attention. i think everyone knows there is potential out there. so can you run through again what you're -- there are a number of mandated notices. what you are doing. then whether it be marin or otherwise any o ther examples of the opt-out percentages to what we can correlate to what is happening in san francisco. >> the process would be if we are going and offering this to you at your home we would send you a post card saying here is the information. if you don't want this program, please let us know. send a post card, internet, whatever in terms of making it as easy as possible. a month later, saying this will happen. just want to remind you. if you don't like this, let us know. we wait 30 more days, start providing power, send another notice saying you should now be getting your first bill. you are noticing a difference. do you want to stay in this

program. a month later you have gotten within or two bills. do you want to stay? if you don't, please let us know. we should be -- for those who are able and willing to read those kind of notices i understand, that is the easy part. then the part is how do we make sure people get the message who aren't opening their mail and aren't reading that. is what we are saying. through community groups, radio and tv, we have talked about how much a media buy we can get for the million, plus the rest of it. we will be trying a variety of different ways. i'm not trying to be facetious when i say in marin pg&e did a good job to make sure all the poe ten shalt customers were very aware of options. i would expect they would assist us in this campaign with more money than we have available. >> what was it in marin, do you know? >> opt out. it varied over time. the opt-out rate -- it is also a little misleading because marin, their big

users were including government customers because we have green power for our government. they didn't. you had a built-in number of people that weren't going to opt out because their board of supervisors and city councils had done it. the original opt-out was neighborhood of 10%. it is a little higher in some places. about 20 when finished. about 80%. now again we believe that our program is a bit more robust. a bit more obviously green. they have the light green and dark green. we are going straight to the dark green. so there would have been promising not as much of an increase in rate as we are doing. >> okay. then i will have other ones after the comments report. from the consumer point of view this is where i come from a lot. it is the opt-out nature and increase in the bill. my biggest part is around the consumer that doesn't

pay attention, either mail or otherwise, he won't be during campaign season, that is a good thing, when people don't pay attention to their mail. >> we did think about that. >> okay. ted egan's report was talking about an $18 average increase to the bill. i know yours says now -- is it $27. >> we have had several refreshers, because the market does change. before we would go out and set rates and come back to you with rates we get another refresher of what the market is so the number also change when you look at that. the other issue i think is happening is we look at averages and tier one and tier two. the majority of people. so you get different kinds of numbers. what we are saying is we believe a tier one customer, about 40% of the cities -- people in san francisco will be paying about 9.5 dollars more on

average. tier 2 is closer to 20. when you add in the high-end users, the average in the city is something like 27. >> i understand all that. you have to play with numbers but you have to pick a point in time. i guess the question becomes with the opt-out nature and saying okay, let's say the person who doesn't pay attention is now going to be paying $27, close to $30 more a month. okay. but then also as of a month ago it was $18 >> we will step the rate before we start the opt-out. if you look at the schedule the process shows setting a rate, giving it to the board 30 days, establishing that rate the next four and a half years, knowing what it will be, all would be there before the first opt-out goes out. >> so the board of supervisors will vote on this, right? right now -- i understand you are not going to be able to have a final

number, right? but in whatever. since august 3rd -- i know ted's been working on this a long time, it went up 50%, the average cost to the customer. so trying to get understanding of kind of where we are going to come out. just wanted to make sure. again, mr. egan can say where he got his number, we can talk about that. the other thing people reminded me of is after discussing this with a number of supervisors and others, that 20% care subsidy wasn't in the numbers when mr. egan

looked, now they are. people that are not in the program will pay slightly more. it is not just a change in the market. >> again, as we vote on things and look to approve or not, having the full picture as much as possible and how it rolls through your report is interesting. >> i guess the ultimate thing is if this is not affordable, people will not choose it. we will assess the rate and tell them. if that is not affordable, they will not choose that. >> i understand that. respectfully i come from a different point of view where given opt-out it is not a choice. you are choosing to opt out, you have to choose. i respect what you say. i come from a different perspective. okay. thank you very much. those are my questions. >> thank you, supervisor. i did have a few questions as well. in terms of the opting out component, i'm not very confident wbl opt out.

it is a construct of state rules that regulate how we form a cca. we are not able to structure an opt-in, by i think would be better. i know people who want to be in the program get in the program. i think our best intentions for outreach, we are still going to have people who don't know they are in this program. that is just the nature of having a program where you are automatically enrolled. how many times have we automatically enrolled in a magazine thing to realize later we are in it. i think that is a concern. i just want to know a bit about the connection charges. for one, opting in, opting out, you are proposing a $5 fee. as you said that could be different. it could be zero or higher or lower. who and when do you determine that level? >> that is part of the process that goes to rate fairness and to the puc as the rate schedule and that comes to the board of

