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 cca customers. in the ideal world and in the regulatory form, we're arguing for the efficiency program dollars that pg&e collects from san franciscans to be administered by us with the cca program implementation. we've not succeeded in convincing policymakers and the california utility commission yet. we are continuing it. notwithstanding success there, the customers we serve in our cca program are pg&e customers.

they will be able to take advantage of the pg&e energy efficiency programs from day one. we see the benefit of 100% renewable programs at launch being quite strong. it is clear from the market research that there is a strong customer interest in that product. we get a very big bang for the buck on the city-wide greenhouse gas reduction basis. 1 customer represents -- 1100% renewable customer is worth five that have a 20% energy portfolio that is renewable. it is a good bank for your buck on debt reduction. as general manager harrington said, it is a clear opportunity for product message and differentiation from the offerings that pg&e had.

it positions our clean power sf program to be the greenhouse gas 3 leader in california and nationwide. our program would be the largest community choice abrogation program. it would be the only 100% renewable, greenhouse gas free offering. our city goal is to serve all sentences since -- of san franciscans. we recommend we serve those with often out notices in a geographically-focused way, starting with residential customers, who are the most likely to be in the program. we will allow any customer to opt into the program early, including commercial and industrial customers. is important to knowledge that

there is an appetite among some smaller commercial and industrial customers to differentiate themselves by having the ability to say we are a sustainable business and 100% renewable energy would be very appealing to those customers. we want to make sure we have a program that allows them to opt in from day one. that also has a business benefit to us. it helps us mitigate some other costs and risks of the program. we have a gap between the volume of power we have committed to with our contractor and the volume of power that is actually consumed by our customers. that opt in queue can

help us reduce the cost overall to our customers. it will help us establish a track record. we can expand product offerings as appropriate over time. we can have the early customer base the right there with us talking with their co-workers and neighbors about the product and services they receive from clean power sf. they can become advocates for us. those are some of the attributes of a phased program that are beneficial to us. demonstrating the operational experience will be important. that is 75,000 customers in phase one. we will be large program. that is a 30 megawatt program offering. it is about twice the size of -- in megawatts' -- as the program offered by others. it is substantially more than

that in terms of customer accounts. on the third rat issue of redesign and targeting, our target has been early 2012. supervisor mirkarimi brought up the flat generation rate proposal that pg&e has before the california public utilities commission. rate changes like that, changes in the marketplace, those can have an impact on our program and the understand ability of our program to our customers. given the anticipated rate changes on the pg&e side, we expect good timing to probably be in the early summer or mid- summer of 2012. that is because the rate proposal before the california public utilities commission is

to adopt a decision that says yes to a flat generation rate but does not implement it for some time. it looks most likely to be one year from now. if we want our program and began an hour off out notifications -- began an in our opt out program, the understanding among customers of what the pg&e rate changes will be should be clearer. we will not get caught up in the changes the customers are seeing from the pg&e changes when we're trying to market our program. that is my general presentation on the three program areas. i would like to give miss miller an opportunity to give the lafco commissioners and our

commissioners her thoughts on the program changes as well. supervisor campos: can you say anything about low income customers? >> we are targeting our program geographically. we want to offer our program to areas of the city -- to all of san francisco, starting with areas of the city the most likely to say yes to the program and stay with it. the fact that san francisco is the verse -- diverse. the low tier customer is the average customer. we're seeing lower price premiums with the flat gen.

we will be able to offer our services to all customers in san francisco ultimately. we're geographically targeting it so that we can phase folks in strategically. supervisor campos: maybe the general manager will want to add to that. my point is that we want to make sure that this is available to people who are low income and that the lack of resources will not get in the wake of this program being available to them. supervisor mirkarimi>> certainll be offering it to everyone. there is a care program that offers a discount. that stays in existence. we will have to talk about how we deal with low income people. we do not have the exact numbers of how to do it. the care program is about 20%

discount now. that is already in the program. that cover virtually the entire bill. it is our section of the bill that is differentiated. the low income programs still exists. supervisor campos: you will calculate that for this program? >> we will try to figure out how that fits into this. supervisor campos: commissioners, did you want to ask anything? >> it is a related point. slide 8 shows the province. each one is color-coded. it is not identified with those referred to. is that related to interest levels? >> they are not meaningful. it is just so you could see where these it coast were. >> there is no breakdown of interest? >> there is no information there. >> i am the interim executive

officer for san francisco lafco. i have a brief presentation. i know we have thrown a lot of data at you today. i did want to say that this program designed by sfpuc is different from where we originally thought the program would be back when it was adopted by the board of supervisors in 2007. through the process of hiring numerous consultants and having numerous reports, the board adopted a final implementation plan a couple of years ago that revised the original intent of our cca program to say that our rates would be competitive with pg&e, understanding the product we would offer, we would not be able to meet or beat pg&e to be able to offer it to all our citizens at all tiers.

