go to another echelon, we are less likely to approve this. >> given the polling results, yes. i remember polling by nature. it is a sample of san franciscans, it is not everyone. it is helpful and we can pull it up on the map. soint the board here. what you see here is san francisco and the districts, supervisorial districts. the darker green coloring is more likely that precinct is to have a population that says yes, we want to stay with the program. you can see throughout san francisco how receptive the polling says the customer base is. we are proposing in the

first phase to target households and achieve about 90,000 accountholders saying yes, please. there are 230,000 residential accounts in san francisco. if our projection of that first 90,000 account holders is wrong, we can reach out to more customers and see if others are interested. we are really looking at this customer outreach and education campaign as a way to make sure we are signing up the right folks who really want the program. but yes, we have done our homework to see if there is an appetite. this map shows you the results of that effort. >> i have seen all those studies. may i have the map up again, please. still on the board, we have

overhead, please? thank you. okay. you are saying the panhandle -- >> the dark green. >> so you see gray area. >> the dark green is over on the bay side. >> yes. >> and by candlestick, you are saying. excuse me. at&t park. >> yes. >> i don't like it when we lose to -- >> you see in district six and district nine and district eight, some in 2. quite a bit of green area. those are areas, those precincts we are proposing to target initially. with preenrollment for the phase i target we are hoping to really touch folks and have them saying -- expressing their level of interest in advance of

coming out with the state required opt-out portion of the education and notification. >> i'm confused about one, which is the panhandle. to me that is blue. is that really green? >> yeah, i'm sorry. the coloring is coming across, oddly. the panhandle proper, as a park, you can see the fing their comes out from golden gate park right here. that is gray. that is the panhandle. all around it is dark green and slightly lighter green to the south of the panhandle. >> i see. so the blue is really golden gate park. >> yes, yes. the blue-gray, yes. and the presidio also.

>> we are hoping to build on this with customer education and campaign, where we are signing up folks for this clean power sfs program that want the program. no surprises. that know the approach. >> that is ahead of time? >> no surprises is ahead of time, yes. >> okay. >> couple questions. going back to some of your earlier slides, you show it as a 30 megawatt program. we had reserved i think that decision for later action. >> 20 to 30 megawatts i believe is -- up to 30 megawatts is what commissions resolution said. >> there is a series of commission is going to have to do in the process of

implementing this program. that is one decision we have to make. the items as far as what prior resolution to be done, the intent of that was there would be a time at which the commission is able to look at the completed package and say have we done what we set out to do. is this ready to go. is it ready for prime time now. i don't see that on the schedule. i think there does need to be a point at which the commission takes a look at that. as far as the individual items that resolution called for, the one we have the least clarity on is the cpuc action. i think one of the things we will have to think about it is in the absence of their action how do we believe that affects the risk the city assumes in rolling out a program.

and figure out if that is within the envelope we anticipated. the hope is that would be a real number. that we could figure out how we are going to fund that. >> right. >> and make a very quantitative decision at that point. looks as though it will be a lot harder to quantify that risk but we will need to do that at some point. we also have to have at some point amend the ten-year financial plan that we did not show the appropriation of reserves in the existing plan so when we go through that again in whenever it is, january, february, we will have to update that and have a more mature look at what the financials are, what that impact will be over time. there is a lot to be done there. one of the things i would hope we could do is set up

as specific a program as we can so this commission can continue to be involved in monitoring what needs to be done and key decisions that needs to be made. in essence we are starting a new business. >> yes. >> what is theoretical is actually now and we need to make sure we are paying attention to the detail that is on that. perhaps one of the key ones is that whole rollout methodology that we choose, the board's inclination was clear, i agree with it. that may lead us to one answer versus another on the 20 to 30. there may be other parts of that as well that we want to look at. we have done another round, as i understand it, of surveys of customer acceptance that give us slightly different numbers that have some implication

