organization, ourboñ?ñ? city. you probably remember a couple of weeks ago we had ag;á major island, and it became necessary to test the water#y&w(r there,e sure it was safe for people to continue drinking it. is that this dovetails with another problem you've probablyf seen in the papers around treasure island, and that is that there is a possibility of much more radiocontamination therekf;4ç than theymyñ?ñ? hadt previously. there's been a lot of controversy,hñ?ñ and debate botn the state level and on the city level about this. notably, when many of us/e7jkyéo board hearings about the budget and finance and;uñ?ñ?ñ said, los is serious, you need to put on the brakes and really make sure problems out there, and one of the things that waspoñ? highligd by treasure island residents an3

environmental organizers is that the water needs to be checked not just for microbe+=)qí&z4÷ñ?s probably who sf puc did but outrageously, the staff response at treasure islandyñ?ñ? is eithr that oh, we don't have to worry about radiation getting into the pipes because the pipes have pressure, and so nothing can commissioner moran's not here tell you that that's añeñ?ñ? lus assertion. water pressure goes away and materialsvxc of the pipes can leak in through cracks. so i was hoping that you folksçp could contact staff, and if they still have the water samples thatdmqmn they took to follow un thatñsñ?ñ?ñ accident, please hoo

them,tvtl see if they can do a wider contaminants and radiation. there are going to be other to follow up and do a much better jobmñ?ñ? on scoping out s going on at treasure island. but that might be anxlñ?ñ? opportunity, if you still got well, and see if there's any problem. thanks. >> president torres: anylñ?ñ? further public comment? there being none would you call torres,pqñ?ñ?ñ here, vice presit courtney, kñ?ñ? here, vice prest caen. >> president torres: we havezdña quorum. accepting thepyksj minutes froñ october 23rd meeting, we'll moved by commissioner courtney, seconded+vñ?ñ? by commissioner . those in favor signal by saying aye.

are approved. communicates, we have a list of communicationsñ?ñ? that have occurred to the commission. item no. 6 is the adoption of theñ?ñ?

>> again, it's a pleasure and honor for usjáñ?ñ? to honor sano county supervisor rose jacob gibson. bit from this resolution that we're presenting to you:ññ?ñ? t. the san francisco public utilities commission is pleased to recognize you for your distinguished service on thenúñ? san mateo county board of supervisors for the past 13 years. throughout your remarkable career, you have shown leadership, vision,?yw]9,n4"ow)d growth and prosperity in the peninsula bay area. you've performed outstanding]ñ?ñ collaborative work with the puc,

regionally. you proved unfailing support for our small firm adviñ?ñ?sory committee, which expand the outreach of lb's and small and microbusinesses add made significant increases to the bidding pool, resulting in cost savings to our ratepayers. and finally, your commitment in empowering at-risk youth under the san mateo county job training program prepared them]? to become apprentice on the puc regional construction projects. therefore, be it resolved we you, supervisor, for the achievement and the extent of our congratulations and best wishes to you on the occasion of your retirement. thank you very much. >> [applause.]

>> thank you verysçñ?ñ? much. i'm very much humbled andthñ?ñ? surprised by the recognition. i greatly appreciate all of you? it's good to see you haven't forgot the privilege of meeting each of you but i have the pleasure of knowing art torres. good to see you. >> president torres: good to -- we were working in the'ññ?ñ? gardens in the right of way. our relationship has grown, and it has become stronger overvñ?ñe

years. and i have really haveçñ?ñ? appreciated the willingness to work with, and expand[iñ?ñ? andk and -- throughout the region. so i]tñ?ñ? greatly appreciate te relationship that we actually have. i'm hoping that!jñ?ñ? it will continue. i would certainly -- having a conversation withgçñ?ñ? the incg supervisors so that he'spcñ?ñ?ñe of benefits of the actually working with the sf puc amkcjk e continue the improvement project, especially, but also because there are going to be -- there are likely to be other things in eastñ?ñ? palo alto ha have not been discussed or agreed upon, but were there discussion as relates to0yñ?ñ? r needs and also some of thebyñ?

>> everyone knows we don't really ever retire. >> president torres: yes. if you come up, we'll take a picture with you and the commission.

pngetsz thank you, supervisor. please continue. >> so the next item is a update of the clean power sf, barbara hill. >> good afternoon, commissioners. barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. i have distributed and available on the table our latest timeline of activities for clean power sf. one item i want to draw your attention to is that, today, we will be asking you later in the agenda to approve the implementation plan that's required under state law to be filed at the california public utilities commission. we already had one filed and approved. now that we have modified the program, identified our counterparty who will be

providing our full requirement supply, we need to revise the filed plan, and that is item 16 on the agenda today. so that's one of the early items in the timeline that i distributed. i also wanted to give you a preview of the materials we'll be going over at the joint meeting, between the puc and lafco, that's on november 30. wanted to give you an opportunity to preview it. we will be asking you to take action on november 30, on our customer notification and education plan, and to release the remaining fund for our communications contract. so what i have before you is -- i think very consistent with the direction you've given us, and

