did share it with them and i wanted to make sure that was shared with the commission and the public as well. >> any public comments on the clear water s f? . >> good afternoon accomplicers ker commissioners eric brooks and the efficiency project in the local power's monthly modeel and some other projects take place over the first five year period and the second five year period so we need to make sure we are get ago more realistic picture when we put this out there how fast these things are actually planned to be put forward and then i would also say if you look at other countries like germany and many others that

are respect rapidly accelerating in energy they are doing so because you renewables like solar and wind demand storage and all of these are off the shelf technologies now and they create fossil fuels fluctuate in their price and are you knewless aren't like that and from the stand upon the that have designed the local power plant and the environmental groups that a lot of us know a lot about renewable energy because we follow it closely, there is nothing anymore riskier about an energy program like this than there is in a four and-a-half billion dollar water system improvement program these resource are stage and reliable

resource. so with that said the only thing that we face we have had productive conversations with staff and the commissioners but the problem that we now face is that i heard in the staff presentation of the staff saying "our local build out referring to their plan, whether this legislation was first written in 2004, and each time sense the local build out plan has been the one that the advocates have been promoting and that has been the plan written into the laws and directed to the ssi p staff to how to implement and so that is our plan when we talk about s f puc and the key problem we face now is, the basic flame work of local power plan is sound. it looks pretty good and so what we are hearing from staff and commissioners is okay

but this whole billion dollar thing and this many suchs this of many project within five years may be too much to bite off and chiu well that is fine but the next thing we need staff to do after that is instead of saying because we don't like the way that works we don't recommend doing this we need to either switch the posture because we have concerns about part of this model with you need to work together to make it the right scale, may be over a long retro period of time, bonding in phases what we are not hearing from staff is how we are all going to work on it together to get a big build-out to work what we are hearing is hs too big and so we are recommending that we don't mess with it and this is not a good answer especially when it comes to the dire need for jobs that we have and the potential for this to provide

that. thank you. hi good afternoon jessica from syria club and i want to emphasize what eric bush said we have been talking about the details of this the local power plant for months and have today come up and saying the same thing that heap saying first responder a few months and as anzoic working on this project for a long time, of course, we want to have a local build out and this is the only thing that is going to save the p u d program radiology out at the same if i am we have been talking about this for month and is it's really disappointmenting to have staff away say we are not going to go this way but we don't have an interpretive for you andi understand if you don't want to do a one billion dollar prompt it's an investment to chiu on off and it's an investment in our future but to

say as an alternative that we are going to spend 6 million-dollar on a build out, i think we can do better and i think so we need to have a concrete plan and i urge you to ask staff to come up with a comprehensive plan at least come out with the myses of that that are good and what we can do, you know? but we can-san francisco can do better than $6 million of investment in a local build out. p thank you i don't any other comments? in courtney. >> somehow i feel my guy should take the responsibility for recoming the job component specifically investing in communities because that had been how the conversation or rather how the topic had always been reached with me but now when you start goat into the numbers it start it's to look

more like a headline and less like the opportunities that we are all interested in. but, i think since we do have an opportunity on march 25th i believe the day's ethic will have to choose to flush some of these items and i did have a spep question related to the -- this is on page two and related to the 20% average opt-out if it's possible for somebody to just kind-of help me understand a little bit better what over it is and how we come up with that number and how we can rely ton it moving forward. >> yeah, so, the in the last meeting, i was given a general overview of the usage of all of the power within the 49 square miles and how on average it was about a thousand megawatts and how v s f pc provided power to

all of the facility and is l a and the sewage treat support and lights and so that is brought the pg&e's portion of power provided to 800 megabecause and so the key assumption here is that of the 800 megawatts approximately, that only a haircut of 20% opts out and that 700 or 600 megawatts plus, still participate in this very much larger policeman and that is in comparison to where we have gotten authorization and an propylization from the board of supervisors to start off with a 20-30 megawatt program to walk before we run and to move forward on that and so it's really an order of magnitude to 20-30 vs. an suferlings of 700 megawatts it's 20 time plus the size. >> thank you.

yeah. >> i'm sorry commissioner cane. on the sub lp i business case what i do not see is what happens who maintains these sites? would than our responsibility? we asked the same question and the answer that we received is that there are multiple possibilities it can be a city maintained site it could be a private contactor maintained site or it can eventually be maintained by the customer or private property owner that has the implementation and so we have asked another question as well because when the city would do these 6,000 projects, we will have to be either through a contract with a private

installer or with city staff on people's roofs in their basements next to their buildings installing these energy efficient projects over installing the sol ore or combining power spue in many of the cases, it would be a city project and the city would have the responsibility. and the answer we have also received from the l p i is that. that ultimately is a contractual detail that would have to be looked at as part of each individual project and so not to minimize it that we would have to have that contractual negotiations with every private property owner for the six-hundred solar sites that we are attaching to rooftops and the first time, a rooftop get a leak, that would be a concern because it will be one of the ways that a contractual

