focus your attention on the billed out we need to make sure that those rates in trying to be competitive. so we'll be talking about that as we receive the pricing from shell after we sign the shell contract and thank you commissioner? >> i'm still sort of back on the solar question a little bit. isn't go solar a form of local build out? >> yes, that's why i mentioned it in the solar initiative as part of our local build out. you'll remember when the overall program it authorized $2 million

to go solar and it $2 million targeted both those buckled deplores toward low income customers to lower the bill they would receive. so, yes construction of rooftop solar is a local and it's fair to include f that in the program local billed >> i know it's not vision - it's about independent systems and jarpgs and that's different and the job creations related to that but it seemed to me that all of those pieces of o to at least feed the local build out

program. i don't know from a market prospective what that looks like or what the mayors interest is in that but i wanted to put that on the table. i think the goals we all agree with around the gas reduction and as i do the planning planning to fold that altogether. it seems like there's a lot of different pieces >> and we do want to put together a resource package. we see that as something we can binge together and we can seriously put a fund aside to fund it. we will be discussing with

stakeholders but needing to really fund it once we know what the rates are and our level of participation is >> so when do you think we'll be able to see that we do have monies but it seems like the monies should be agree gated in some way for a local build out launch. i think a solid plan it's realistic it is that in january of next year the the program will launch in january. so we should have a sense of would our more instead funding is. as i say i'd like to begin to, you know, we've gone the

conversation with stakeholders i'd like to condition that with the committee to begin to develop the elements of that but it's not going to be funded until we launch the program. you know, in january or february of 2014 assuming we launch in september as planned >> this survey is not telling me what i wanted to hear. >> okay. >> and i'll tell you why. number one we only have 20 percent of the people that have heard about clean power so you start the survey and i say isn't this a wonderful idea and so then we get to slide 6.

so we have 17 percent that will definitely stay and then we have 28 percent he probability. now what does probably stay mean to you? >> well, they were specifically asked would you definitely stay probably stay? >> they were asked if they would stay with clean power or go to pg&e. then he asked are you definite about that or probably thinking about it. and the reason we talked about is we haven't told me how much it's going to cost them.

but the dynamic of the survey is in reality they will be automatical automatically enrolled but this is a context between definite and probably comes up >> i wonder if monothat on getting the caylee is you're going to be enrolled in this and start with that i wonder what the response would be. >> we the do that. we told me it would be they'd be automatically enrolled or if they want to get out they would sign a form

>> i guess in my mind when somebody says probably i can't see how you can count that in the total of your 45 percent. >> we said stay in or get out. >> it was only in the photocopy question. if we'd not asked the second question you'd see one bar there staying with the program >> okay. my certain is if we really do have the customer base to support this. and may main certain is with the contract.

we can't reverse that that's a contract we have to go into and that's why the survey is not telling me enough it's not good enough for me >> so i apologize for jumping around but i'm going to pick i didn't back on jan's comments. not the precede of how we got that data but what it's certifying. i have yet to understand the relationship. earlier we had folks talk about go solar.

survived. are they connected and is the solar conversation properly dealt with in the item. it doesn't seem like it stands alone by itself >> so it's a stand alone program today. it's funded until 2018 because it was established as a 10 year pilot so it's funded separate and apart from cc a. along comes cc a and the board of supervisors has appropriated

an additional amount of money so cc a customers can have access to rooftop promotions without effecting the appropriations. so the $2 million for go solar cc after the accident customers is separate and apart from the 10 year plan go solar sf funding. >> let's say we get an order - and the budgets change. there would be nothing that be prohibit us to go outside that

action and independently of this committee to - what in you're not a cc a customer and that's my question if you can give you a simple answer to that >> i think you are right there is nothing in the board action that would keep i from discussing to spend money differently i think you are right on that. >> just said to point out that conversations were being talked about that the solar program under cc a could help low income or, you know, people who couldn't afford so you can put solar to reduce their bill so that was a conversation.

i agree go solar was purpose the niche program you knew about. cc a was just for thought customers so that was sort of in two buckets >> thank you, mr. kelly. >> couple of comments and couple of questions. first of all, on the discussion of whether the survey numbers are conservative or not. i think it does help sometimes that there was not a number we're smart enough to know we're dealing in arrangements a budgets. i think you made a good case as to why those numbers are conservative in some recently. one way they're not conservative the people in the survey were

not given a campaign in the other side. folks are going to be fully informed on both sides and that will tend to to be lead in the other direction. the other reason is that of all of the liabilities that we have the risks we have in the program we have mitigated just about all of them. the one we can't mitigate is a failure to enroll. if we have fewer enrollments wee we have nothing to help us. we have no coverage for that. it sends me in the conservative direction. as far as go solar plans.