with the amended legislation, the amended program. so the customer notification and education plan that we are developing is based on the market research and community engagement that we've already conducted. it inc. rates this new -- incorporates this new component of early notification period. this early notification period is intended to be consistent with mayor lee's direction with the board of supervisors direction, with your intent, that we ensure all san franciscans are well informed about the program, and have had an opportunity to express their level of interest in it, given the level of financial commitment, they will be making as a household to the program, and its enhanced renewable attributes relative to

the supply that pg&e is currently providing. in that early notification period, we're going to be reaching out to between 10 and 20,000 households here in the city, to ask them to express their level of interest. once we've informed them about the rates that they would see, what sort of a premium we could expect them to pay, what the character of the supply is, once we educate them about the program, this is intended to be a face-to-face conversation, or a phone-to-phone conversation, where we'll really have a chance to test our prospective customers level of interest. it's our intention then to have a real solid read for you on the level of interest, prior to coming to you, and asking for authority to sign for the general manager to sign the contract with shell energy north

america and kick the program o off. that early notification period needs to meld well with the formal launch of the statutory opt out period, that's the opt out program we've talked about before that's required by the state. so we want those two components to work well together. we'll be presenting to you our key communication strategies and our overall budget, and again the proposed clean power sf timeline that factors in these changes, and in particular the early notification period concept. to given you a quick overview of the timeline, and with an emphasis on the action item for you, i'm turning to slide three, where, at this time period, we are reaching out to yourselves, to members of the board, to the mayor's office, we having the

joint meeting with lafco to make sure we're really on track with the intentions from the board and the mayor, making sure that we are putting together a customer notification education plan that's supportive of your intentions. we'll be asking you to approve that plan on the 30th, in the joint meeting, and also to allow us to go forward with the communications consultant, our contractor. then in the first quarter of next year, we expect we will be surveying -- conducting our third citywide survey of prospective customers. we will then be presenting to you our adopted not to exceed rates, asking you to adopt -- excuse me, the not to exceed rates for the program in february. then that will start under the rate requirements, that will start the 30 day clock, where the board of supervisors will then have an opportunity to

consider their comfort with those not-to-exceed rates. and then by mid-march, we'll know if we have a program offering that the policy-makers agree is affordable to san franciscans. then in the second quarter, we'll begin that early notification effort that i mentioned. and we'll be coming to the commission in june to ask each of you to review the findings of the customer survey of our early notification efforts, and authorize mr. kelly to sign the shell energy north america master agreement. by the third quarter of 2013, we should be -- we should have signed our shell energy north america master agreement, and be testing then, with shell, what

the actual prices are that they can bring the supply to us at. recall that under the master agreement, once that agreement is signed, we have five months to settle on, with shell, the price, the wholesale price that we will commit to for the megawatt hours we're purchasing from them. if during that five month period we can't come to an agreement, we don't believe the price they're bringing to us will result in a program that we can successfully provide to our customers, then after that five month period we may -- we have the discretion to say thanks, but no thanks, we are -- we're not going to go further with this program offering with shell. likewise, they could also walk away, no harm, no foul, no financial obligation. if we aren't able to reach agreement on what that price should be. they will solicit the market for what the market will sell power

to them for, then they will bring that to us and say are you ready to commit. we may go through a couple of rounds of that before we get to a price point that we think, as staff, we should bring to you for consideration. but we do have a limited time period in which to have that effort run its course. once we have settled on a confirmation, assuming we do, with shell energy north america, then we would be making that commitment to purchase the supply from them. we estimate it will cost about $38 million, and it will be for four and a half years under -- as defined in the master agreement that you've already authorized. once that confirmation is complete, if it gets completed we will start the statutory opt out requirements and begin our overall education and notification process with the

rest of san francisco, if you will, making sure that folks that we're targeting for service really understand the offering. and then that means we will complete statutory opt out period and launch the program in the october to december timeframe of 2013. >> president torres: okay. >> thank you very much. >> president torres: any -- >> happy to take any questions. >> president torres: any questions from the commissioners? commissioner caen. >> commissioner moller caen: a slide one, there are even suggestion -- but what happens when we do the analysis? and the analysis shows a negative impact? >> so if we -- when we go out to customers, if they tell us they're not interested we will come back to you and report that and we'll have a decision point for going forward. that's the intention of the engagement with customers early

on, is to really test their level of interest. so that will be another opportunity for you, to give us direction on how to proceed with the program. >> president torres: we'll also have further discussion at lafco joint meeting on the 30th here at city hall and obviously all commissioners are welcome to attend that meeting of which i will be there of course. public comments, mr. decosta, you wanted public comment on item 7(b), you said. >> commissioners, way back in the year 2000, some of us stakeholders used to regularly meet at 77 -- to discuss our energy issues, and we looked at the regional-wide. at that time, unfortunately, sf

