these polls, you've always taken a very conservative approach to who is actually participating in the program which is why in some cases you see these are city-wide numbers and they're a little bit lower in my opinion than what you will actually get if you were to launch city-wide because of how the program is set up. and it's also, remember we're not going city-wide we're going to a targeted area. when you look at that dark green area on your map you're looking at 60, 65% participation. so you're looking at something a little bit different than these numbers in the big picture look at. i want to make sure we're focusing on big picture city-wide we're looking a. we're not launching city-wide. we're launching to a focused area. i would imagine you'll get a few more customers in the program because you're looking at for the smaller customer base, the tier 1 customer. you're looking for the highest percentage of those because those are where the price points are the most -- are the closest to pg&e and where people are more likely to participate in the program because it's not as big a hit on their overall pocketbook. the final thing i wanted to mention on the prices is to the

degree you can get the widest price as possible, look at your -- what is your lightest green mix and darkest green mix. as commissioner courtney asked a very good question. we had price points. we've already had price points from previous surveys. when you compare 2011 and 2012 the line is close together people who stay, even though the price differences are there. when you chart it out all together you see it very close together. i imagine depending how you do your calculations on this one you will see a very similar thing. the other thing to keep in mind is these numbers you're seeing in the polls include care customers in some of the polls. and, so, therefore, since we're not looking at incorporating care customers into the first phase your numbers once again will be a little bit higher as far as participation rates. want to encourage you to make sure you're giving the staff the greatest leeway in where the price points are because the greater your price point leeway the better -- you won't have to come back and do another survey to find out now we have our exact price what are we looking at? you'll be able to chart out a

much better synopsis using the in-depth numbers out of the survey. thank you. >> the pollsters are making a lot of money on it. correct. >> the other question i have, however, is before we get to mr. brooks is, who is in charge -- who is overseeing the pollster here, you are? >> yes, together with agm ellis' staff. >> are they doing focus groups? >> focus group efforts were done previously. >> what town? >> what we're doing now is city-wide survey poll. >> there are so many recent complications and so much new information that i think it would be helpful at some point to get some focus group information in terms of what -- ms. ellis is nodding yes? >> [inaudible]. yes. >> so, you talked about doing

the focus group and you intend to do some focus group? >> right, with particular customer segments and in particular with the low end customer segment. * groups >> right. i think you'll find, you'll find some very relevant answers. >> yes. we're also anticipating that -- [multiple voices] >> a good group to do focus group work with as opposed to a poll as well. >> telephonic polls are not going to give you that kind of information. >> yes. >> first of all. secondvly, the focus groups are always used to drill down into what the confusion is coming from and what education still needs to be made. ms. ellis. >> again, juliet he will et, agm [speaker not understood] affairs. we've been talking about doing focus groups with commerce customers and to hone down with regard to the messaging. and, so, as you're saying, doing a phone survey will only give us kind of 10,000 feet. * it won't allow us to finesse it around where people confused what additional information resonates with folks. >> so, did anyone -- has anyone

talked to marin as to what kind of experience they've had with the staff, upgrading staff, increasing staff in order to accommodate questions from the consumers? >> yes, we have, and we are scheduling a field trip to join them more directly as well. >> yes you have and you're going to -- >> yes, we have talked with them about their staffing needs, what their ramp up rates were. we've followed their public -- >> what were they, what were the ramp up rates? >> they required two additional staff. >> that's all? >> since they launched. they had borrowed staff from within the county services that were, that were loaned to the joint power authority. those staff have become permanent. so, at this point they have one attorney. they have an executive director. and then they have three, three or four program staff. they have a vacancy posted for one additional program staff. their program is administering

contracts. they have a professional services contract with an outside counsel and a professional services contract with a consulting firm that provide them with advice on the wholesale contracting and the local build components that they've implemented. >> okay. i just want to make sure we're examining every option and every crevice we need to look into. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. brooks. good afternoon again. >> yes. >> > commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco green party and local grassroots organization our city. first a quick note on marin. * while we would be the first to raise marin as the example that you can get a lot closer price parity in whatever program you put forward, price parity with pg&e, there is an issue in that we must set a different example from -- in san francisco that

