>> that is a big number. their initial asking was $80 million? >> from shall? ? -- shell? this has been required by the enabling legislation. it is a perspective look, it is a bond amount. should you terminate a certain point in the future enough to cover the cost at the future time, it is a calculation being litigated. if it were by all proposals before the commission, if any of those were put into place, the bond amount would be limited to the administrative costs. the dollar per account return on

the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars. if you take what the utilities have proposed now, there is a decision pending on the direct access side. you look at how the mechanism if you look at past prices could affect what our bond amount could be for our size of program. it could approach annual revenues come in the $30 million range. half of that. $15 or more. if there is no bond -- a market out there, -- yioou are talking about gas. we may have the ability to self insured. or is this something we have required to be captured in rates? it could be more akin to the

appropriation for the 15 minutes -- $50 million. where it earns interest and does not get called upon. it may not be a direct cost in the same extent. president vietor: t>> the gove'd ask for a letter to them on this performance bond issue and how they could help. it strikes me that maybe we put this on as a resolution agenda item for our joint meeting. to say this is an area of concern. and we get those to move those -- move the resolution forward urging the governor to work with the cpuc to resolve this in a

friendly manner. >> we can prepare them for you. >> how are we doing? >> we are awaiting public comment or any direction or additional questions. >> could in advance to slide 11 again? >> absolutely. >> in effect, we are asking these entities for an increase and we are doing that so 75,000 people could enjoy having 100% clean power -- green power. i don't see h ow th how the impt benefits the ratepayers as a

whole. it is going to benefit the 75,000. >>is that correct? >> saying a rate increase could satisfy two things. it could make hetch hetchy sustainable just as it is without cca. with cca, we would have to do higher rate increases to provide a choice for folks to be able to choose a more expensive product. albeit 100% green. you are correct. it would be increasing rates on the general fund on the hospital, on the mta, on the school district, on the community college. that would be one way to fund the cca which would give 75,000 customers a choice to pay an extra $7 or $13 or $20 on average per month for 100% green

option which they do not have for pg&e. that is a societal policy choice. it is unfortunate that cca is coming as we are running out of money anyway. if we had not done go solar for four years, that would have been $20 million. there are other things we have chosen to do and this is in the folk history at a time that speeds up what is a problem for us anyway. >> thank you. commissioner moran: i was calculating if it was $7 for 75,000 people. and it does that the question, if you are taking $6.3 million a year from power ratepayers, what is the most effective expenditure of that money? that is a different way of

looking at it. i would like to hear some public comment. that would and help the dutc-- t would help my decision in the end. >> this is a very convoluted subject and i am requesting you to take public comment because we have something else going at the board of supervisors. i i think now said to have discussed it and you are also little bit confused in the sense that you want more information, could you take public comment, please? go ahead. we have been talking about cca. we also started talking from the

year 2000 as stakeholders, looking at our energy consumption regionwide. so what is missing in this dialogue is, what is the consumption of the city? 960 megawatts, 980 megawatts, we need to find that out. sfpuc needs to have a viable business plan so that the constituents understand, you do know that we have this cable from pittsburgh coming to potrero, giving us an added 400 megawatts. we need to figure out practically when we embrace grenoble's, how we are going to embrace it.

we have had very little leadership. we have had a lot of talk. we have not had true leadership on grenoble's. on the issue of lafco, i am fed up. -- we have not had a troop leadership on rende true leadern renewables. if the body over here has to come up with the money, where at loggerheads. it is time we come up with a business plan where we ask lafco and the people they hire and sfpuc, there is a convoluted

diatribe. we need it in simpler language. when it comes to the red hill, are we going to get anything? or 13 cents? because we are living if you are alive in dire economic times. their economic times. 14 million people out of jobs. 420,000 people have joined the working poor. thank you. president vietor: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks. i have been listening in the audience and liking a lot of

what i am hearing. this is exactly that -- the discussion we need to be having about what ratepayers will pay and financing for this program. when cca was created, it was never intended to be rolled out at a higher rate than pg&e to ratepayers. it was intended to mitigate that and make that unnecessary by building hundreds of megawatts of local, city on assets that you could amortize the cost of overtime of paying the upfront costs and project over time that you will receive a lot of revenue in savings. that is the discussion. that we have been having with stafford of last decade. especially in our last meeting. it became clear that the

discussion is starting to bear fruit. we're having conversations about how the local build out and having a really comprehensive plan for hundreds of megawatts that would be built in the first three years of the program and start feeding into will help the program. off if you look at both the local power reports and the navigant reports, both make this a recommendation. to make sure your cost is the same or lower than pg&e. it is absolutely crucial to do the biggest and most rapid local build out possible because that is where you get a city owned nonprofit asset that is bringing in revenues that you can deliver to the customers. it is important to note.

