using so much energy to take the salt out that you are going to create a lot more greenhouse gas emissions by burning the energy to do that. this will like -- this will be like trying to bail out a boat with too small a devices said the plugging the holes. the environmental groups are going to try to steer us away from that. i was surprised to hear staff is not up to speed on composting toilets. they have become very sophisticated. there are systems to use in multiple room buildings and they are not just use in rural areas but in suburban households. it will create jobs to have as people come in and pick it up. thank you.

>> that they do have some very unique -- also on desalinization, there are concerns about that out there. if that is why the review is in place. >> we have talked about the constructed wetlands before. i am a big fan because they provide a big service and they can really help to mitigate. i would encourage our waste water team to be looking at wetlands opportunities along the bay and what we might be able to at least pilot sooner rather than later. >> the problem is that even with sophisticated screening on the intake, you kill all of the

microorganisms that are at the bottom of the food chain. specifically, they are looking at a point as a location. that has enough industry there, i think that we should consider those thanks before we site plans. it was a very interesting presentation. i learned that the puc spends money on a report which i have been trying to get a copy of for over a year. this was done in two components, this is a model in report. originally, they used the climate change model and decided that it was not sufficient. this was accurate for the -- modeling and they are doing additional modeling and i'm looking forward to seeing it sometime this summer.

i am very interested that this is modeling on the impact of climate change on the system. there will be about 7% increase in runoff to the red divorce -- to the reservoirs by 2030. this was not really a factor, which i did not agree with. i am interested in ascertaining exactly when that report will be available. one other issue is that if you've -- there was an article on ocean beach and. this is where the oceanside plan is. underneath that the highway is a sewer pipe which my understanding carries mostly

storm water. it seems to me that what we should be looking at is relocating that pipe and finding another way to handle the storm water so that it currently carries and maybe we can add that to our next right up -- wr iteup. when you baffle the outtakes, the water is not going out. he will have flooding at low- line levels along the shoreline. one and that might be nice to understand in future presentations are what plans we are making to handle those areas where those go win - --- go in. >> this might be a question because i think there is a

communications piece we want to be thinking about moving forward and maybe the first is the release of this report. the second might be whether we want to develop more of a presence, whether it is our website or something moving. >> when the report comes out, it will be of great interest to a lot of people, starting with us and including the public. the money that we spent at leverage by greater investment was in calibrating the model more than on the report. the report was one aspect of that. we actually did a draft version after the first phase of calibration. this was not of the kind of quality that we needed to be at. when that report -- phase is completed, we expect there to be

a report. the improvement project time frame will be much sooner than that and definitely end of this year. there was a 7% shift in timing. this was spring, summer, and into winter. the 7% reduction in flows or water quantity which was not we found and it would be a different kind of thing. >> thank you. >> the lengthy presentation was interesting but i also feel that it should be clear that this

will be available. there's no doubt that the research is valuable and we will calibrate models. there are papers by the alliance as to decision making which is hypothetical. in the meantime, you have gone forward with water system improvement program. we are about to receive a presentation on the projects that would benefit from knowing the results of this work. i suspect they are years away. it would be helpful to know when that will be helpful -- when that information will be available. the connections that you're making to the decisions you are about to make i think are spurious.

mcgee will make peace in the absence of information. -- you will be making this decision in the absence of information. >> this is incredibly frustrating. we are engaging and we specifically talked about the strategy for the program with the no regrets strategy. this means that whatever is going to happen, a more robust system will be able to handle it better. what we are doing here is we are making sure that we are at least aware of the climate change issues. we will not be able to make decisions about the size of the digester. we don't have it yet.

we don't have it because no one has said. we are trying to get the best information so that we can least be aware of this. we will not be able to make these decisions based on hard science and climate change. >> it would be prudent to build a resilience system in anticipation of the worst-case scenario based on what we now. we don't want to be caught off guard. are there any other comments on the climate change presentation? >> that will be discussed over the course of our careers. >> i am very happy to come to

report on the status of the closure of the petro power plant. the predecessor entity that owns the plant filed cancellation of their contracts that require them to be available to run here in san francisco with a contract that they have with the california independent system operator. they made that filing back the federal regulatory commission did adopt that request, did endorse that request, so effective midnight, february 28, the plant shut down. >> yay. [applause] >> so, hopefully, the next time you hear about it, it will be about the improvements. thank you.