puc was intent to putting some combustion turbines, you know, to the detriment of what we're talking today. the way i want it look at this is that we seem to be talking in generalities. and really what we should be talking is line item by line item, so that whoever does or pays the bills in the homes, knows exactly what they are getting. now recently some of you all who pay attention to the news, you all notice what hurricane -- some of our folks haven't got their electricity and it's been weeks. i say this because in all those deliberations, one of the things we have to pay attention to is who has proprietary jurisdiction

over the transmission lines, who has proprietary jurisdiction to do the maintenance and how much of this information is being deliberated. now, i have a -- some set of chart over here and they're talking about twin power sf stakeholders meeting 1:00 to 2:00 pm that already took place on november 7. i don't know why they put this out, but if at all such a meeting took place for one hour, i think it's a joke. this is such an important issue that it takes normally four or five hours. you know, you just can't get into it and say okay -- and the meeting is over, no. there are many, many factors, many, many elements, many, many facets that have to be discussed. so, commissioners, i am the director of environmental

justice advocacy. and it behooves me to bring my experience, the last 40 years i've been dealing with these issues at the presidio, here there and everywhere, i've paid my dues, but let us not keep the public out. we have astute people in san francisco. let us give our input. the more outreach we do, the better results we get, but let's not, you know, dictate something that people will just go with the flow. ain't going to happen. thank you very much. >> president torres: well said. any other public comments on item 7(b)? >> good afternoon. again, commissioners, eric brooks once again representing san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization in our city. so first, one quick technical note. aisle take a david pilpel -- after all, and that is i believe

the board of supervisors in the legislation that passed, decided to adopt a five year, not a four and a half year shell contract. that could be staff is going ahead with four and a half anyway. i think it has latitude to do had that but you might want to k there's not a disconnect there. more importantly i unfortunately have to raise a red flag on our process and that is that -- you know, over the past couple of years, we've had some great harmony with staff. staff has been really good. i think we've achieved a lot, and the fact that there's past in september and we're on our way is very impressive. however in the last couple of stakeholders meetings, we, in the advocacy community, have become somewhat alarmed, and somewhat may be an understatement. in those stakeholders meetings we finally got the 400,000 -- a

lot of the results from the $400,000 worth of work that we've been asking for years that you do to prepare for the local installation of hundreds of megawatts of renewables in san francisco. we also knew that once that information was prepared, and we just got introduced to their initial financial model that they came up for the project, incorporating the build-down as we've said for years, local power has shown a financial model that can launch the program in tandem with what we're doing with shell in a way that can bring in up to 97,000 customers at price parity with pg&e, not at a premium. and that is absolutely crucial. that means we can offer ratepayers something that will be the same price as pg&e, except for the exit escape charge that pg&e gets. that will be a small increase. during those discussions, it became clear to us that staff

seems intent on just continuing with the current track this they were prepared to do which is focusing on the shell contract. this radically changes potentials for how we're going to roll out the shell project, what pricing we will set for shell. we need the rate fairness board to make sure we're analyzing this information and if what local power is presenting is going to work we need to adopt that, and not a program that has this huge premium that's going to scare off customers. i will speak to this when we get to item 19 but i wanted to raise that that we're now in a -- we need to get back together on this and that you see what local power is doing so we can get the best deal for ratepayers that we can get. thanks. >> president torres: thank you. any further comments on item 7(b)? all right. >> next item is annual financial

audit and auditor's presentati presentation. >> good afternoon. todd rydstrom, assistant general manager and cfo. i am pleased to be before you today because i believe this is one of the most important things that our ratepayers look at as well as you in your oversight of the sf puc. i'm joined again by the partner in charge of kpmg tiffany ras mussen our independent auditor, who you along with the controller's office looked to financial statements. i'm pleased to present to you today our fourth year of clean audits for all three enterprises. upon that is a remarkable achievement and i want to

particular point out and call out deputy cfo francis lee as well as deputy cfo charles pearl who runs accounting operations. myself along with app take a lot of care. this shows you the last five years of all three enterprises and the most important thing to notice is that it shows clean audit opinions and no material findings over the last four years. so we've continued that trend. >> president torres: on that point, after reading these voluminous audits, one thing was striking to me and that's the assistance program. and i think there were 28 recommendations, as i recall. and those recommendations are being implemented to ensure that people are not taking advantage of the program that don't -- that are not eligible because they are way beyond the low income level. is that correct? >> that is correct. in fact those audit findings as well from the community

assistance program, which then dovetails into the financial audits, show that we have already addressed -- we've gone out to all of those identified accounts, looking at them, reverifying them, in those cases where there is ineligibility, backfilling and getting collections already. >> president torres: what was the nature of why that wasn't done in the first place? >> the nature of that in the first place was that we, in the spirit of administrative efficiency, trusted and counted on the pg&e care program as a proxy for participant eligibility. and what we found is that, based upon that, that's not good enough and we needed to do our own eligibility by looking at participants' tax returns as well as their income verification to make sure that we were stretching our low income affordability assistance program as much as possible. >> president torres: so 46% of ineligible people is unbelievable and i'm so happy