you.. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm the deputy of of grassroots organization in the community and planch 22 we have our 40-year anniversary coming up and i want to share light on the sources to improve your program this past summer y cd was able to work with 15 young people and went to work for ten weeks and what these kids learned and what they were able to do in ten weeks is unsurmountable you cannot measure what they learned and working in architecture and engineering and government communication and is outreach relation, it was just absolutely phenomenal. we started with 15, we ended with 15 and actually we are lockk log forward to hopefully repeating that in

summer where we have 12 of the 15 kid that are willing and wanting to come back and the three that are not coming back, two of them are in college and the other is mainlying in architecture and so i am i want to make sure that i did highlight that and i know it was a great success and we look forward to working with the folks at p um, c and keeping ut in the loop and the community in the loop and i want to say thank you for your time. >> i think the youngest member of the commission has a passion for working with the young people and so you aught to look to him as a mentor because i know that frances had a stellar record in had a regard. excellent i look forward to it commissioner courtney. >> my comments are short.

professional engineers and technical engineerses and architecture chapters i want to takes this opportunity to thank kelly for working closely with -- prop 21 concerning the project and the general manager crudes i'm encouraged by his prefacing remarks and his commitment to keep our health. is you i do feel compared to the eight ball with a lot of activity that has taken place with respect to si p and i hope that the department identify it's own lessons going and is apply them and apply them to ssi p s as they move forward and i don't think the geology of the department and the you know why exclusive and i think it's to

expend conversations that have compromised i should probably go to the you know but by the end of it, it's actually through a collaborative effort with the you know and all of the stakeholders, ssi p and for the benefit of the community but then we have also a workforce that takes whatever type of project it might follow and we have work well together in the paths and i want to stress now that i hope that relationship continues continues and i look forward to working with general kelly and his staff. >> thank you.torres, i want to reserve my comments until the end because there are a custom different unrelated items that i wanted to touch on the fires one is mr. kubick is the schedule that you have for for the next nine to 12 month and is i'm interested if it's not too

burden some to see an exhaustive list of of the neighborhood organization and key advocacy groups keeping in mind if you are an advocacy group in the bay view you interpret that you are key and so imi would hope that we would have an expansive list but i think not to repeat any of the mistakes in the past, i would like to sigh a roster full of folks that are being consistently reached out to and in addition, to that's correct i know that the puc has folks working in a tech logical arena that is substantially above my head and i believe we have the facebook and the twitter and with respect to public meetings whether they be listening successions or having some kind of of a participation component, i would like to see if it's not too much trouble those going out there because i think everybody can figure out a way to get

there whether it's the home or library and i think that would foster a larger participation and then finally, with respect to the last commenter i think key advocacy groups often include labor exporgs they are aware of what of what is going on here and we are looking forward to woking with.torres the other.torres but there is a lot of going on out there and the brother from i e p t e local 21 raised an issue and i think it might be wise to consider that bob must scatter who's the head of that you know also coincidentallies also happen to be the head of the san francisco public employee commission and they work at being successful at pension reform and they may be

interested in adding some real value in i know that the labors for example have a couple of thousand people living in the community on the east side of san francisco alone and so the unions may be willing to step up if thief a seat at the table during the preliminary conversations, they may be willing to step up and assist the puc and reaching out to folks that we may have missed or have fallen through the tracks cracks. >> very good points. i'm glad the meeting is taped. oh, i'm talking fast. >> instructor: gentleman years ago any other comments commissioners, okay item seven b clean power san francisco up date. >> bob harem and today east stromb. thank you commissioners barbara hale the assistant for

commissioner for hour and we have distributed our time line we are on track for our time line we will note there is one addition to the time line and there is an additional board meeting that will be happening we have one scheduled for this friday march 1st and another for march 8 and then it will come to you on march dwellth with a full presentation and included in that presentation will be the results of our poll and our customer poll was completed on sunday day and the results are now being tab belated and once they are tab belated and prepared we will have a presentation that we will be distributing to you and we expect that late this week and it will be sable at the time and we will make it available of course, through the commission and interested stakeholder and is it will be par of the packet for the rate pharynx fairness board meeting on friday and that is the sense of pole and we

will bring those results back to you with our detailed presentation at our march 12's meetings and so that is a heads up to expect that, that will be coming to you.. >> you will also note that we have an additional meeting on march 25th and i understand that you'll you have been working with commissioner secretary to establish a core um, for that and we are excited to present jointly to you then the findings of the pole and the findings of the discussion with the rate fairness board and the commission in that settings and with that i would like to turn the microphone and presentation to the cfo today resi stromb to go overt key assumptions and lp i presentation. >> thank you today re stromb so we have been giving you by weekly updates going back briefly to deceased december and

our pr consult ants were here to brief you on the -- we have update you every two expwrks and most recently we came back to you and present how the buckets for renewable impacted the price and as well as if there was reliable and hetch hetchy power and if there were how it equitied the power and today we have an upindict on the lp i key assumptions we have 12 different scenarios run and since last friday and all of my staff and ms. power's staff met and reviews that four hour training the motion deniedel assumptions and as well as the models how to run the various model scenario and is so i would like to thank them for that and what i have done is summarized for you an spain of key business