supervisors. >> is the $5 meant to be a nominal amount to have people reflect or meant to cover some administrative charges? >> again, we are not counting on any money so that is what it will reflect. if for example it made more sense to have zero for low-income customers that would be fine. >> okay. one other question. this is on the city side or cca power side. on the other end, pg&e end, is there a reconnect fee. should a customer be automatically enrolled or into the cca program. say they realized they don't want to be in the program, opt back out six months into the program. what happens on the other end, the pg&e end? >> if representatives are here from pg&e, i will let they answer when they get up. but my understanding is that if a single person rolls back into pg&e it makes no difference. if there were a lot, that would make them go out and

buy new power at a different rate than their power mix might be they would have the ability to charge a higher amount for a period of time. my understanding that has not been done by pg&e and marin and i would expect pg&e would not make it more difficult for customers to go back to them. they do not need to, have not so far. >> going back a bit to the rate issue, so when item comes before the rate board and back for approval, at that point in time you lock in a power rate for clean energy for the five-year period or four and a half? >> yes. >> during that four and a half year period, as people are enrolled, they should not expect energy to change. >> we would expect the lock-in on average 5% for year. you have a rate but know what the raises would be. up slightly, maybe 5% a year. >> during that time when someone enrolls, as we are

talking about the numbers, we are talking about the average bill, people should likely expect there would be a cpi adjustment or 5% inflay toer. >> we would put that in and tell you. * so where we might get rate increases who knows how often, when it goes through the process, we set it out where this line of your bill would change once a year by that amount. >> then just going back to i think a conversation that spurred a question for me, the issue about generation. you talked a bit about how in the current or just starting off the program there is an initial part of time where just kicking off the program, enrolled, going through the process. during that initial stage there is a deposit charged to consumer who's are in this program that goes directly into a rate stabilization fund. >> yes. >> what does that look like on an annual basis, total deposits? >> about half million a

year, it is not a large number. >> half million if you were to say you have a 5% inflater going forward we would expect a stream of half million bonded against for generations? >> there is that. the bigger issue, frankly, is if you are planning on bonding you would normally look and see what your revenue stream would be when the facility is up and running and capitalize your interest in between. so if you have a revenue stream people are comfortable with you are not just limited to that revenue stream in terms of what you can bond against. you are limited to that stream, plus anticipated revenue of the new facility. that gives you the real big bump. this gives you the seed money. >> can i ask, when you folks were thinking about this and structuring it, the idea about the stabilization fund is this would be rate stabilization but also beginning point for which you create the revenue stream, you start to create the ability to

bond and create generation in the future. was there ever a conversation around why with the way the contract is structured we didn't build in certain amount that participants would pay for for their own reserves, so for other reserves, the $13 million, why wasn't that billed into the rates? >> the simplest answer is we are trying to make it as affordable as possible and city has contributed $97 million for things like this in the past and continues to do it. we thought some contribution from the city was appropriate. it was policy call. >> is there a possibility that -- what would it represent to have participants pay for reserves. is there a possibility? what would that cost? >> i will ask mr. -- he will need a minute. do you have another question? >> sure. we can come back to that. why don't we go to the next

supervisor. supervisor kim. >> thank you. actually after some discussion i discussed with supervisor campos i didn't realize the p.u.c. had capacity or sensitivity to exclude certain buildings in the first phase. i propose we exclude buildings in the first phase of customers we outreach to, given the complications you stated but many of our most vulnerable rate payers live here and most often are low-income. that is the top concern many of my colleagues have. that would allow greater time for outreach as we phase in other parts of the city. >> yes, supervisor. we can do that. >> great. i just want to thank supervisor campos for that. i think that alleviates many of my concerns as we move forward with this program. supervisor campos.

>> thank you, madam chair. i want to piggy back on what supervisor kim was saying. i think that is a great suggestion. i think under state law we have to offer the program to everyone at some point. i think doing that in phase i makes a lot of sense. mr. harrington, i was wondering if you could touch on the issue of how we plan to do outreach in a culturally sensitive way. i know that is a concern for all of us here. we have a diverse population, multilanguage wall. if you can talk about that it would be greatly appreciated. >> i would be happy by to and happy to turn it over to juliet ellis, external affairs. juliet. >> juliet ellis, external manager for internal affairs. we have prioritized this years since we have been working on the development of the cca program. some of the things we have been talking about

internally as far as ensuring we be able to go deep into community os of color and communities that speak multiple languages, it includes partners with organizations that have a lot of direct access. for multihousing, not thinking about exclusion at this point, we were talking about working with some entitis that do the organizing and advocacy and do work on site within those units. this obviously may not be necessary within phase i if we exclude. then we have a request for proposal that was issued for a million dollars to have consultants come in and work with us. one of the key tasks within the development of the communication outreach education engagement plan as relates to cca is specifically about being able to reach out to multiple languages and to diverse communities.

