that is kind of a marketing question. is that right? if they are educated about it, they might stay with it. >> this slide is showing when they are given a description of the program, 37% are saying they would stay with it. 32% are uncertain. we surmise is because we have not given them the rate information yet. because these numbers are fairly consistent in terms of their being roughly equal numbers that will stay with the program and others who will opt out, i think it does indicate that when the public is familiar with the basic contours of the program, there is a set of customers brought in from the beginning that do not move. the way you characterized it in that regard is right. the core idea of what is being embodied in clean power sf is

that there is a set of customers that will like it and stick with it. there is a set of customers on the other side who say they will opt out in the beginning and no additional information will tempt them to opt back in. >> can you summarize the targeted group? can we surmise geographically or tier-wise or value-wise? >> the people in that group are much more likely to be in the lower tiers and the impact on them would be less. geographically, they are more likely to be in the northeastern part of the city. there are a number of other correlations we see demographically in the survey. they tend to be more highly educated. they tend to have higher levels of household income.

they tend to be more female and venturrenters. they tend to be more concentrated in the lower rate tiers. are also more likely to be young and old. >> commissioner moran? >> looking at slide 5, when you have the graph of their of the last rate structure, it came in at the lower end of tier 3. on the dollars per month impact, i wonder how that is affected by the pg&e change in rate structure. would it still be in the $14 a

month range because they're using less power? with the number go up? -- with the number go up? -- with the number go up? -- would the number go up. >> the questions you are opposing are questions we were hoping to get guidance from you on. thank you. i have a slide that helps to tie together what you saw from mr. metz. was that on slide 5? slides 7 is what is shown to the left of what i have on the screen. we have added what the premium price would be relative to a flat rate structure. i think that goes directly to your question. you can see what the premium would be for the different products in the first two

columns. you are asking a panel that premium would look -- how that premium would look relative to the proposal to flat in the generation component and rates. that is what the final column shows you. a $10 premium for tier one and so on. the slide that mr. metz showed that indicated we would have a drop-off in tier one going to the $14 premium, the higher premium product at a higher price, we sought a 14% reduction. we're now under a flat generation proposal that if adopted will see a $10 premium. that brings us more in line with expected participation levels we saw with the $8 premium, the 60%

participation levels. one might draw the conclusion that it may increase the participation in our program by tier 1 customers to see the flattening of the raid occurred. >> that $10 would be on top of the now higher rate. is that right? >> the $10 would be the premium the customer would see under pg&e billed structure. >> thank you. >> commissioner schmeltzer? >> i had a couple questions about the survey.

how long did the survey take per customer? >> on average between 15 and 20 minutes. >> you said at the beginning you completed -- >> 823 interviews. >> were there a number of people who got halfway through and in the start of losing them? did you do anything with that data? >> no, that data is excluded. in any telephone survey, there are some respondents who get three or four questions in or the need to go for some reason or another. we do not include the data. the data is only for the fully completed surveys. the rate at which phone service participants terminated in the middle of the interview is no different from what we have seen in surveys in the past. it falls right in the middle of

the range. >> that is good. i think others covered my other questions. >> if i may follow up on the survey itself, how did you decide how many people to include in the survey? was that based on what is typical for this kind of a survey? >> typically most surveys we do in the city of san francisco, we do about 600 interviews. that is enough to get to a 4% overall margin of error. it is fairly standard for a citywide survey. here we did additional interviews beyond that because we wanted to capture more interviews in tiers 4 and 5. iran and sampling would have those making up a small portion. -- regular sampling would have madhave those making of a small

portion. we wanted to make sure we had a solid sample and each one. that is the reason why we had a larger sample size. >> can you say anything about the diversity of the survey? was it conducted in more than one language? >> that is a good point. the survey was conducted in english, spanish, and chinese. generally speaking, because the lower tiers 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