because marin did not make a primary driver of its program local installation, to date they're only building about one or two megawatts a year of renewables. and that is not enough. it will take them a century to replace their power under that scenario. and that is exactly why we're pushing a different scenario for san francisco. so that within five years or so, we can replace half of our power. it's a big deal. so, to what's presented to -- in front of you in your conversation right now, i'm sorry, but we have gotten badly off track in this conversation and we need to push the reset button on it in a couple different ways. >> today's conversation or previous? yes. part of it is that the presentation that was put before you, especially page 9, is absolutely not in any way accurate when it's describing

the "like lpi" scenario. and i'll try to get into that later. but the main thing i want to reset is this light green, dark green stuff. light green means you present like they did in marin, you present the customers an option that is a percentage green, like 25%, they're up to 50% now. recs is not light green. the point is that the latest model that local power put before us is not light green at all. it's 100% green with the jobs, with price parity with pg&e. on pg&e's current rates, not pg&e's 100% green rate. and that's using all california recs and pg&e is using basically bad recs, recs that are not as good. the point is both what pg&e is proposing and local power are proposing are 100%. they're not light green. even though you can argue that

pg&e in reality actually is. so, i don't know how we got off on this track of saying that what [speaker not understood] is proposing is light green because it's not. it's 100% using recs in a different way. using hetch hetchy, and using that power mix to get it all to the set up so that we're reaching price parity. and that's the key with the survey. the survey that is proposed to be done is not including the scenario that local power has [inaudible]. we need to also be asking customers, if you could get the same price as pg&e 3,000 jobs a year and you can get 100% green project, would you go for that? and the answer, of course, would probably be yes. that's not included in the survey work that's being done and it needs to be put in there before they pull the trigger. we need all three scenarios to be laid out, not just the two that are in front of you, that

are very -- like i said, and like lpi, doesn't even include the shell component at all. it's just a totally different mix that sfpuc staff went off on a corner and came up with on its own. we didn't even know they were going to present this. they haven't discussed it with the stakeholders. they have not discussed it with local power. and what's been put before you is wildly inaccurate. and we need -- what we need to do to counteract that is to get the staff to start doing what they were doing, what [speaker not understood] the gm which was meeting at the table with local power and stakeholders and all working collaboratively together. that collaboration has almost completely ceased since ed harrington left. and it is why we've got this diverge entitle views being put before you that are not the same. so, sorry to rant, but we've got to get this back on track. >> let's not get off track either making implications like

that is not warranted. we can back them up. we can show you -- [multiple voices] >> what i'm referencing is that there is some collusion between the general manager and staff to thwart the voices of local power. that's not what i'm saying. i'm just saying we've lost our communication lines and we're not communicating any more. so, what's being put before you is total confusion. we've got to get back to working together and we're not. >> so, let me just -- >> wait, one question before we let the general manager respond. so, how would you change the numbers on the mix in the shell? well, the point is that what sfpuc has put before you is some number crunching that they did on their own that we haven't seen seen the spreadsheets for. >> you said it's weighedvly inaccurate. that implies to me you know what is accurate. what is accurate is local power has * if you looked at their model it's very detailed.

it's a very elegant thing. and what they're -- when you plug all this stuff including the shell contract and all of their components like hetch hetchy and the 85% recs, bucket 3 recs, and all that stuff mixed in together, their price comes out, at most, on the generation line, just on the generation line at most, 10% higher than pg&e. and that's only in the first year. what sfpuc staff has just put -- >> 10% higher than current pg&e. right. what sfpuc staff has somehow come up with, then it can't be right, is that they've put before you a "like lpi price" that is 70% higher than the lpi projected. and none of us, because they haven't been communicating with us about this new presentation, we have no idea where that came from. you know, maybe they're right, but i doubt it. but even if they are, we wouldn't know because there's been no communication and