the best comments were brought up by commissioner torahtorres. poor people will be shut out because they will have to pay $13 a month. that is similar to what their bill is. poor people will not be getting in on this one -- unless we get this local build out scope of work underway. that brings me to the timing of your joint lafco meeting. the november 11 date is too late. we need to get something -- we need to get something this month of weekend. we need to be able to show sfpuc how the local building program affects the deal with shell. if we do not get that six months not going to be able to show you

how to fit the local build out into your rates and on security and our security for the program. you will be in a position where you have to decide on a contract without that information. please make sure and get it underway as quickly as possible. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i wanted to support the statements that have been made about compressing the time line to get this going, to get the discussion happening. i think that the idea of having a meeting to discuss all these things and move forward is the only program that we have. this is something we are talking about putting our renewable energy future, our local green jobs energy in. three months is too long.

if we can go with those earlier dates to do the joint member -- meeting, if you approve the plan to develop a local bill out of work and opportunities and improvements for our local communities, it will create over 1000 jobs a year to do that. that is important. that is what i think what the program is all about and what is attractive about it. you have to have that discussion. move the discussion to compress time line because of the importance of doing that. and moving the discussion forward to get these questions answered, they are good questions, got to get the answers and we have to move forward. three months as triple the amount of time to move this forward. it is good progress but let's get it done to get this plan moving now and get this stuff worked out about the term sheet

and move the discussion forward to the board. that would be great to see in the next couple of weeks, no more than one month. thank you. >> just a question. it is clear to me that you think the rapid local bill now is an important piece of this. are you in favor of the program as currently reflected? >> the term sheet is tied to the local buildup. commissioner moran: the goal is twe are moving forward on the tracks and i do not see the term sheet and the idea of a build out and separated. thanks to general manager

harrington, we're having discussions about how this is a twin track approach. i cannot separate the two in my mind. >> thank you. >> i am paul lucas in district 10. there is a thing called doublespeak. i know that it is used a lot in meetings. this is what it seems to say. think of it as a way that language is the basis of all human communication. it may not be far-fetched to say that language forms the basis of all human interaction. we use language to express our thoughts and feelings on issues. we act as a result of processing information which we can do by using language. the language we here and use every day influences us and helps us to ship opinions to a

greater degree than you realize. if the language we hear and read is corrupt and misleading, it will corrupt and mislead our interactions. doublespeak destroys communication. not only does language affect how we think and act, it also affects our ability to communicate with other people. we discuss issues intelligently, we must use language that we all agree on. if some people or groups use their own language of doublespeak that hides the truth and misleads the receivers of the message, open and honest discussion cannot take place. we cannot really relate with others and only through clear language we have any hope of defining, debating, and deciding issues of public policy. doublespeak erodes trust. not only does the language of doublespeak corrupt thought and

destroy the ability to communicate, it also destroys relationships by eroding trust. our nation is founded on ideas of free speech, open, honest discussion of ideas and issues. when we hear doublespeak from all sides we begin to be cynical and distrustful towards these institutions. this attitude of distrust adds yet another barrier to trade and open communication. thank you. >> thank you. more comments, please. >> madam chair and committee. i am sort of at odds as to why

the chair has an excellent idea. we are not thinking outside the box. we are thinking the old way we have always done things. i went to the board of supervisors meeting. they're getting ready to release 600 prisoners back to the san francisco bay area. it is $20 million to facilitate that. everybody was talking about expanding the county jail, giving more money to the prosecutors, they are still talking in the box. why don't you give them $30,000 a year so they do not go back to jail and we will have to million dollars to put into other projects? everybody looked at me, why should we do that?

it would keep people out of jail. i would not go back to jail. we need to start thinking outside the box. maybe we should think about some other hedge fund developers, we should think about all the new energy things that are happening in our country today and not just keep thinking the same old way. that is all. president vietor: thank you. >> good afternoon. it seems to me that there are three discrete issues that are being clustered together. they are somewhat interrelated now. the first is cca and its issues colors, flavors, a renewable build out, that sort of thing. the second is rates charged to other city departments. the third is hetchy cip.