>> thank you, ms. hale. president vietor: comment? >> you guys have so much on the agenda. this is the coolest one. i remember when my organization fought the power plant being put in at bayview hunters point. they said, "there is no way that you can stop that power plant." , "it is a done deal -- >"it is a done deal." we did it. we shot down the paltrow --

potrero plant, and we made sure that it would get close quickly, because a lot of people that if you are going to stop us from building a new one, this one will stay open forever. this is not true. we could not have gotten there without ms. hale and director harrington, who helped us to get rid of the old one, so this is a big deal. i will just add a little

cautionary note, that whatever jurisdiction the puc has, and i am not sure how much you have, but, please, exercise whatever jurisdiction you have got to make sure pg -- pg&e gets it done quickly so we can have that part of the city back, where they used to be a power plant, so, thanks. president vietor: director beach: -- president vietor: thank you. and they also want to thank the staff we do we also want to thank the staff -- we also want to thank the staff at puc. there is the climate change, so that is exciting to be able to see this extent in the right direction. thank you. >> that concludes our port, but

it is a great lady -- leading to our next item. -- a great lead-in. secretary housh: the resource plan. >> this is our third time talking about this item. we came to you at the beginning of our report development with the findings of the rocky mountain institute. we came back to you after input from a select group of folks, with specific recommendations. now, we are coming back to you again with the final work product that has the benefit of much public input, so let me take a moment, if i may. i know the time is long in our meeting already. to go over the outline of the

report and where we are in our efforts to bring it to you. this report builds on the 2002 report the commission endorsed. that was actually were the policy was laid out, with the primary focus being the closure of the two power plants, that we just talked about. the board guidance is very strong in this report. we have been urged to update the plan by the board, with a focus on addressing the goal of san francisco having a greenhouse gas free, a fossil fuel for korea electric supply by 2013. that is -- a fossil fuel free electricity supplied by 2013. that is the goal. we have provided the report that the rocky mountain institute prepared for us.

we have benefited from convening a green tech committee, together with the task force, to shape and better develop the recommendations coming out of the rocky mountain institute report, and we have had many participation opportunities along the way. the plan really recognizes that we have limited control here in san francisco over the electric decision making, over the electric supply. we provide, the city and county of san francisco self provides, and that makes up about 15% of the electricity. what is left over is provided by pg&e and other direct-access providers. pg&e has control over the distribution system, and together with translate table, they are the sole providers of

transmission services to san francisco -- and together with transbay. with treasure island, as the caretaker facility, we are responsible for distribution and transmission there. they really pre-empt what we can do about controlling the decision making that pg&e has for providing electric service here in san francisco. we have a very strong role. having said that, achieving some of our roles for electric provision through our cca program, but clean power -- program, a clean power -- program, clean power sf. these are from electric provision.

those broad strategies are to empower san francisco residences and businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, increased the amount of zero greenhouse gas electricity -- increase the amount, and insure that we continue as an agency to offer -- and ensure that we continue as an agency to help our customers. it includes a timeline. it includes funding opportunities for achieving each of these three separate strategies. let me give you a snapshot on each of those strategies. president vietor: this relates to adjust our 17%? >> no. thank you for that question -- just to our 17%?

>> no. thank you for that question. they are looking for a greenhouse gas freeze san francisco, -- gas free san francisco. part of our challenge is to achieve that broader goal, even though we do not have hit direction over the decision making that goes into the p.g. any service, -- pg&e service. that is why, president vietor, we work on how to empower the customers, behind the meter, what actions they can take with in their control as businesses and residences. you will see on this slide the strategies to achieve behind the meter improvements.

not listed on this slide but ever-present is the fact that the cca program will provide the vehicle to get to those residences and the decision making on electric service provision for them. then, when we step away from behind the meter, we also want to look at our second strategy, reducing the amount of what is applied -- supplied to customers from the wholesale market. for the power that we provide, of course, it is greenhouse free, and it is from the hetch- hetchy system, but what about everyone else? here are strategies that help us to get to that wholesale market change that needs to happen to become greenhouse gases -- gas free. and these others fall under the heading to make sure that san francisco continues its reliable

service, and you can see those listed there. we are building on some policies the commission recently adopted with respect to environmental justice and community benefits, as well. as i mentioned, this plan was through an extensive public process, where we had meetings with our clean energy storages, we had several hearings before the board, -- clean energy stewards, we have had hearings before the board, and we have had subcommittee meetings. lafco. we have come to you today, and we are looking for you to endorse this plan being delivered to the board of supervisors for their endorsement of the overall goals. we are also looking for -- commissioner torres: when is that going to be presented?

