improved air quality and preventing other negative environmental impacts, promoting economic development activities and increasing san francisco is control over energy resources which has been an ongoing objectives for the power enterprise as they were pl ambitious milestones to close the power plant by 2005 which ultimately occurred. it has not yet closed. but we do have a clear path forward toward that objective. and in the long term advocate for the graduate displacement of all gas fire generation here in san francisco. the board of supervise ors has emphasized by the climate action plan and through climate change goals additional

objective to develop a green house gas-free san francisco and has encouraged us to update the electric resource plan including transmission, cost-effective method for reducing green house gas emissions, looking forward to what our electric resource demands are, and demand side management into the electric resource plan and making sure that we have the resources needed to meet our municiple and other customers be they through the c.c.a. program or other potential opportunities. the -- the plan that we have looks at the co2 emissions and provides for you here on this slide a sense of how it breaks out among existing customers,

our load that we serve currently, the direct access provision providers where you're seeing a majority of the co2 emissions coming through the provision of electric service by pacific gas and electric company the primary provider to san franciscans. there are two others, ourselves, as you are aware providing 17% of the electric supply and direct access providers providing the balance in that final 8%. we are forecasting the electric load by 2030 to be approximately 8,000 giga watt hours. now through the effort we engaged through our contractor rocky mountain institute, we asked them to develop the technical potential of resources here in san francisco as well as purchased resource from outside of san francisco.

we asked them to determine not just the technical but -- capability but what's feasible for us. so for example you can say that you could carpet every roof in san francisco with solar, but in reality there are constraints to that. we asked them to look at that. and we asked the lowest cost resource option recognizing what was technically feasible to provide san francisco's energy needs and then to purchase the remaining energy needs either ourselves, if we're the power provider or through systemized purchases that pg & e would engage in. and to develop those portfolio results for us. they went forward and looked at those resource portfolio scenarios recognizing that the

cost of technology could change. they sort of bounded that by looking at the technology cost of either a declining scenario where we could assume that technology improve, costs goes down, becomes more efficient to purchase resources or our constant technology scenario. we asked them to look at an increase local control scenario but also to look at status quo. so what does it mean to bound it in that way? well, the status quo versus increasing local control really looks at what we would be doing as a city, whether we're the power provider or not, what we would be doing in any event, in any scenario involved an aggressive set of actions for the city beyond the current policies we have looking more aggressively at it.

buying renewable energy, engaging in behind the meter opportunities, opportunities like combine heat and power or energy efficiencies or behind the meter activities we're talking about. we currently have programs in san francisco for that. in order to achieve the objectives the board has laid before us, we need to get more aggressive than that. in the post 2020 environment, we are looking at san francisco's residents being able to be renewable energy through green purchase options. so that's another more aggressive approach we would envision the city taking advantage of even in the status quo environment. when we talk about the increasing control scenario, we're looking at assuming that san francisco directly procures energy for end users through a program like c.c.a. or through more sales through redevelopment areas as we've been asked to consider. so then looking at the constant

versus declining energy costsings -- costs, those boundaries, we're really looking at cost for renewable energy forecasted to fall at about 8% a year. and under the constant technology scenarios, we're looking at no change in the cost of those technologies. so then what do the r.m.i. results show us -- they were to achieve a green house-free gas future by 2030. it all results interestingly in having a very similar resource mix, which as i said emphasizes energy efficiency, relies on out of city renewables as well as incity generation opportunities, renewable and combine heat and power. and they have similar costs over the 20-year period that we're looking at.

the major difference is, we find under the status quo scenario where the city would be engaging in more behind the meter activities and any additional energy needs would be met through market purchases under the increased local control scenario by us or under a status quo scenario by current energy providers pg & e and the direct access pro vieweders. -- providers. an increase local cost scenario were really addressed through looking at increased capacity cost, incorrect -- i'm sorry -- capacity cost and so those differences, it turns out, were eliminated through the analysis. so let's take a look at what the -- the resource mix looks

like under each of the four scenarios. on the extreme left, we have declining cost, increased local control and then it moves into constant cost within the increased local control scenarios. and on the right we have status quo. there's really as you can see here very minor differences in the resource mix. those differences are really much more driven by who's making the resource choices, not by cost of the scenarios and of the resour, rather. and you can see that in slide 14 in your packet. you can also see that a business as usual approach, you know, how we're currently engaged in the electric marketplace here, if we were not to become more aggressive in our efforts to achieve a green house-free future, the

