space, and to carry out education and marketing activities in communities. Agencies that provide technical assistance would be directed to allocate 3 percent of the agency’s annual budget , up to $250,000, to targeted technical assistance efforts. Bill sponsors continue to work with the agencies to ensure this is an appropriate allocation that balances the capacity to provide technical assistance without detracting too much from the programs they are working to implement. Status Passed the Senate on 5/29/2018 and ordered to the Assembly. Support Greenlining Institute (Sponsor); Trust for Public Land (Co-sponsor); 350 Bay Area; Advancement Project; American Lung Association; Amigos de los Rios; ArborPro; Asian Pacific Environmental Network; Bay Area Urban Forest Ecosystem Council; Butte Environmental Council; California Association of Local Conservation Corps; California Association of Resources Conservation Districts; California Environmental Justice Alliance; California League of Conservation Voters; California Park & Recreation Society; California ReLeaf; California State Parks Foundation; California Urban Forest Council; Canopy; Center for Environmental Health; Central Coast Energy Services; Central Coast Urban Forests Council; City and County of San Francisco; City of Santa Monica; City of Stockton; Clean South Bay; Climate Plan; Climate Resolve; Coalition for Clean Air; Conservation Corps of Long Beach; EarthTeam; East Bay Regional Parks; Environment California; Environmental Defense Fund; FACES; Fathers & Families of San Joaquin; Foundation for California Community Colleges; Fresno Local Conservation Corps; Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks; Friends of the Los Angeles River; Friends of the Urban Forest; From Lot to Spot; Greater Valley Conservation Corps; Green for All; Green Tech Education; Hills for Everyone; Huntington Beach Tree Society; Inland Urban Forest Council; Just One Tree; Keep Eureka Beautiful; Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability; Los Angeles Conservation Corps; Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust; Mallika Nair; Natural Resources Defense Council; North East Trees; Out City Forest; Pacoima Beautiful; Parent Pioneers; Planting Justice; Policy Link; Public Advocates; Regional Urban Forest Council; Richmond Trees; Rising Sun Energy Center; Roseville Urban Forest Foundation; Rural County Representatives of California; Sacramento Tree Foundation; Sacramento Urban Forest Council; Safe Routes to Schools; San Diego Regional Urban Forests Council; San Francisco Conservation Corps; San Francisco Recreation and Parks; San Joaquin Urban Forest Council; Safe Our Forest Comm ittee Fallbrook; Land Conservancy; SCOPE; Sequoia Community Corps; Sunnyvale Urban Forest Advocates; The Nature Conservancy; Third City Coalition; Tree Davis; Tree Foundation of Kern; Tree Fresno; Tree Partners Foundation; Tree San Diego; TreePeople; Union of Concerned Scientists; Urban Ecos; Urban ReLeaf; Victoria Avenue Forever; West Hollywood Tree Preservation Society; Woodland Tree Foundation; Your Children’s Trees Opposition None on file.

1

Date: June 7, 2018

To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council

From: Kendra Schultz, Energy and Environment Associate

RE: AB 2195 (Chau (D-49))– Natural Gas Emissions

Issue AB 2195 would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to include in the state’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) excluded emissions inventory an estimate of the total GHG emissions resulting from the loss or release of uncombusted natural gas that is imported from out-of-state sources. Action Environment Committee recommends a support position on AB 2195. Background Almost two-thirds of California households use natural gas for home heating, and almost half of the state’s utility-scale electricity generation is fueled by natural gas.1 About 90 percent of natural gas used is imported through pipelines from the Southwest, Rocky Mountain region, and western Canada. In the production, processing, and transport process, a percentage of that gas is released into the atmosphere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates current leakage in the natural gas supply chain at 2-3 percent. A primary component of natural gas is methane, a GHG 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere over the first 20 years of its release. AB 32 directs CARB to inventory GHG emissions from in-state and out-of-state sources. The state’s emission inventories reflect the best available data at the time of their compilation. Since the state began accounting emissions in 2006, it has updated its collection sources and methodology in line with improved data and technical expertise. For example, in 2015 CARB updated their emissions estimation methodology to capture additional fugitive methane emissions in oil and gas production. When CARB began to inventory emissions in 2006, the pervasiveness of natural gas leakage was not studied as much as it is today. New studies show that fugitive emissions from imported natural gas in California may be substantial. Assuming a conservative leakage rate of 2.4 percent, the state would be causing emissions equal to approximately 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO 2e) or the equivalent CO2 emitted from 18 coal plants on a 20-year basis. Globally, studies suggest that emissions from natural gas leakage could represent as much as seven percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions as of 2012. Analysis AB 2195 would inventory GHG emissions during the production, processing, and transport of natural gas used in California to increase the state’s understanding of its full emissions profile. These fugitive emissions would be included in the inventory as an informational item, and would not be counted in California’s overall inventory used to measure the state’s progress towards reaching its GHG reduction goals, nor would it affect the cap-and-trade program. The state includes other items in an “excluded emissions” inventory, including interstate and international airline emissions, maritime emissions, oil and gas production and processing, and some military-associated emissions. Implicit in AB 32 is an understanding that to comprehend the full scope of California’s GHG emissions, the state must account for emissions associated with losses, even when those losses occur out-of-state. CARB does this in its accounting of fugitive emissions associated with imported electricity production (eight percent of total GHG emissions in 2015), as well as emissions associated with the combustion of airline fuels for flights ending or originating out-of-state. The state would use the same framework it uses to measure fugitive emissions with imported electricity to count fugitive emissions for imported natural gas. The market and policy makers rely on both the included and excluded emissions inventory to value efforts to reduce the combustion of fossil-fuel based natural gas and scale clean energy. If the state is undercounting emissions associated with out-of-state imported natural gas, this sends incorrect market and policy signals and undermines the true value of clean energy. AB 2195 would help the state more

1 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA

2

accurately count its total emissions so that policymakers and the public have a more com plete understanding of the scope and pervasiveness of the natural gas emissions. Fiscal Effect: Estimated increased annual cost of $75,000 for CARB to contract for inventory modeling and expand the Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimator. Status Passed the Assembly on 5/29/18 and ordered to the Senate. Support Environmental Defense Fund (Sponsor); American Lung Association in California; Asian Pacific Environmental Network; Clean Water Action; Coalition for Clean Air; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club California; Union of Concerned Scientists Opposition None on file. Likely opposition from the oil and gas industry.