assumptions that the managing director and myself have put together and for that, i'll summarize on slide two and there are copies for the public as well many of these things you have heard but what will be helpful is if the commission can provide us with focus the next steps because weapon to make sure that we are putting our resource where they are best helping rate pairs and the key consumption in all 12 scenarios that we have seen have very rapid city wide roll-out and a great deal of residential and commercial participation, a 12% average overall opt out and the opt out has been that low because of the assume rate parody or near term rate parody with otherwise p and g rates and

they include city borrowing which, is a key financial risk that you asked about in the past of a billion dollars and on the other hand, that comes with more money to do local build outs faster but one of the problematic risk that is we talked about previously is that there is still an assumption of 6,000 projects between now and 2017 and so that is a large amount of project do over that short period and now lines of gas and boy gas and none million dollars of purchases there through 2017 and that there would as some hetch hetchy power available and there would be some skiing 20% of the revenue and is there is i didn't million dollars will be new renne knew line item for behind the meter energy production and the model of it sits right now assumes shared savings and cost and is

so in all fairness to the consultant we asked them to put together-holistic revenue model not to do rate structures or rate differentiation and so right now, it's a blended model i'll not go overall of the details in the next two badges but that is the thick of it and you will see that the inches are pretty significant and most of the project in particular in the middle of the page are about 5400 energy efficient projects in the city over the next five years. some available of hetchy and if all of these major mage key assumptions come to pass and if the city is able to borrow the near million dollars that,that is the key assumptions that it would take in order for a claim to be able to say to meter or b or to have a rate

parody with the p g and e and what is helpful about this exercise is it's helped us put flesh to an idea as far as what would have to align what things would have to come together in order for these rate parody and is meter f g and e rates which policy maker and is stakeholders have told us even if it's 2006 that, that would have been the ideal way to setup of the centimeters c a and this is the way to get there and key programmatic risk that is we have talked about and they are summarized here to help provide you deliberation and next steps and input and how to focus our soaforts with that, happy to answer any questions. so how did it go with the meeting that you were scheduled to have with the advocates. >> we have very good deliberation over the mast week

on wednesday alone we have four hours of meetings one and-a-half will with the stakeholder and is very helpful input and i know there has been discussions subsequent to to that, very helpful, i have provided all of these materials as well to the advocate and is many of us share the same goals we would love to seat a lot of the same jobs come out of this and i don't think anybody can argue against that and it comes with the idea that we have to borrow a lot of money and those are the grade trade-off that is we have to comfort and it has been very productive and i would like to thank the stakeholder and is as well as lp i and the leadership. >> what has emerged from those discussions. what has emerged is that we are at a critical junction tour that the ideas that have been put for the require a lot of money to be borrowed and a

very large scale roll out and that would provide a great deal of uncertainty and risk that i as your cfo cannot hedge away. and cannot protect you against. and so, i don't at this time see a viable way to advise you on something of this scale and that is how i see it. i think there is many good ideas we can gasoline from this and try to pull with our own local build-out but with that said, i think that is where we are today. that is a very sobering comment that you would not recommend that we move in this direction. >> i think it's sobering but also very realistic we do a lot of capital investment and large numbers are with our sore system and network that we are doing over the next ten years, i think this is an example where we need to walk before we run and we have that you have already

improved a 20-30 megawatt program that it would be nice then to take the survey result as managessed and do that phase one, see how that comes out, walk along that path and then see how much of an option we have and then later on build a local generation which you have already adopted a program in concept that allows us to do that overtime. but not a billion dollars of it in five years. that is a lot of risk. . >> any other comments? commissioner mar? >> first of all,, you know, going to the ongoing discussions between lp i and the advocate and is staff, i also had an opportunity to spend some time on the phone with a group of the advocates and lp i folks. trying to chase down some of the questions that i had raised

last time and i think that was very helpful. i think the spirit was cooperative and i think we were as today said, we were -- we are are not to at odds to what would be initial we are not yet in full understanding or agreement about how one would get there and it's a feasibility issue as opposed to a desire ability issue. one thing that i did share with them is something that i labored at the time as my personal opinion not the commissioneds because we have not taken a motion on it but i'll share with you and that is that at the current level of understanding, i do not see how it would be possible for us to responsiblably commit so that business model that they had put out requiring that level of

investment and requiring a very complex implementation plan over 6,000 small project on different property with different ownership characteristics is very ambitious and it may be the kind-of thing that we can grow into but if we were may being that decision today it becomes unfortunately an easy decision. and our abilities to take that on and the one billion dollars is a daunting amount of one money and what that comes down to is a million dollars given the current level of that business model it's a million dollars at risk that i would have a very hard time and i would not be willing to saddle this enterprise or the city with it and that is my opinion and i 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 f