include more renters, they also include more younger residents and people of color. there are also lower levels of income. the higher tiers tend to be more white, more affluent, longer- term residents of the city. within each tier, the interviews were a random sample. the diversity of responses within each reflects the universe of customers with in the tier. >> looking at this, the higher the tier, the less likely they are to participate. what percentage of ratepayers are in the various tiers? >> on a slide 5, you will see the total number of customers within each. i do not have the percentages in

front of me. of the top of my head, tier one represents 54%. it is a slight majority of all customers. when we get down to tier 5, it is only 9000 customers of a total of around 200,000. it is only about 5% of the overall total. >> commissioners, and the other questions? this is the beginning of the first piece of the presentation. i will turn it over to the general manager of the public utilities commission. mr. harrington, do you want to add anything? >> i knothink the good news is t

we surveyed people two years ago before we knew much about it. we've been anxious to see what people think about it. we're far enough in the design to come up with more detail and get more information. the great news is that there is a good number of people who really want to have a green product. what is really nice for marketing it is that the difference between 40% rps and 100% of everything was really very close. saying you can be worn under% renewable and greenhouse gas three is a much easier thing to market. it is much more straightforward. it is something people are willing to buy into as a simple thing. that is a great piece of news. the other thing to keep in mind is that we were asking people what they would prefer to do if given a piece of paper with three boxes on it.

people would opt in unless they make a decision. -- people would be adoptopted in unless they make a decision. there were be a certain amount of inertia involved. >-- there would be a certain amount of inertia involved. >> there have been various issues raised on whether the survey is legitimate or not in respect to determining the interest for this concept. if i were to look on page 8 where it says interest in 100% renewable energy is highest in the northeast, i have to see from the outset i am supportive of this concept. i am not overwhelmingly confident in every area it is rejected. in the northeast, it is rejected

by 52%. in the southeast by 57%. in the southwest for 67%. if this were an election, the issue would be defeated overwhelmingly. where is the support i am hearing about coming from? >> you are correct about the numbers. i can only offer my perspective. if this were an election, we are seeing a majority of customers in each geographic area saying they would not choose the 100% renewable product. however, it is not an election. it is a chance for customers to choose whether they want the green, renewable product or want to continue receiving the product they are currently receiving. >> i think we need to do more education on this. did we ask the questions of those who said why they did not want to take it? was it based solely on cost or that they did not understand the elements of the program? >> generally speaking, i would say the concerns were in cost and reliability.

>> talk to me about reliability. what do you mean by that? >> >among the issues residents considered important, reliability is at the top of the list. the program has not done much education to date. one part of that is to clarify that when clean power sf is up and running, pg&e will continue to provide the same service of bringing electricity to their homes, servicing the electric lines, all of the functions they are currently receiving. they will still be receiving the same way they do today. the reliable the issue if it is a concern for potential customers, when they understand the program, that concern may be eased for them. >> earlier in your testimony with respect to conversations cut short, i would not have lasted 20 minutes on a pole. i barely last five minutes on a poll.

for those people who dropped off, were we given reasons as to why they dropped off? >> no, all i can tell you is that the rates at which people dropped off were no higher than the hundreds of other surveys we conduct in the course of the year. many of those are done for political campaigns. those continue to be good, accurate predictions of -- outcomes. we're confident that did not affect the data in any way. >> did you find differences between ethnic or racial minorities with respect to the questions? >> we saw the white customers tended to be somewhat more supportive of the programs and customers of color. >> why do you think that is? >> i cannot speculate from the data. is some correlation between race and socioeconomic status. that was another driver. >> that would drive us towards lower cost as an incentive.

>> the cost points we tested in the survey are those projected to be the range of what the program cost for the product we're offering. those are the cost points we tested. >> in a letter sent to many of us by mr. eric brooks, he says the poll assumed higher rates for customers in all questions. the customers were not asked what the response to the program would be if it had electricity rates that were the same or lower than their pg&e rates. >> i can respond to that. we do not believe the program exists like that. there is no program that can buy wind and solar at the same price as brown power. if you are going to buy solar and 20 cents, you cannot sell it

at 8 cents. it does not exist. >> therefore, that question is irrelevant. >> you cannot ask the question. you cannot provide the service. >> i am very disappointed by these results. it shows we have to do more education as a supporter of this approach. i do not know what other alternatives we need to pursue to make sure the people understand this is in their best interest. do you have any ideas? >> of course we have to do more marketing and education. with the people already with us, this would be the largest program in california by far on day one. marin county has about 9000 people. it may grow to 50,000. we're assuming at phase one we would be at 55,000 customers. it may not be as large as people once thought on day one. that is one of the reasons for the phase in. but i am calling its successful because there would be a good