business as usual scenario that you see listed here, the blue bars on the left, marked b.a.u., show that we're really not looking at dramatic changes in cost to become more aggressive in achieving our green house gas-free future really won't cost us a lot more. one thing that the model is sensitive to is the fact that we do not have credit rating and cannot apply municiple financing cost. so the cost that you see summarized here assume private financing cost. it would be cheaper if we had municiple financing. one of the recommended actions is to address the fact that the power enterprise do not have a credit rating and cannot borrow. the model is sensitive to the fact that increasing energy

efficiency provides the greatest reduction in overall cost of the resource portfolio. under all scenarios increasing ourer energy efficiency reliance is a smart decision for us. the r.m.i. did not address some things that might change during this 30 year plan. most notably we did not identify that the california marketplace is likely to increase of the direct access program. so that 8% of customers by direct access providers could grow, does not address any potential cap and trade programs or any other changes of ratchetting up of the california r.p.s. requirements. the general conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis at this point are listed on

slide 17. as i mentioned aggressively pursuing demand side. efficiency is smart under all scenarios promoting distributed and renewable resources is also smart for us continuing to operate or hetchy system and maintain it as we have historically continues to be important for us for our power output and reality performance and actively co2 productions such as combining heat and power and other important elements. the report that i'm summarizing here provides you with some details on each of those points that i'm not going to get to at this juncture. so let me just go to the next step. we are at this point seeking input from a green technology advisory committee.

this came from the task force this will allow us to really test some of the -- the -- the readiness in the marketplace to pursue behind the meter, no regret options that are identified. we're hoping through this group to bolster the report findings to test some of the assumptions with folks who are on the field, operationing programs, implementing the technology to make sure we're being as aggressive as we can be, and to identify some pilot opportunities where we can start to demonstrate these technologies. after our consultation with the green tech advisory committee will be engaging in a more public engagement process bringing in more stakeholders and coming back to you with specific recommendation like an electric resource plan we would recommend you adopt. and with that, i'm happy to take any questions you might have.

>> anne? >> just -- just myself with that last inputting with your statements -- really, what is your time frame for that? your time frame from seeking input from a green energy technology committee? >> we are reaching out to green technology advisory committee members now. we're hoping to be in a position to bring back the report to you by september. >> ok. >> and so that would mean the technology advice would have been completed and public outreach efforts would have been completed. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and that would result in proposals for capital programs, expansion or contractions or modification of some of the incentive programs that we have? >> correct. it could. it could also result in recommendations for legislative action by the board of

supervisors to try to lower what hurdles there may be in permitting behind the meter facilities, for example. so it's a broad range of recommended abouts that we could come to you with within the september time frame. both in how we spend our revenue stream but also how we interact with the broader city family and making it easier for residents and businesses to take some of these active steps to lower their consumption. ok. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> so there's no action on that. thank you nar that briefing. >> hearing and seeing no speakers, we have number 12. is that correct. >> item 12 -- [reading]

>> thank you. colleagues? >> couple questions on it. as far as selecting between the various, you know, people who submit proposals, what is the criteria could be used to pick one from the other? >> we have a list of general criterias that we have in here. but i also have the project manager here with me. i'd like for her to address that question. >> the general criteria, excuse me, of white water planning,

the general criteria is going to be a reduction of flow to our system or a use of gray waters so we can divert or retain water so we can get it to the system for treatment. we have a threshold of 10,000 gallons of diversion or 5,000 detention. with that we could develop programs. we could review, analyze those benefits and see if it's worth to help them with that piece of that project. >> is it also like a union cost comparison? >> we haven't evaluated on the unit cost comparison. the volume because we can't evaluate how it will impact their capital cost, but a gallon to us is pretty comparable. if i get a gallon from a developer versus if our system,

our costs are pretgri -- pretty much the same as well as outreach for different type of technologies. >> but we do have the cost, the cost of the grant itself. >> that will have to be a little bit of subjective based on the technology and the location. we don't have any cost. as we get into it, we can develop maybe something a little more definitive. >> there's a couple different costs of union cost, the project itself, all costs versus how much water -- the other version, what it's going to cost to us if the grant runs o out of money? i mean, it's not a total project cost but to us it's a significant part of it. >> leveraging our money. >> leveraging our money to get the most for the money that we put out there. i guess, i would encourage some

consideration on that. and the other is i think the ongoing monitor. we've had several discussions where we've wondered how much bang you've really got. and to the extent that what we could get if our investment, the ability to monitor and really understand how these things behave, that would be, i think, value added to us. >> and i think the grant agreement reinforces that. will -- where it will be that they will be accountable for it. >> that is included in the result. >> in our public utilities resolution that's a resolve. any questions? ok. thank you, marilyn.