with approval that is maybe the first and biggest task. we have been prioritizing and cuing up in preparation for that. >> thank you. i know that is a priority and one of the things you also will be doing as you are planning finaling an outreach, working with every supervisor. because your offices will have a better understanding of who the good -- the right partners would be in each district. so any insight you have would be greatly appreciated. >> i just wanted to say, we are happy to work with the p.u.c. i think one of the advantages is they are often fairly well organized. educating may be easier. i think the additional time is important. also the first phase we will get to see how it operators, what worked, what didn't. we know our most vulnerable and low income tenants live

in these buildings. many nonprofits own a good portion. i think we can spend that time working with them, educating them and seeing if this is the right fit for them and residents. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. just a quick question on what supervisor campos has indicated. we don't -- according to state rules we don't have to necessarily. we offer it in terms of opt-out so long as we provide opt-in opportunity for everybody. is that right? >> state law requires all residential customers at some point go through the opt-out. >> they all have to go through the opt-out. >> we have targeted precincts we believe have the greatest opt in choice so there will be more information before we go to those that may have people who don't want to join. >> you couldn't structure the program that once you had adequate customers you could stop and do opt-in but have to roll out opt-out to every customer?

>> yes. at some point -- ma ren has been up and now at the point of doing the larger opt-out. it can be done however you want but at some point has to be offered all residential, not business. >> supervisor? >> thank you. a question of what is happening in marin. how broadly has their version of clean power been marketed? throughout the whole county? >> they started with most but not all. it's been so successful that all have joined the program. richmond across the bay is trying to join also. they are in the process of having that happen. it is a program growing. those doubting it in some of the communities have now chosen to join in. all of marin, now expanding. >> in terms of the outreach to a lot of communities that might need extra help in terms of communication, having language services that are available to

understand the program, what was the experience in marine like? do we have any information about that? >> i don't know. i'm looking at lafco staff to see if they have heard anything. i think in fairness we would have a richer language and multicultural thing in san francisco. >> true. but there are places in marine like the canal, san rafael, where you would probably ned a strong program that is probably community based organizations that could help. wondering if there was any information we have from that experience that can show. >> we do not. we talk to them all the time so we can ask. >> i agree. what we have in san francisco is pretty rich to do that kind of outreach, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor ferl? >> i would say to follow onto supervisor kim's comments about sros, i appreciate the comments. if we go down that slope we have a lot of senior homes in district two i think

fall in the same category that i think would benefit greatly. if we are going to go down the road of excluding certain ones i ask that become a priority as well. i think elderly folks are part of it the population that i'm concerned about, about kind of not being aware about the scenario. there are a larger amount of homes in district two that if we will go exclude because to be vulnerable and so forth i would ask we consider that as well. >> we can try anything you like. to be clear, sros were never en included. the whole point is they are the master meter. we are only going after single occupancy or individual meters. apartments with multiple meters we are going after. sros, master meter, they weren't there. no problem with that. the database we use, the pg&e database, i don't believe it has age in it. >> we can work together on the individual ones, because that would be important. >> thank you. did you get an answer with

regard to the rates on reserves? >> we assumed that it would be a couple cents more per kilowatts. so for tier one, if we absorb and have rate payers pay for the funds, it would go from $9.50 to $11.50 a month, so a $2 increase for higher end. of course it goes higher. on average it is about $4 or $5 more per customer per month. we thought it was reasonable amount the city could kick in. it could be changed. >> so that is something we could as policy makers choose to do, is say let's have the program be self-sufficient, pay for itself. remove the city's contribution. >> we could do that. we would probably urge you not to. just because, again, it is what you -- we have spent so much money for so much less value on so many programs to say this is the first program that has huge value. we intend to spend no money

to make it work. just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but would be a policy call. >> this would be something you could phase i want? >> yes. >> in the rate-setting process could you say you would phase in customers actually paying for their reserves? >> instead of the average of 5% raise it could be higher than that and start to capture that. yes, it is possible. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i understand the point. i think what mr. harrington said is true. we are getting a big bang for the buck. the residents are close to 100 million and 6,000 plus. i do think maybe that is a conversation as the program progresses we can revisit. i think that is something we can always revisit. starting out i don't know if that is necessarily is

best approach, thank you. >> starting out we clearly need to put city money up front because it has to be in the bank. it is how fast we pay ourselves back. >> great. i think there is a value to -- if we are saying that we want to sort of remove the risk, we want to have the program be self-sufficient, we want that this is a choice, that people choose to create this program, they choose the premium to have green energy. you know, it makes sense they pay for the reserve that is there as well. that would free up the funding for the city to invest in the infrastructure we need as well for the rest of -- >> see your point, supervisor. >> the rest of the puc's operations. why don't we go to office of economic analysis.

as you are going through your report, i know there are rates we are hearing about in terms of what the puc has versus what you have. just for reflection about what your analysis assumes. >> certainly. good afternoon, ted egan, controller's office of economic analysis. last month our office issued

(audio difficulty)

payments that would be made by shell covering the 4.5 year period. and additional programs the p.u.c. is implementing. those total 19.5 million, of which 13.5 go to suppliers, shell and noble americas. they really represent essentially a withdrawal of that amount of money of government spending in that time period. it would come back in four and a half years, though