for that as well. that's a lot of stuff. what i would hope that you did layout for us, as soon as possible and not waiting for the meeting with lafco but to layout for us as soon as possible what the road map is of issues that need to be resolved, of actions that need to be taken so we have clear benchmarks to make sure we are on track and make sure we are expressing opinions, taking actions and decisions where we have to -- >> yes. we have a much more detailed time line that staff is working toward. perhaps that would be helpful to share so you can see the realms of activity that have to occur successfully to the point that get us back to you to come back and say that final step of may we launch the program. >> right. i think it may be that we have -- wesip is in such fast action that we ask wesip come before us every

meeting and give us an update so we are not waiting for the quarterly reports. this is another one, it would be helpful to have an update on every meeting that we -- here is what we intended to do, here is what happened, then the commission can decide whether they want to weigh in or not. >> we can definitely do that. >> thank you. >> okay. >> any other thoughts or comments? >> very quickly, could we have a copy of that map? >> yes. you can leave it today. >> thank you. >> i have extra copies. >> mike campbell still our clean power guy? >> no, no. >> as we are talking about this, i'm -- you know, missing him even more. mike resigned and went and took a wonderful

opportunity at the california public utilities commission, where he is going to head up one of the bureaus there in the rate payer advocacy group, which means we no longer have a director of the program. i'm beginning my outreach and recruitment for that. in the interim, however, we have a member of the team who has been working with mike who has stepped up to serve as our interim director. that is sheryl taylor. she is here today. thank you, sheryl. she's coming to us from todd reedstrom's team. she's been working side-by-side with mike. she will be the director as we pursue all the activities we have been talking about. >> great. >> i would encourage you to fill that position as quickly as possible. >> i'm feeling very motivated, commissioner. >> thank you. >> thank you all for your

feedback, appreciate it. >> thank you. this has been something that you have worked toward for a long time. it's now become real. >> yes. >> so the pace increases, the stakes go up, and i'm sure you will welcome all the help you can get. >> thank you very much. >> one of the things also that -- at some point i think we need a greater discussion and will be certainly as we move toward the races, that some of the actions of the board have increased the rate burden that will be there. and we will need to figure out what that does to people's acceptance of the program as well. one question i had for you that i just recall is the board wants us to have a discount program for low income people. that is intended to be on

top of the pg&e program. does the -- how does that -- is that really -- is pg&e still committed and obligated to a 20% reduction on all the bill, including energy? >> yes, pg&e is required under state statute as implemented by the california puc to include a 20% discount for customers enrolled in their rate payer assistance program. the board -- we had anticipated including the same 20% discount off the generation component of the rate, the part we are responsible for under clean power sf. the board made that a directive in the amendments. the board also told us unless we are able to

equalize the rate impact on low income customers that we should not include them in the first phases of the program. we are, as mr. kelly mentioned, we are not including low income customers in phase i. the overall 20% requirement is applied to the bill. to the electric portion of pg&e's bill. so low income customers will receive that benefit from pg&e, as required, and from us for the generation component of the bill. >> do they get it twice? >> it is applied to two separate components of the bill, yes. >> on the energy component, if we are providing the energy, we give them 20% on the energy. does pg&e also give 2% on the energy? >> not to my knowledge. i can double-check that. it is 20% on the portion

pg&e is billing them for. >> so the transmission, then. >> transmission, distribution. the pg&e component. >> serves as a bill. they will not get energy from pg&e. >> that makes sense but the way it was written, it was unclear whether there would be a double -- >> which would be great. i'm not sure if that is anybody's intent. if you can verify that, that would be helpful. >> you will hear more about the rate particulars as it goes through the rate fairness board process. that is where the rate issues are at this point. then we will bring it to you after we have their advice. >> okay, yes. >> can i ask one more question about -- you know, without removing it from the consent calendar, but on the contract. so on the outreach -- >> we are going to be taking that off the consent calendar. >> and discussing it? >> yes. >> i can wait. >> we have had a request for that.