collaboration. >> well, [speaker not understood] believes in transparency and communication. right. we need to get back to that. >> the general manager? >> yeah, i just wanted to point out and i do take exception because under ed harrington the issue that he brought in front of the board of supervisors was a premium, a $10 premium. i remember him saying that pg&e is like putting lip stick on a pig. and, so, the issue is we're still presenting a premium. so, nothing has changed about a premium. it's just that lpi is now saying that if we do all the build out, it can be at par with pg&e [speaker not understood]. and it was the direction of the commission saying it was so complicated that we will hold the program up and we had the board of supervisors saying you need to move forward with the premium. and, so, we were directed by nancy moran to decouple that. so, what we presented here with the two issues that he

articulated to us is look at the mix of hetchy power and then look at the recs. and, so, what we did is we went exactly what he did, and that's what the basis of this column. now, i know there may be three or four points on here that you do not agree or lpi needs to talk about, but i just wanted to make the point, is that it's still the premium that ed brought up when he went to the board of supervisors that we're presenting now. and, so, he never -- i don't think he agreed that the pg&e -- i mean, we can be at par with pg&e. staff, did anyone, everyone is saying -- i just take exception to saying that it is a change from general managers. >> my understanding also the staff has met with lpi at least twice a month. is that true? >> yes, but the communication has broken down almost completely. do you mind if i take like 30

seconds to respond? >> go ahead. >> so, the key is that what's on page 9 is not the same model. >> okay. >> doesn't include the shell component. it's a completely different model. and the issue with communication is not -- i agree, ed harrington never thought we could get price parity. the point is when he was personally investing himself in that process, we were all communicating with each other. so that we could figure out who was right and who was wrong. >> well, all i'm saying is what i've been told and i respect that to be accurate and that is staff has a meeting twice a month with lpi. we can have a conversation about it off line. but the meeting don't mean communication and the communication has become almost nonexistent between all of us. >> so, you meet in a room and you guys don't talk? we're meeting in a room and half the time we're literally arguing with each other. >> oh, okay. i mean it's not good. >> i don't want to go there. i didn't really want to go

too far into that, but it is something we do have to start dealing with. >> commissioner moran? >> mr. kelly spoke about the direction i had given to staff. let me be clear about that. what i was doing was repeating and now perhaps what lpi told us at the last meeting. we were very specific to ask within phase 1, not including the build out, within phase 1 was it lpi's position you could get to price parity by doing two things. it was including hetchy power and by doing a different combination of recs. and my question to staff was can we support that. how do we -- taking those two issues -- can we get to the same answer? and that's what they set out to do. and i will tell you, mr. brooks has made comments about staff not getting it and i take offense at that.

they get it. ms. hale and mr. reedstrom are very bright, very sophisticated people. they understand numbers and they can take a concept and they can make it real with real numbers. if lpi is incapable of convincing them of those numbers, then they have not convinced me. so, what i had hoped that they would do is be able to make their proposal real in a way that could be quantified, in a way that very intelligent and sophisticated people can incorporate those numbers, and test the proposition. so far the answer has been that the proposition fails, okay. and if lpi has better information to share, they should do that. >> president, commissioners, arthur feinstein, chair of the chapter of the sierra club. * i work on wetlands and wildlife

issues usually so i share with you the fact this is a little complex and difficult issue to address. but i have been to several technical advisory and stakeholder meetings and several hearing rate board and diving in and trying to understand this very complex issue. i haven't, just put it out there. but i have been going to these meetings and there is not a healthy dynamic between -- i am not attributing blame anywhere, you know. we're all trying to get to the end goal. but it has been difficult. going to these meetings i've been somewhat surprised and both sides i think deserve blame, or at least responsibility for the failure to actually work collaboratively the way i would expect a contractor and client to work. so, it's been extremely difficult for me to figure out what the heck is going on.