marin is only going to the higher tier in their program. we will be targeting in making hours available to all tiers. ordnance still requires we have the low income assistance and follow the care guidelines as well. we will be figuring out how to provide that in this program. the program will be zero dedicated nuclear power, unlike the current pg&e offering. that is another point not looked at in the survey and in what you heard today from our pollster. that is another way we can possibly market the program given that there is no dedicated nuclear power. supervisor mirkarimi: if i am not mistaken, the pg&e composition of nuclear power is about 20%. >> i believe it is slightly higher than that.

it is about 20%. supervisor mirkarimi: what is their contribution sourcing on renewable energy at the state level? >> we're thinking 17%. it is growing. i think they would refute that and say it is higher. it is one of the other reasons why the sfpuc came to the conclusion that in marketing, we may as well go out and market the program infinitely different from the products pg&e is providing to you. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree. i think with all of the concern and discussion about nuclear power that if we can reliably segregate an option that would not be nuclear-driven, i think that would appeal to a lot of people in san francisco. >> i do, too. supervisor campos: did you want

to add something kristin >> i want to echo that on the marketing angle. -- did you want to add something? >> i want to echo that on the marketing angle with nuclear- free. it seems like the energy money and accessing that would be key to looking at the financing, the low income question, the rate payer structure, and all of that. i wonder if there's a sense of timing on that and where that is. >> i am going to ask miss hale if she would like to speak to that. it is an integral part of the program. it is not something we are presenting today. today, we wanted to give you where we're going on the renewable energy portion of the program. in terms of energy efficiency, that is an integral part of the plan. we will provide that at a later time on how we plan on addressing that. that would mean having people use less energy, right?

>> i am talking more specifically about the pg&e energy efficiency money. at the state level, we're working to try to get access to that to fund for residency programs. is there a chance that by the time we roll out next summer that it would be available and could change the rate structure? >> there is a chancy could be. we have to temper their optimism. we have been arguing at the california public utilities commission that the administration of those funds collected by pg&e from san francisco residents and businesses should be the responsibility of the cca for quite some time. because of our lack of success in the opinion, we have included the change in legislation that we're working with senator leno on. we have had hearings of the senate committee on that

legislation. it made its way out of committee with lots of direction to continue to work with members on some of the key provisions. that has been a longstanding part of our cca program and regulatory effort to get that pot of dollars available to us for direct administration. >> if there is anything this body could do to support that effort in a resolution, whatever you might need, i would put that fourth. >> thank you. supervisor campos: miss miller? i am almost done. our program goal was to be 51% renewable by 2017. we exceed that with the current plan. an important part of the plan is the face iphase in.

the second phase is to layer in city operated resources. that is an integral part of the plan. we need to start the first phase in order to get a steady stream of income that we can use to build our own facilities. that will be in subsequent phases. with that, that concludes my presentation. supervisor campos: 82 pand thank you to puc and lafco staff. supervisor mirkarimi: this is a milestone. i want to thank you for helping to shepherd this along the way. i have been serving as live co- chairman for four years. i am happy to see commissioner

campos now in that role. this is the long road of about eight to 10 years. there has been no conversation like what is taking place today in that eight years that has provided us more than just anecdotal data. now we have directional steps. we have different departments in the city more unified with a focus that is becoming more structured towards an objective that is delineated by a set of goals and principles outlined by both public policy, has been passed on ordnance level, and by a number of commitments expressed by the organs of city hall to go in the same direction. i do not want to leave this room without reflecting on the fact that there is a bit of a milestone in this discussion.

i want to extend my compliments to the puc and lafco staff and to the commissioners for remaining open-minded and vigilant about asking the right questions that have helped us to a right that this particular place. i can only hope that we continue to move forward to a place that delivers before the year is out acc cca program. that will be history for san francisco. supervisor campos: thank you to the parent members of both commissions and the staff and to the people who over the years have been working on this. that includes the past general managers and the leadership of others as well.

let's open it up to public comment. members of the public will have three minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. i am eric brooks representing the green party and our city. i have worked intensively on this for the past seven years or so. i would agree with the commissioners that this is a milestone. however, i would also point out as i did in my letter that you received through emailed that we could be in a much better place if we were handling this differently. i want to get to some of the specifics that are raised in the email. -- that i raised in the mill. to the study data itself, some of the key flaws i indicated in my e-mail, it only gathers

information from residential customers. most of the electricity sold in san francisco is too large commercial customers. without that information base, we are not heading in the right direction. we do not have the proper information base to make decisions like this. i would argue that because of that, the study itself has a big flaw in it. the biggest problem i see with the proposal of the san francisco public utilities commission itself is the idea that commissioner torres was getting at. that is the higher cost of the product to consumers. in marin county, they have been very conscious of this from the beginning. even though they have a procurement only system, they have bent over backwards to keep its price truly competitive with

pg&e. it has been very difficult. it has not been always perfect. it has been much better than the proposal would suggest. the thing that mitigates this is that when you do the full bill out of energy efficiency with solar and wind that advocates have been pushing hard for for the last seven or eight years, you build up a set of assets. with the efficiency, you lower the rates considerably over time such that you can amortize the entire product over 15 or 20 years and do not need to offer a product that is more expensive. that is why it is crucial that before you approve any contract on just this track that the sfpuc wants to pursue of the procurement model that marin is