number of core customers who would be our spokespeople to talk about reliability and those things as we expand. when they see from their neighbors is the same reliable service, those are the kinds of things that a part of an education campaign. that is how we get to the 46% of what we're calling persuade wieables. you start with a good program. you start with the people most likely to be with you. >> miss miller, did you want to add to that? >> when we do a poll and make it public, some of the statistics we talk about publicly. the point of doing this poll was to get an idea of what the program parameters should be and where they should be going. if you looked at any other program providing 100% clegreen, they have a very small percentage of countries that

actually percentage of customers that actually participate because of cost. in san francisco, the percentage is so much higher and those expecting of 100% renewable. if we were able to show you the statistics, in that realm, it is a very good statistic. however, your point is a good one. what should the program parameters be and what should we be offering? that is what miss hale will be talking about during her part of the presentation. we wanted to provide all the information to you publicly. we know there are questions in the statistics. there is information we will learn to go forward with, particularly with education and marketing our program. >> how much did the poll cost the ratepayers of san francisco? >> i cannot answer that.

>> i guess the first step is that this came from money given for this program. we've budgeted money years ago to take care of the expenses of lafco and this program. this did not come from ratepayers. the poll cost about $50,000 to do. it did not come from the ratepayers of san francisco. >> it came from where? >> it came from revenue from power sales to the irrigation district and a variety of other customers we have on the power site. >> the people in the best of pay for this? -- modesto paid for this? >> out of the entire budget, you could pick a line item that paid for it. >> i am not sure the right person is to answer this

question. maybe miss hale. commissioner torres was just speaking about the participation rates. what would be the participation rate in a 100% clean program -- green program? i would assume if 100% of the people wanted to sign up, we would not be able to provide power at 100% agreement -- green. i am hoping there is room to grow in that. i am wondering what the target is. >> we are preparing to target at launch 75,000 account holders. the survey information and the slide i set up earlier is indicative. it is not definitive.

the question of a program that is 100% renewable and greenhouse gas free as an opt out program was not opposed. the questions posed in the survey was for an opt -- the opportunity to opt out of a program at 40% renewable and 100% clean house free. it is not a perfect fit. it would indicate the numbers we have from the survey are conservative. the general manager is pointing out that perhaps you are asking if there is enough capacity in the marketplace to offer 100% renewable products to 75,000 residential customers. yes, there is. that is with room to grow.

>> i am looking for the slide with the numbers of customers. slide 5. i assume there is not capacity in the market for all of these tiers or even all the customers in the first three. >> as you know, california has a renewable portfolio standard law that says all load serving entities, publicly owned utilities, direct access providers, community choice abrogation service providers, all must meet a 33% target with all retail sales being 33% from

renewable resources. there is a huge market push going on out there to make sure there is capacity over time. that is a unique part of our program. that is the actual billed out and ownership of resources. -- build out and ownership of resources we're proposing of a parallel track. once we have demonstrated we have a steady set of customers and a steady revenue stream, we will be able to use that to fund in-city commitments and commitments to new generation in the marketplace that is either owned by us or directly committed to or by our program. pushing in the market for adequate capacity to meet our needs. it may be at 33%, 40%, or 100%

of renewable products. >> on the cost side, it is a concern. cost obviously makes a different for those who will participate. there is no option for 100% clean -- green product that costs the same because that does not exist in the market. >> or a 25% offering that is cheaper. renewable power is more expensive. whether you only yourself or purchases in the marketplace. it is more expensive than brown power. >> is there anything that can be done in the program to make this option more affordable so the people's overall utility bill is lower? will this be offered in cana

conjunction with other programs that would enable people's entire bills to be lowered to create some room for opting in to this? >> yes. we will have the energy efficiency programs. we are very interested in demand-response programs. both of those types of programs will help to shrink the load at a site and make it cheaper. there will be less kilowatt hours being consumed at that site. that makes the overall bill be cheaper for the customer. that is even if the per kilowatt cost per hour is higher. what really matters at the end of the day is not the unit cost. it is the bill to the customer. energy efficiency, demand- response, those programs are definitely important to any successful electric service offering. >> thank you. >> vice chair mirkarimi?

supervisorsupervisor mirkarimi's go back to the system in marin. the rate structure mirrors that of pg&e. in their initial phase, they have focused on customers -- they zero. -- their only offering it to customers that typically in the tiers 4 anad 5 ranges. they offer dark green service that customers can opt into. it is a 100% green product. supervisor mirkarimi: how much more expensive is that?