lpi continues and they have a very, seem to me, fairly sophisticated program of analysis saying that they can get close to parity with pg&e with the recs and hetch hetchy. we've just seen today that staff has did not their own analysis and it is not in the same place. i don't know who is right and who is wrong. but it's not a good way to function. and i personally don't believe either side has ultimate knowledge of what's right and that's why you bring people together to talk it out and it's just not being talked out. and i don't have a solution for you all, but i think you have to recognize that you're having a real problem. lpi should have skills. you hired them, you know. and these people seem to understand what they're talking about. your staff has skills and seem to know what they're talking about. i have a great difficulty in trying to figure out why they can't talk together.

half of it seems to be problems over contracts which often gets to the root of things, you know. you owe me money so i'm not going to tell you this until you pay me. and i don't know who is right or wrong there. sierra club wants this process to work. and it needs to work quickly. because i think you need to get back to the roots of why we're doing this. we've had sandy, katrina storm everywhere, climate change is real, you know. in 30 or 50 years my granddaughter is going to have a terrible life. i mean, this is just becoming -- every week you read more news about this. you read science magazine, you'll see doom and gloom. but it's real. the sky really is falling. it's not a joke. we can the model of getting to place where we have our co2 commissions [speaker not understood]. we need to be the model. who the else heck is going to do it? i don't know what it's going to take to get the two sides to

work together, but i really hope you can figure it out. my feeling is that with a high premium it's going to look bad. we are going to lose people that we don't need to lose. and if we are doing it unnecessarily because lpi is right and we can actually have a lower premium, then we should be pushing that envelope to get it there. and while right now, you know, a poll or survey is not the end of the world, people are hearing these numbers. you've got a couple thousand that's peel l who talk to their neighbors. you know my bill is going to go up. * 6 bucks, 120 a year, there are a lot of people who are still not affluent in this town. while we're saying people will go green or dark green, there are a lot of people who won't. i'm surprised in my conversations how many people are still talking about how tight their budgets are. so, you know, lots of young kids making hundreds of thousands, but still lots of people who are not in this

city. so, don't have the answer, but please figure out how to get staff-lpi work together, collegiate answers. really concerned about the exaggerated rates we're going to be paying. i think it just hurts us. [speaker not understood]. good luck. >> thank you. yes. hi, [speaker not understood] for the sierra club. [speaker not understood]. connecting jobs to the value of the build out. that really relates to this discussion about what makes us -- our program different and pg&e's. and i echo eric brooks' comments that a light green program means you're not getting your whole energy or all of your energy from recs or any kind of renewable energy. the light green program in marin is 50% regular energy

from wherever they're getting it from and 50% renewable energy credit. so, that is what a light green program is. all the different options we're looking at are all 100%. pg&e needs are going to be 100%. our parav -- program is going to be 100% * whether it's [speaker not understood]. i can look at our solar panel over there and say my money went to that. it doesn't matter to -- the general public doesn't know the difference between bucket 3 recs which are the ones that are unbundled and bucket 1 recs which are ones you can say my money went to that solar panel right therethv they just know they're purchasing 100% renewable energy from the city. the only thing that brings our program apart from pg&e's program is this discussion of local benefits to san francisco. where are the jobs? and right now the plan as we're looking at it doesn't have that language in there. it doesn't have that message so people are going to say what's the difference? i can get it for $3 from pg&e

or $10 from the city. what's the benefit from the city? we need to make sure that that is in the messaging when we send out this poll. i mean, that's the only way that we're going to get people to pay more is if they realize it's bringing benefits to their community in this time because that's what we need, is to put our friends and neighbors to work and we need to put more money into our city's economy, which is going to put more money in our neighbor's pocket that goes to the corner store. that [speaker not understood] the economy. we need to make sure the messaging is the local build out and the benefits of that are in this poll or in the initial messaging of our program. but that begs the question if we're separating this discussion of phase 1 and the build out and we don't know what's happening with the build out, we can't promise we're bringing a thousand jobs to san francisco. so, i see that as a problem. i really hope we can include the local build out and benefits in the messaging because that's really important.