obligation is tested as to who bears the responsibility of a roof leak for any of the 600 projects or 550 energy initiate projects whether then replacing light fixtures or widow energy improvements or the 300 combined heat and power facilities put in the basement or on top of the roof and so it's a very large contractual and project management challenge and that is one of the key operational relatives that is present in addition, to the fm risk where we have spent a lot of time talking about the million dollars not that it's not some good ideas we need to layer this on top and so as far as what staff has alsoitied up in your packet from a meeting ago provided 86 mechanic amegawatts of generation that we are looking at and in addition, to

that, we are funding what is in your plan that you approved last week another $12 million is planned for go solar s f over the next six years and we have the $6 million with the go s f energy and about build out and that was i proved by the board and as part of the start-up of the s f c a and that is a good start-up and we need to come back to you to see what is the lowest cost thing that we can do whether it's the water out of the substation or solar installations under -- ms. hale has been working hard to get the economics of those projects worked out we are working on a plan it's just that weapon to start with the first phase to see how it actually goes and gets implemented before we do

anything larger.. >> any further public comment? david i just want today agree with today's comment about risk i used the word distractions at the last meetings and i'm not a verse to the advocates proposal and or some scales version of it but i just continue to reinforce that these efforts not threaten or under plain our existing utility work in water power and sewer and i can't express that concern enough so i'm not yet convinced that we should commit any hetchy power to this if it proves and we have resource, available, i'm up to that and we should be open to that but we have got to see i

think, today just made the comment that we should walk before we can run and we have not been in the retail business to multiple customers like this before. we should see that we can do that first before we try to do that for everybody. thank you david. >> thanks. yeah, just i think there is two question that is we are going to have to wrestle with over the next month or so and the first is what to do about the roll-out and the i think the 20% number for opting out is assuming we have rates comparable with p g and e social security's and i have not figured out how we can get there yet and that will be a key question how do we price the first phase of this the initial roll-out and what feature should we build into that and the

second he set of questions is what do we do about the roll out and the board is interested in that and the commission is interested in that and compressed important questions about that as well and we had partnered with lp i and hoping to get a feasible program to do the build out and i don't think we have do that and so we need to figure out so what do we do and that is a feasible plan and whether that takes ideas from the lp i or whether there are some other approach that is we can take to it and building on the budget commitment that is we have already made and there is something that we clearly want to do it and we understand that we want to do it and why we get it we just haven't figured out how we can do it. and we need to have need to work on it and the other part of that is, there has been the suggestion that you need to make the decision about the build-out in all of it's

details and how you fund it and how big it is before you do the roll out if that is true, then we probably cannot roll out this proem on the schedule that we have committed to and so we need to figure out some way and that is a major breech of expectation if not trust so if that is in fact a requirement we have some soul searching to do and so we have questions about the initial roll out and then we need to come up with-feasible roll out and thank you for the opportunity those are my thoughts at this point we will have something to act on, i'm sure later. >> any other comment mr. manager. i'll like to echo hoot commissioner just mentioned. i think the effort with lp i put forward was an idea that we can roll out a program parody w

pg&e and it requires a lot of risk and so, i think that is what we presented. if we choose to scale it back as we have and is it scalable and they say no you have to implement the whole program to see it work and that is one of my concerns is you want to try something before you jump in in a billion dollar from a business perspective and now, i hear us saying well just throw it all out and i think staff was looking at the model of trying to get it parody and is it you know you know something worth pursuing at this time and i think i'm debating a feeling that may be it's not pursuing this bringing it down to zero meaning parody with p g and e but we can look at components of the model to maximize the build out to further reduce the cost and i think we are committed in

dog that and try to max out the build-out. so i think what we have to do is kind-of get back together and may be with the advocates and say okay, from our conversations what do we feel comfortable moving forward with the living that the puc are willing to take and may be trying to present something but meanwhile, i would suggest that we continue moving forward on the first place and that is our information gets better we can always reduce the price of you know, the green you know the margin that we have on p g and e the premium. the time has arrived for mr. jensen to make his report. and we have been wait

weight for that. >> okay it's very fascinating to listen to you deliberate about some very complicated matters. i'm glad that history show there are americans that pale in comparison that used to be quite dissectorring for and you have -- quieted the quarter waters and good luck on all the other issues. with respect to the report that i amed to messenger again about the bondishance and i'm going to milk this for everything that it's worth. tomorrow morning it's not over yet. tomorrow morning, the next time i stand before you i'll say something else but we close tomorrow morning on the entire commission of bonds and we are giving it to you but you don't get to spend it all in one place, we are wiring two forty seven million dollars to smps in this building

i guess and one $90 million goes into an escrow account and that is because today has to spend it in the right way and i'm pleased that we have gotten to this point and our folks are thrilled and the other thing that i want to mention is commissioner moran said can you get a joint presentation from us and your staff on why supply planning issues and i notice that it's in your dense calendar as to be determined and the fact that it would be convenient for us to do that in may or june but i'll ithought if there was a reason for the commissioners to have that information sooner, we can report sooner it just wouldn't be as rich and we could discuss details later on but since there is a meeting since that is calendar issue there this would be a good time to think about it. >> i don't think there is any particular deadline that we are

working on sooner is better than later but i like rich too so -- i have always wanted to be rich --. >> any public comment? none? consent calendar itemmen eight d was removed at commissioner request and all matters are as they appear. item nine is a consent calendar and item nine a through g is a consent calendar with considered to be routine by the san francisco pom uc and will be acted upon by at single vote and there will be no discussion unless a he member of the commission or public shall request in which case it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate number and item 89 is removed. >> any comebts from the commission. i would like to movement calendar a move moved by commissioner cane and second by commissioner courtney.