>> mike campbell of sfpuc. the with a grain product is offered for marin is 1.5 cents more per kilowatt hour. it is one paying more per hour. it is the same structure. it is targeting the hired usgher usage customers. supervisor mirkarimi: are we talking about the same structure? >> pricing wise, yes. we are looking at bringing you further information about the other 100% green programs offered in california.

we know that palo alto and others have the programs. compared to the other prices, marin and san francisco look comparable period supervisor mirkari. i believe the first capture was 9000. it may have eroded down to 8000. they have been operational -- tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary. with opt outs and customers moving, they have lost a few. at this point, they are at 8000. supervisor mirkarimi: the start of money required to instigate, we understand they have now paid off everything they required in order to initiate the program. the program has now moved from read into black. is that correct?

>> is my understanding the program did moved from read into black. when you are saying they paid off, they did pay off early private loans but they did that with bank loans. they did that -- they still do have some financing costs and debt service costs. but they are in the black. supervisor mirkarimi: we heard this circulating recently around those who were commenting that they were way ahead of schedule in terms of what their ability is to satisfy their debt service cost. >> that is right. supervisor mirkarimi: my interpretation is a little different than what has been echoed about the numbers reported here in this poll.

i do not know if this is a matter of the glass half full or empty. maybe we should clean from both perspectives. -- glean from both perspectives. pg&e has had 70 years of a headstart. the customers have been oriented towards one company in service. i am thinking the interpretation of this without much companion education or pre-warning or pre- influencing of any kind shows me a gut reaction that makes it something people would be willing to invest in. this is the same kind of pulling -- polling that gave me hope in the other campaign.

we ended up spending $150,000 on a statewide campaign. the polling was reflective of jurisdictions in pg&e service territory. they were hitting the wall of people giving it -- you would think that people have had a relationship with the company for decades would have a more overwhelming confidence factor on reliability and rates. my interpretation of this gives us greater room to grow. consider how little package education there was with this, i interpret this very positively. if the city falls through on its commitment to provide the

investment on education and doing the kind of out reached that is essential that stops and starts between lafco and the city, if we're absolutely committed, i think these numbers improved considerably. i cannot see pg&e numbers improve unless they go on a major charm offensive, which they need to do anyway considered everything else they are embattled by. they need to go on a major charm offensive. state law precludes they cannot go unless cpuc loses their spine, unless they start going after us. they are told to stand down and not interfere with our ability to promote unless it is violating state law. i have to say there is great promise in these numbers. >> commissioner pimentel?

>> how will customer rates effective? >> i do not think we've gotten into what was proposed. that may be a good segue to that piece of the presentation. my take on this discussion is that excellent points have been made. i appreciate where commissioner torres is coming from. additional information could be obtained about where ratepayers are. depending on what happens with rates going forward, maybe the issue of cost will change so that the question is not framed in terms of if you would be interested even if there is a higher cost involved.

taken in the context of pg&e having a monopoly on this market and given the billions of dollars that have been spent, it to the extent you want to make an analogy to a political campaign, i think we're actually in pretty the shape. we are in pretty good shape. i would imagine if you look at where we are today and compare it to where we were in terms of people's perception of the program three years ago, i think a lot of progress has been made in the short amount of time. i do look at it as a glass half full perspective. i think there is an opening for us to grow this program. it is something we have not been able to demonstrate. i think it will be powerful to have a program that is effective and runs well.

that will go a long way in building more public support for something like this. why don't we hear now from [unintelligible] >> i had one comment on the pricing. maybe you will address this in the program design. my understanding is that energy efficiency is a core part of the cca program and that is where the pricing issue may come into play. i do not know if that means in the first phase of the 75,000 customers or where that kicks in. it may be premature thinking in terms of program design. it would be nice to hear if the man-response could affect pricing going forward. supervisor campos: there is

another issue. that is the question of making sure the program is offered to add a first pool of ratepayers. the survey shows certain trends. that does not mean we will not need to clear obligations we have under the law which requires that low income ratepayers are also included. i assume that the puc will address that issue in your presentation. miss hale? >> we have touched on some of the program design elements i wanted to go into detail on. let me summarize and do that now. let me remind you of the three areas -- products, phases, timing and redesign. the product we recommend given the customer desire

demonstrated in the attitude survey is a 100% renewable product. that is relying on a mix of california compliant renewable portfolio standard products and other renewable resources. that is 100% greenhouse gas free. we will be pursuing our in-city renewable generation and our program implemented energy efficiency on a parallel track. please nknow the customers we have talked about already will be shared customers. they are pg&e customers for other services that pg&e provides to get the kilowatt hour to the residence. all of the energy efficiency offerings currently available to pg&e customers today are available to