-- marlon. >> i want to call a motion for item 12. >> opposed? >> the ayes have it. >> mr. president, item 13 -- [reading] >> do you recall commissioners we discussed this at the last meeting. we'd be happy to answer questions. >> i do have any questions. >> comments? >> mechanicically, i do have -- i have a couple of comments. but if we have questions on the item -- >> go. >> any public comment on 13?

ok. hearing and seeing none -- >> just a comment. i had asked staff on the existing program what the performance was in terms of, again, the unit cost, effectiveness of the money that we've spent which is not the total project cost, and they responded to that. and i would encourage to share that with the commission as a whole. one -- a key -- or a typical part of that is for a residential, the cost per kilo watt hours, it's 25 cent per kilo watt hour. nice leverage on there. we are basically saying that by putting a cent of ourselves we are getting them to put in 17

cents. what's odd is that we're spending money on the ben flit basically go to somebody -- benefit will basically go to somebody else. we're planning for a resource that we can't control entirely. and that's not appropriate to our charter. but it makes it messier and harder to think about it. and it's one area where i think if we do get into the c.c.a. business, that it starteds to make it easier to think of an irrational basis. the dichotomy is the difference between commix and financing. and whether or not we're in the c.c.a. business, the economic stuff is the same. but this kind of the project, we 8 cents. that changes pg & e's cost of

the revenue. if we're in the c.c.a. world, we reduce the amount of power we're buying to meet our customers knees and we can get a cost off set to that. c.c.a. is not the om opportunity. treasure island is like that. i think one of the things that we looked at is where we have offsets is where funding for programs is. just a general comment. the item itself, i think, is a good thing. and i'm pleased to move it. >> ann? >> no comment. do you want me to move the item? >> hearing and seeing none, you can move item 13. >> moved and seconded.

>> the ayes have it. >> i've recorded it that she left and when she returned. >> thank you, council, on monitoring the situation as we go. or losing sight as we say in our business. >> item 14 -- [reading] >> commissioner, this is a

rather straightforward one. if you recall in our 10-year plans we would be spending $5 million in planning. this is just the street portion. >> colleagues, i want to retain a motion on 14. i'll move. >> moved and seconded. any public comment? >> hearing and seeing none all in favor of 14 please take the stand. the eyes have it. >> item 15 -- [reading] -- >> the ayes have it. >> item 15 -- [reading] >> commissioners, we are working on a larger, more

global street light globe item for you. and the policy, we are trying to keep things in compliance. and that's the item for you for the flower baskets at the fisherman worths. >> they are going to maintain them? >> that's correct? >> it's been moved. it's been seconded. all those in favor of item 15, please take a stand by saying aye. >> aye. >> the ayes have it. >> number 16? >> number 16 -- [reading] >> and this will keep us from compliance with the ability to generate power.

>> we think that's a priority. actually, i'd like to ask margaret hannah for the director of the division to come. >> thank you. >> hi, i'm market hannaford, division manager and i'm also your nerve compliance officer. so do you have any questions on the project? >> it has its own set of acronyms. >> it's not often you get to read -- [laughter] >> i was wondering what examples or specifics that were being held -- and we are obliged to have a monitoring

program, you know a certificate -- serityfication program. what is it that we're monitoring? >> one of the years where most of the utilities fail is on your relay protection devices. hetchy has 700 relay protection devices between our generator and our protection system. and those devices have to be tested anywhere from one -- every year to every five years. of course, most of our devices are old. and they have to be tested every year. we have to have a procedure that discusses how we maintain and monitor these systems. but next, we have to have a testing procedure, not to just test the relay production devices but test them all the way through testing them and making sure they're showing up and testing correctly on skata and also to protect a stham we

need to be monitoring. in addition to that, then we have to have procedures which is our data base where all of our work orders come out of. this data base goes in -- actually have to demonstrate that we have all of these devices being tested in maxim out and that they'll dub on an annual bases. and then we have to be able to the demonstrate during an audit that we're actually doing the testing and the frequency prescribed. and so in that process, we are tracking -- testing 700 different devices, how we do it, our method for maintenance, and then also making sure we have at the ma imout. in the process, it takes about

approximately 500 to 600 hours of man hour time of testing, inputting the data. it's pretty time intensive. another area where we're required to do some work is our operators in the powerhouse must be nerve certified. and of course, nerve stans again for the north american electric reliability corporation. it takes approximately 400 hours for our operators to go through the initial testing process. they go through a three month learning program that we do during work hours and then they pass a test and they become certified. once they attain the certification, there's continued training. and that is approximately of up to 168