it's not the basic concept of the program but that solar funded projects are being put on private land i have a real problem with that arrest as much as we can bring the solar into public buildings or whatever i think that is a mature better place for us to be. it comes close to a gift of public funds. as far as the do not exceed rates one of the things i've had conversations with mr. kelly about is that when we went through the process of local power i'm trying to figure out if you can make those rates

comparable with the rates that could conceivable bring the price to about 10 from 6 bucks as a premium. it occurred to me perhaps if we went to the cheaper mix kept the price at $10 and used the incremented to fund the local project we would then have a project that helps with the pg&e project and provides the funding for the local. as we adopt the not to exceed rates is there anything in that

that would prejudice us to as whether we do the expensive recs >> so there's nothing in the rate making process that you're going through that addressed the reunusual mix so i believe the answer to that question is no there's nothing to prejudice that decision you will be confronted with that decisions which types of renewals are included in that promise. when we come to you with the contract from shell it will explain. july augment frame

>> and do we have a sense of how much money that could generate? >> between the 6 and the $10 premium would be. >> yes, we do but i don't recall what it is on an annual basis. >> so. >> we'll have that for you in the next packet. >> you'll have it on the 25th of march. >> and speaking about the inmitigated risk of people not staying with the program we do have that risk mitigated in that to the extent not withstanding our infers to enroll customers

and provided a product that san franciscans want we don't have sufficient enrollment objectives in the crack. we can unwind the contract and have capped risk of 13.5 million that we would owe shell. that's the maximum we would owe shell. and the damages that we would be owing them would be the difference, you know, based on what they can actually resell the power for. you can resell the power for capped at 13.5 million m that risk is mitigated

>> okay. it's capped and. >> it's not the full cost of the four and a half years of cost we would owe them. >> and the 5 percent is forgiveness. >> it's capped at $13.5 million i'm not sure what you're referring to. >> we'll figure that out. maybe i made it up but i don't think so >> there's a band on the volume so if we're forecasting consumption and we're off plus or minus. >> and it's a cap but it's

funded. >> that's what we are set audit in the appropriation and okay. let me take another look at that. this is great if i can get to understand it better and okay and my impression was that was mitigating against the other issues. okay. thank you and if you can also, you know, the number of how much if we did another rec mix the dollars that would be great >> and can we also asked the - the board of supervisors have asked us to include in the costs - you the recovery of the $13.5 million is set aside from

the fund so that's an eliminates of a great making process i could tinker with and how fast we can recover that money. versus 10 years we can present those options as well on the 25th >> i just wanted to be clear what we're going to get on the 25th too. you know, i think the challenge which is somewhat of an unmitigated you risk as well is the pg&e risk is an unknown roadway. and i don't know how we'll be able to look at 6 - the

difference between that and 10. but smile so i can see it some visual. i want to make sure we're going to do the highest quality and there's an appetite for that but just to have that as part of the conversation as well >> sure we won't be asking for the renewable risk you can stay flexible on that. >> and what gets us to a rate that's the most comfortable rate. >> commissioners we have to

public speaker cards. >> again evening. >> i'm here as a student. i feel it's important to locallize the local billed out it will bring million dollars of dollars to our economy and jobs. and it will diminish and stop the project that we've talked about. this is a very powerful program and we must have the committee to trust us. and by looking at the local generation process. thank you >> thank you for being here and

thank you. >> ms. jennifer. >> good evening i'm roar e here on behalf of the san francisco state university. it's clear that san franciscans want to have this construction of other reunusual facilities. we know those would boost jobs and stabilize energy costs. and i'm here to represent the majority of san franciscans with a clear identified plan to boost the energy clean project >> is there any other comment?

>> mr. brooks good afternoon. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm with the san francisco green roots. the first thing to be really clear on is that the stakeholders in a meeting last year the community advocates unanimously said they don't support the direction the staff is mcelroy. and right off the bat having higher rates to have funds? no matter how high you have those rates it would be a small rate we're talking about the building that the advocates are supporting is about 2 hundred

and a billion dollars to build a real billed out are that the clear problem that the survey shows you is under the counter program that this pg staff a putting forward is going to lose half the customers about a one hundred and 80 customers will drop out. and i guarantee you when pg&e starts attorneys it will torpedo. it will not succeed. it's absolutely crucial that the advocates want to get the lowest not to exceed rate as possible not to raise it up to get the build out.

that's been designed by the immaterial out and it funds itself with revenue funds that's how a build house trailer anti needs to be funded. you don't have to raise rates to customers so more like 80 percent of the customers will stay in the program then you've got a customer base to show that the revenue bonds to build a hundred of million dollars of dollar build upper out will back those bonds. so the direction this is doing is absolutely the oppose direction and quite - unless we continue the course of working on what we're been working on

over the last two years that this program is dead on arrival. thanks >> thank you, mr. brooks. any other public comments on the item? >> please came forward and good afternoon commissioners thank you very much for having me today and for discussing that arrest i had some of my terms talk to some people on the street and i know it's not a scientific power by one out of two people have heard about clean power. so unfortunately, there - people are hearing about the clean project business it's not the

right message. what kind of community benefits will this bring us and the number of the jobs and the number of meg waits we're going to build in january is way too late >> you'll never have a phase two of this program. you may get 20 percent of the people into the program but if we continue to have no rl materials this program will be dead on arrival so everyone else that's not already enrolled if the program will not be interested in joining it. i urge you to get theff