>> it will not be presented unless you release us to do so. i am here to ask you to do that. commissioner torres: is authorization is provided, when do you plan to do that -- if authorization is provided? >> within the month. we are looking to develop the recommendations more fully and bring them back to you. we need to make sure that the recommendations we developed through this plan are addressed in ceqa is necessary. this is a framework. we will come back to you with specific projects and programs for your endorsement, so you will have further opportunity to get into the broad areas i have described today. for members of the public to have yet to take a look at the

plant or who want to access it in its final version, let me just put a slide up of where it is located on our website, and with that, i am happy to take questions. president vietor: commissioners? commissioner moran? vice president moran: we have had this before us before, and i think this is the first time we have been asked for action. >> this is correct. vice president moran: there is the frustration of dealing with 100% of the problem, controlling 17% of the solution, and it can lead us into some odd places, and we have had some discussion on this, but it kind of forces us to deal with behind the meter

solutions. those tend to be small and fairly expensive, and some of the opportunity that you get through either treasure island or hunters point or cca i think present economies of scale and direct control of the decision making that can serve us well. one of the frustrations i have with this strategy is it pretty much deals with the world as it is, without looking more aggressively to where we can be going. those functions. so that is a frustration. one thing that was kind of tantalizing was chapter 6. it deals with a lot of different funding sources that may be available.

it deals with some of the constraints that we have on that. it does not quite come to what i would consider closure. it does not develop a financial plan or a programming of funds. i think it would be very helpful in informing not only ourselves but also the board of supervisors as to what some of the choices are. specifically, what catches mind eye first is that one of the recommendations is that we have power rights for the city, and this commission has talked a lot about that, and we have also just approved a 10-year capital and financing plan for hetch hetchy, which says that we cannot fund our current needs without going into debt. we are dealing with the revenue issue some note -- or dealing with that revenue issue somehow.

i think it would be good to deal with that, the programming of available funds issue explicitly. so we start to get some idea. here is a portfolio of things we think we can look forward to do, that if we are successful in getting cca customers that give us the option of displacing power that is currently used by the municipalities and charging the wholesale rate, that creates another source of income. the municipal rates that we have, that creates an additional revenue for some of these programs, and i think that would be a very helpful decision, i think, to add to this package. president vietor: i do think, if i may, comment on your thoughts. i think there are a number of recommendations in the report --

>> i do think, if i may, -- if i may comment on your thoughts, i think there are a number of recommendations in the report that have a strong benefit to us. some of the steps, for example, under the heading of behind the meter, you know, customer decision making, could be modifications to building code that would require residences and businesses to take certain steps, like the retrofit on re- sale for water. maybe this is -- there is a re- sale for electricity. energy efficient programs that are already available to them through the state. payer program that pg&e administers -- the state rate

payer program that pg&e administers. we could do a relatively low- cost source of public-policy change that would give us a good bang for the effort for achieving those goals. to the extent we would come to you and make a recommendation for providing specific incentives or partnering on the combined heat and power program, something like that, and we would be happy to delineate within our timeline a next steps section that appears early in the report a task for pulling together that for the financial piece, as you are suggesting. i would offer that as a

potential step to assist in the decision making that occurs after the report is adopted. vice president moran: let me ask a question. what is the expectation or the driving force? one of the concerns that i have is not putting not something that shows a lot of promise and hope without any money behind it. we will have to, at some point, deal with that issue. it would be helpful if we have the option. >> i do not think there is any easy to endorsing the plan today -- and the immediacy -- any immediacy to endorsing the plan today. i think it was you, commissioner, when you worked for puc, i