>> all those in favor signify by saying aye. the calendar is oopa moved and now, we move into our regular business. item two authorize the general manager to enter into a small generator connection agreement with the pacific gas and electric company to connect the hired electric project to the pg&e grid at a maximum grid of cost of 700,000 and subject to reyule every year they are asking. >> barbara hill assistant general manager for power this is a routine item that allows us to connection our proposedded university mound to pg&e's grid and it's a requirement to have an interconnection agreement and because it's long-lived and it will neat need to go to the board of supervisors and we are

asking four your consent to bring it there. >> any public comment? any comment from members of the commission?? mr. courtney. >> ms. hale would you mind coming backup to the front for a moment please i'm trying to scroll through and look at section 16 the sub contractor clause could you be kind-enough to develop on that and for the commission just in your own words exactly what that means for us please you are on section i'm sorry you said 16. >> looking at the table of kents on page 16-12.11. yes.

>> sub contractors. so the contract we are looking at here is a pacific gas and electric company standard contract that they are authorized to use for the interconnection of small generators. the sub contractor clause that the commission irpoints us too allows the parties to use any sub contractor they they deem appropriate to perform the work the work being the interconnection of the facility to pg&e's grid. the facility that is we are talk about here would be installation of a revenue quality meter at the site cite that will allow p g and 'em have the -- control of the generation and to charge us for any services associated with that. we don't anticipate any

need for upgrade of the traps mission and distribution infrastructure that serves the site at this time and so that would be the type of work. >> so, you know, i may be barking up the wrong tree do you interpret that the -- would eye my to the sub contractor arrangements. >> to the extent that puc would contract for this work, i think it would and to the extent that pg&e would sub contract for this workers, i would think not but i would look to counsel to provide us with a legal obligations. >> that would be my preference would be so we are entering into this agreement, we would be hiring commanding folks to do the work under the subtracting clause, full because we would be

bound by the order natis but on the same agreement, the company itself would not be required in any way to comply with the term of the local hired ordinance. >> yes to be later when we go to construct the facility the yen ration facility that is a separate contract that is not the contract before you here and the city for the public worked project like that would apply because we would be the contracting entity and we would be outlooking for the services and be the work performed by city staff or contract and this interconnection agreement before you today is a p g and e commitment to provide our agreements as to who's responsible for what under interconnecting that facility and so the actual construction of the facility that will come to you in a separate form and it would be a public works project and a local hire rules would apply. >> thank you for that so even

in cases where not a public works project but it's an agreement entered by the public utilities commission and some other entity. the commitment to employ a committee workforce is a negotiatable item if not a requirement under any particular ordinance because for one reason or another that ordinance doesn't apply the commitment to imloim a community workforce is a negotiatable item is that a correct statement. i think generally that is that's all be true and i think it's difficult in the specific circumstances like this where the contracts that we are being asked to sign by utility have been preapproved by all of it's customers by it's regularror and so that give them less discretion to negotiate as you described other contracts, yes, there may be that opportunity. >> i appreciate that. okay thank you. >> any other questions?

public comments on item ten?. motion is in order all those in favor, moved and seconded all those in favor signify by saying aye. approved. public matters public matter for matter to be discussed in closed session number. i'll entertain a motion,. >> so moved by mr. courtney seconded by commissioner moran. attorney client privilege and that was to assert sir. oh, would you read the item. >> yes, item 13 litigation item 14 is existing litigation pacific gas and electric company >> instructor: hi we are back if

open session plaid dam counsel. committee members for the tone's office, i wanted to say that we are prepare to remove these items from the calendar and not proceed to closed session at the direction of the manager. >> so, that leaves nothing but then, other new business. yes, other new business,. >> president torres thank you we did receive a letter from bright mind related to go solar s f i'm respect fully requesting that we place an item on the agenda at the chafer's discretion however you want do it to discuss and potentiallily call for a response to that communication. and i think the communication is included in item five already. any objection to that. >> i just want to understand

so, they are the community and bright line is advocating that we fully fund go solar and so, and, i think the mayor has been in conversations with me about seeing if we can fund go solar and so there is some challenges with that i mean, so, i'm trying to figure out what type of meeting or conversation you want to hold. we had this discussion, i believe during the process but about the project and i think we decided and i can't remember all of the details about it but we decide that this would be the amount to which we would --. >> 3 million was decided at the time. i would like to add that what concerns me because i would defer to the general manager on th i