anything else? any public comment? >> afternoon commissioners, joshua arsa. today wearing the hat of a commissioner over at the commission on the environment. and great to see you general manager kelly in that seat there. excited. so the one remark on clean power is let p.u.c. know we passed a resolution at our commission, i have copies to pass out. one of the things we were excited about -- i didn't see in it the staff report online but did see it here. can i just -- thanks. but i did hear somewhat of a reference in the presentation is for your reference we are excited over at the department of the environment at the commission on the environment, especially because we have a founding member at the puc, but we

added specifically on the floor, so to speak, this final further resolved about the sf commission on the environment urging our department on environment staff to partner with the san francisco public utility commission to create comprehensive education and outreach in effort to ensure broad understanding of and broad participation in the program. we are really excited about doing that. we are still working on the state of our joint meeting. we had to move it. one of our most seasoned veterans on the commission, joanna wilde was out of town. we are working with the chair and secretary hood. i would like to say we would like to get that conversation going. we have a program called environment now. it is a great program. we recruit in low income communities of color. we have approximately 70% local hire participation. it is an outreach program for the stuff we do. it is about 30% to 40%

residents of the southeast environmental justice neighborhoods that. is something we'd want to get pluged in with sfpuc as soon as possible. one other question, because we are trying to answer it at our commission, a question that's come up. we have talked a lot about the board's concerns that the staff presentation had highlighted around the board's concerns, but we know the mayor said let's move forward with the program. he didn't sign or didn't veto the legislation. we are wondering if there are any thoughts the mayor expressed about going forward for your department and ours and maybe your commission knows it because we have been trying to find out as well. so excited, thanks. >> thank you. >> mr. brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioner. eric burkes representing san francisco green party and local grassroots organization, our city. to back up what commissioner arsay said, the advocates are concerned about this issue of making sure the public is well

informed about what they are doing including non english speakers because the last thing we would want is to get this clean energy program off the ground that alienates and turns people off. that would be tragic and mean the overall uptick into a program would be much smaller and threaten the entire program. though advocates are pushing to solve the climate crisis we are mindful it is not helpful to not reach out well to the public. a quick note on the opt-in, opt-out issue, the reason this was created as an opt-out -- barbara sort of touched on this -- is that it is kind of like politicians. i'm sure all of you have watched city hall. when the mayor appoints someone to the board of supervisors and they run for reelection it is quite frankly easier to get the public to say oh well, you know, i have seen them in

action for at least a few months. i'm comfortable with this. i guessly stick with it. when you have an -- if it were just an opt-in, if we were to get the state to switch that and pg&e would inevitably spend several million at least in san francisco scaring people away from doing such a proactive opt-in, it would make it difficult to make enough people in the program to make it economically viable. what we want to do is make it an opt out but do aggressive communication to make sure the people that stay in the program know about it and want to be in it and are excited about it. then just to finish up, i want to get back again to the local build-out. the advocates are not only pushing for that local build-out as codified in the resolution that passed the board -- at the board of supervisors because it is great and green, but also because it is crucial to the economics of the

program. one of the amendments the board passed was that -- was directing the sfpuc to try to work in this initial bond -- this initial setaside that goes to make shell whole in case there is a problem into customer rates over time. and so the buildout work should be done around spring. we will be ready to release rfps. at that point we will be able to see the long-term economics of publicly owned and customer owned renewables and efficiency that will give us future revenues that we can apply to that rate structure to make it better, so people will be much more attracted to the program. we believe that we can even get better prices close to the -- in the first phase to the customer so that they like the program because it costs a little less than we expected. so make sure when we do the rate setting you consider that is the worst case scenario and we actually

need to try to use that build-out plan to get those rates and long-term rates down so people will be more excited about it. thanks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, david pilpal. this program is obviously complicated. i very much appreciate the commission's discussion and future discussions on making this work. i had not seen that map before either. i was very interested by it. i'm glad we will have more detailed reports prior to the ultimate question of whether it is ready to go. i'm kind of wondering out loud if the first phase -- and i'm interested in how the phasing works -- if it is just geographic or demographic or some blend because i heard about high

income, low income neighborhood, precincts, that sort of thing. i don't know how much discretion one has in designing the phases, so perhaps as part of the next report we could hear more about that with the map attached in some detail. i'm interested in the rate setting process. i love the rate fairness board and looking forward to their fun meets toing discuss this. but i'm also not sure if the rate setting for this particular endeavor, which i guess has to comply with the charter, whatever. ab125. and other requirements so that we are fiscally prudent but whether that also has to prop 218 requirements. i don't know if it does or doesn't. i guess i'm seeing that it doesn't. cost of service and reserve. so i think the rate setting is going to be interesting