let me address those briefly. it does make sense to me intuitively that 100% renewable product would cost more under current circumstances than -- and 18% sounds right. i am not willing to pay another $84 a year for the same power knowing it will be greener. i am not and i suspect other folks are not and that probably goes to the upgrade. what is not clear here is if we had a non-100% of renewable product, how much that would cost. i assume the previous efforts have looked at that. i do not know what the last number on that was. i would assume that is not as high as 18% because it is not constrained in the same way. if that were closer to pg&e rates, you get a higher top

generate. you would be able to see a revenue stream sooner and we would be able to build the grenoble's. having options there rather than just the 100% product may be of interest, but i am sure there is more in history on that but i do not want to be burdened with but i am sure i will hear more about trade with regard to their rates to other city departments, i continue to think we should charge more to city departments, particularly those that are paying that have the capacity or should be paying at least the cost of generation. there are some that are below that level as we learned. facing that in makes a lot of sense and i would suggest at a minimum for the first year that half of the increased revenue from the increased rates should go into an energy efficiency in those departments if we are going to charge mta, what ever it is. if we invest some amount of

energy efficiency, i am sure there are other motion detectors that can do to reduce those power usage at the same time the rate is going up. all that is to the dead. we have all known for many years that the hetchy capital program has been starved, deferred, delayed, for a long time. above the line things we need to do to maintain the existing infrastructure and those things bill oefelein. -- those things. we think this is central. i hope my comments are helpful. president vietor: very helpful. thank you. further public comment? >> we will your comments, thoughts, questions, or we will

continue to provide information and bring information to your joint vietor: it seems like the 11th with the soonest we could do it. i do not know if it is worth a quick revisit. if that is not an option from supervisor campos, it sounded like october 4 and october 11 are both friday, correct? the fourth is a tuesday. >> i have checked in with almost everybody. anything earlier than that, there is two or three commissioners that have calendar conflicts already established. i am thinking october 11 at 11:00 a.m. is probably the earliest. >> i am canceling a trip. >> let's stick with that. i want to be responsive.

we did hear from a couple of people that would be the soonest we would be able to do it which is in three weeks or so. we're trying to move as quickly as we can. with that, next item on the agenda? >>commissioner moran: would you like any additional feedback? >> if you have comments or questions, we would be happy to follow up. commissioner moran: let me give you a couple of comments. i do not know of intentions matter a lot but they have been called into question from time to time. i have been inclined to support cca. we have a workable proposal. for two reasons. one is that is what the ordinance says we should pursue. the other is is useful from a financial standpoint to have additional customers to pay retail rate. so if we save power in the

general fund department, we can sell it to somebody at 13 or 14 cents. the absence of that is hard to justify in some of the things we're doing. when i look at the proposal in front of us, the questions have been, do we like the proposal and should we proceed? the gets to the question as to whether a proposal that increases rates above pg&e rates is acceptable. the second is whether we can afford to finance it in some way. as to the latter, as we discussed, unless we can figure out how to solve the hetchy fund balance problem overall, with an eye toward it, not putting all the details in place -- we really cannot commit tens of millions of dollars to this kind

of a program. i am struck by the chart that was given to us. while the numbers are big, they are smaller in relation to the -- the total city budget is $6.5 billion. the projected deficit we wrestled with -- 3 rudder $60 million. add back to the board of supervisors. -- $360 million. the numbers are pretty small in relation to that. it is not unreasonable and is good public policy we pursue a process of increasing those rates in any event. if we do that, the proportion is clear. solving the cca funding problem

is relatively small. if you solve one, use of the other at the same time. y-- you solve the other at the same time. we need to do with making the hetchy fund balances standing -- sustainable with without the hetchy fund. we should -- need to put forward a rate proposal that would heal that situation. just to tell you where my thinking is at the moment. if we were to proceed with the kind of program that has the rate premium we're talking about, i would be inclined to go with a smaller program. the increment on that seems to be down in the noise and the extra level of security would be important.

as i have said before, especially with cpuc's intention that there is important. whatever this package is, it comes back to the commission for a go or final no go. i hope that is helpful. president vietor: thank you. >> the board is scheduled to approve that -- that is my point , it is not scheduled. there is some question of whether it might be. secondly, the other issue is, what contact have we had with the rate fairness board that is part of our organization? >> we have not been setting -- >> we have