also, i'm also confused by the presentation and the options that are being presented today because i have also been part of this program -- the -- all the meetings of the stakeholders and technical review committee and in meetings with sfpuc's staff and lpi's staff. and the local power option, as i understand it, is not taking out the shell contract. we all know we have a resolution to purchase power through shell for 4-1/2 years. if we set a rate now for 4-1/2 years, that brings down the rec for us because we're assigning a contract with shell for a certain set rate for 4-1/2 years. so, that means we don't need to have as much collateral -- we have to have as much collateral but not as much risk because we're not buying energy on the open market. we have a set rate. so, the recommendation from lpi is for a 30 megawatt program. you still buy 20 megawatts from shell so you have a flat rate for 4-1/2 years. so, that hedges your risk a

little bit and for the remaining 10% you buy from hetchy -- sorry, and on the open market. that is not what is being presented here. so, i'm confused and i would love to hear an explanation of where this came from because this rec mix like lpi is assuming you go out ask buy 30 megawatts on the open market and include hetchy, which is a much bigger risk because the open market has so much volatility. so, this doesn't include the 20 megawatt or any shell purchase program, which is not -- why are we talking about that? we know we're going to have a power purchase agreement from shell. so i don't even understand why that's an option. so, the lpi recommended proposal which has the 20 megawatts from shell and another 10 from hetchy and open market, that actually brings the rates down a lot more than $6.36 a month extra because -- yeah, extra because you have that flat rate of the shell purchase agreement for 4-1/2 years.

so, the risk of the 30 megawatt rec program is much higher. so, it's going to be more expensive because the rates are really volatile for 30 megawatts to purchase 30 megawatts on the open market. so, i hope that kind of explains what is going on and the difference between our opinions on this. that's what i'm trying to explain to you, is the program we are talking about with local power is not here and i just wanted to help you understand that. so, thank you very much. i really want to see this program succeed and go out as soon as possible. but, you know, everyone is really worried about the prices and we want to make sure that san franciscans [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. thank you. >> general manager? >> i want to confirm something and clarify something. i think with this language, we started using light green and dark green here. i do not think we're using the same definition that marin uses. we're using -- we're talking

about 100% renewable in both the dark green and the light green option. correct? it's just the rec mix that will differentiate the light versus the dark. * >> so, correct. what we've presented were a series of 100% renewable portfolio. >> correct. >> and i think folks fell into the language of how do you describe the sort of premiumness of the green products that makeup that 100%. in order to express the differentiation between a heavily bucket 3 100% renewable program versus a less, a 5% bucket 3 versus an 85% bucket 3. >> which is different from marin, correct? >> very different from marin. >> i agree with the public commenters who said the definition of light and dark green is different than how it's being used here today. >> i don't know if we need different language or what we need to do, but i think that's important to clarify. * >> we need different language.

>> yes. >> so whatever it means, whatever our options are that we're talking about so there isn't this confusion because i think it is confusing. the other thing is when we do -- when you do come back, it would be good to see a column with the local power pricing to address these issues so that we can really have a comparison across the board of this different prices. * with an explanation of what that mix consists of so we can really see it. i don't know how you'll get to that resolution of what it is, but hopefully. >> before you -- so, the question i would ask is that, you know, they mentioned that shell would be 20 megawatts and hetchy would be 10, but you still have to shape it, right? >> you still have to shape it, you still have to firm it. you still have to hedge it in case of the dry year. it's a couple points of clarification, also points of fact. so, i have personally with the finance staff and power staff

walked through every single line item of their model. i can share with you exactly where the numbers are as i represented them. and, so, i know that you have the confidence in that. i have brought copies of the public model with me to walk them through, indeed the column that we have shown here and i want to make sure that the stakeholders also see is what lpi has proposed for the rec mix was as we show it here for that year one. you also asked us to unpack these key issues, whether or not we can provide the hetchy power and is it more affordable. or is changing the rec mix to the tradable recs which are less than a quarter of a penny versus the bundled recs that are 5 pennies, how much does that affect price. so, we do have a shared goal. so, i want to make sure that the stakeholders as well as the viewing public knows that we all want to get the lowest price. it make our job harder to g