and a little challenging in ways we haven't seen before because it is not just here is our cost of water, here is our -- but there are real design opportunities for how the rates are set that are conservation oriented, et cetera, et cetera. i'm sure that will play out in the next few months. we will see how that all goes, thank you. >> thank you. mr. jensen. >> thank you, art jensen with boss. i want to go back to the first item under the general manager's report. congratulations again, i'm sorry i couldn't be here at the first meeting. i was pleased with commissioner caen's commission in terms of over sight. i would like to speak to this. we anticipate answering questions on behalf of people holding us

accountable for watching what you are doing. we take that charge seriously. this is what we have done in the past. probably not a surprise for you. what we don't do is a technical review. we have technical experts, you are paying for those, we are paying you to pay for those. that all -- it is already done. what we look at are procedural questions and management questions. for instance recognizing -- first of all it should be said that this was identified because it was a safety issue. the construction contractor saw the problem. that is because they are trying to protect not only their business and work but also their workers. i think if commissioner courtney were here he would appreciate knowing that. that is where it originated. >> he is the empty chair here. [ laughter] >> yes. i'm not going to do my impersonation of clint eastwood. but one of the questions is should the problem have been anticipated,

recognized, discovered beforehand? if so, why not. in other words, were sufficient borings taken of the hillside, should more have been taken. they should have, why weren't they. has appropriate and timely action been taken since the problem was recognized? in other words, did things happen swiftly. were the right kinds of people brought on urgently and quickly to identify the problems, solutions and ways to mitigate potential impacts on not only construction safety but also costs and schedule. has ultimately at some point has liability for any failed opportunities or decisions been adequately pursued. issues have come up and we have tracked this. we are working with your staff. today we are pleased with the way they have gone about things, the swiftness in which they mobilized and

took action. this is unfolding. we will continue to track that. as in the past if we have any recommendations for the commission to consider, we will present those to you. i just want you to know there was another set of eyes looking, thank you. >> mr. jensen, you remind me we have a copy of letter from bosca to the state legislature making three specific requests. i will want to discuss that. probably in our next meeting with julie here and yourself. you have your report coming out. i would like to go through those very specific to your request and consideration of each of those. any other public comment on the general manager's report? seeing none, mr. general manager, do you have anything else for us? >> that concludes my first report. >> thank you. it was a lot longer than

the last. if you would call consent. >> 8a, approve contract 41 for not to exceed of $5 million to lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder, your be a buena construction incorporated. * accept work by j & b incorporated for wd2556 and authorize final payment to contractor. approve selection of davis and associates, agreement cs-227 and authorize general manage tore execute general services agreement with with davis and associates with amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for five years. d, approve and authorize general manage tore execute revokable permit to the beautification association. >> we have a request item 8c be removed for

discussion. any other items to be removed? seeing none, could i have a motion on items 8a, b and d. moved and seconded. all in favor, aye. item carries. item 8c. mr. pilpal. >> david pilpal. with regard to this item i have no objection to the recommended contractor. i just had a couple points here. this is a not to exceed amount so i hope we don't spend all of this money in this way. i think we have done well over the last few years by having as much of the marketing and customer education community outreach activities be done by staff rather than consultants. there was a choice made some years ago to hire more

folks essentially on tyrone's team than do this with outside contractors. so i hope we will limit the work that goes to this contractor to just those things that the staff is not particularly good at for whatever reason. tv production, whatever. in fact, some of those things could be done through sfgtv, perhaps. i think as much as possible things should be done by staff and not contractors. the other point i wanted to make is there was discussion earlier this year. maybe even last year at the civil service commission on the scope of the approval to go outside on this work. and consistent with commissioner arsay's comments that the department and environment has the environment now team that. portion that really is door-to-door would be more appropriate for the environment new staff, which are more directly