>> i would want us is to make sure we are put all the cards on the table because this is a big decision to move forward in this direction but i want to make sure we are reporting the facts and what the impacts are for the sake of incredible job opportunities that could exist and leading the way for providing clean energy? san francisco and what that does for the environment and i want to make sure we are looking at every single issue as it relates to job opportunities and for those persons who maybe the industry may change or not exist anymore and we are not just ignoring that sector. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner

court -- >> thank you. these jobs are coupled together. supervisors breeds comments and supervisor avalos, i don't think they would suffer some job loss, but i think the key is whether there is a net job loss or net job gain. i'm hoping we'll have a robe us discussion about exactly what that build looks like and how we plan to pay for it and how many jobs are gained by the cca and the roll out that we have been discussing for several months. >> thank you. commissioner victor? >> yes. i just want to respond to the comment that torres said about the the job question and this goes back to hearing the survey because there is a question about the roll out and there is an appetite for a local build out that would

generate jobs. even how many jobs would be created and how it would be coupled with the renewable plan, it does say it in slide # 16 that what people would feel would that increase their interest. i'm eager to get the completion of the survey because that may reframe the conversation a bit. >> thank you. in a moment we'll get back to the survey. commissioner campos? >> i think it's important to provide some context to some of these results. i think one of the main things about the numbers in terms of where we are today compared to where we were in prior years, i mean, i think it's impressive the numbers have gotten better. if

we look at the chart of april 2011, total of 37 percent same things april 12, with those who would stay and now at 45 percent. this is after, you know, so much money that has been spent on people opposing this project and providing a lot of information about it. the fact that the numbers have remained and in fact have increased are pretty significant. i also think in terms of the jobs, the best response that i have heard in terms of what the job loss could potentially be was actually from the puc's former general manager who pointed out there was a number of assumption that were made in the economist report. there was for one thing the assumption that somehow any money that went into a reserve that that was money that would not have

been used by puc in another way. to assume that somehow that met to a loss of investment as mr. harrington noted was really faulty. likewise the differentiation between the fact that people have as customers a vested interest and desire to actually buy clean energy is something that was not reflected and at the end of the day the overall analysis that was done did not include anything about the build out. so even without that, the percentage or the numbers of jobs that were estimated to be lost were pretty minimal but if you look at the entire analysis and consider the build out, it's a different story. i'm pretty

confident in terms of the impact on the local economy and i certainly look forward to hearing the rest of the presentation. commissioner mar? >> i would like to thank you for the research on the survey and i also wanted to just emphasize to chair torres question that by strongly promoting program as it's build out with a strong local build out, i think we can make those arguments and more people supporting it in the future. >> and the conversation about what you and i had about education when only 1 in 5 rate pairs -- payers. we have our

homework cut out for us. >> as anticipated. >> so the next question is one of the commissioner referred to a moment go which is the final substantive question. the final build out which was a power of sf and potential impact in san francisco and to renewable facilities to be built and help to save jobs. our final question, found that 52 percent told us they would remain with clear power sf and 36 percent opt out. i have different numbers here that amount to different types of information to summarize, you will see on this slide, the changes in responses over the course of the survey given different

assumptions parameters. between 41 percent and 35 percent would remain with a third of those polled and about 43 percent. this is contingent upon each rate offered and the availability of an alternative program from p g and e and it's cost and the information about the build out. it gives you some sense of the fluidity and public perception to remain with the program depending on how much they know about it. >> in our last meeting we talked about sending out a fact sheet with the number of jobs created. would that be something we can include to encourage people to opt in as well? >> i think we have a version of that and i'm sure it does

include parts about job creation . >> yes. that's accurate. we have a fact sheet prepared. we don't have a solid number yet in terms of the impact but we do describe in the fact sheet, the investment, the local investment. thank you. >> mets? >> that concludes the presentation and i would be happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you for your presentation. the numbers of quite encouraging and to emphasize we are not looking at a poll, we are measuring how many people are going to be staying in the program and the numbers are very encouraging. we are not expecting to roll this out to every san franciscans part of way. we can

go on to our next portion if there are no if you are comments. >> now we turn to the follow up questions from the san francisco public utilities commission. there are some questions for you on slide 20 and i will go through each of those in turn starting with our first one. how does the 20-30 mega watts clear power fit into the overall city load and specifically the city's residential load as it targets resident dental residential load. 5.6 mega watts of

electricity is consumed. 200 mega watt hours is what our program would meet. we have a total of 5.5. we are looking for 270,000. when you take out of that 5.6 million, the load san francisco already serving our municipal customers, we reduce that by 17 percent. that's the first green slide you see there leaving the total available load to serve 4.6 million mega watt hours. that's our overall potential load. looking now at this slide you can see where we have taken out in the blue slide, the residential load that is not care. so this is the total load that are not low income customers, that are residential

non-low income. you will recall when the board considered the request to authorize the program to go forward, we were asked to target the program initially away from that vulnerable customer segment that is the low income care customer. so we've taken that load out of the slice and taken it here on the blue slice which is just the residential electronic customer base that is not a low income customer. >> commissioner bree? >> we don't have that slide and i can't see it on the screen clearly. >> it's not showing on your screen. >> my screen not clear so i can't see the numbers. >> the final slide in your packet has this information

broken out. the next slide emphasizes from that 1.6 million mega watt hours, that portion that is the non-care load versus the care load. and that brings us then finally to the full breakout where you can see in your slide that was included in the print packet, that served by our municipal, 957 thousand. that load is the blue slice, the 625,000, that's the residential non-care. broken out from it is 138,000, the sort of hash green

and the 270,000. when you take those 3 slices that are offset from the pie, that's our total residential non-care. onto the 270,000 is what we are looking for phase one of sf power. only the gray, blue, and the hash green is available to us but we are only targeting that 5 percent slice. 270,000 mega watt hours. we have ample residential customer interest and sufficient load to serve. >> if you could relate to what our survey showed?

>> the survey took a larger blue slice and among that larger blue slice what portion has expressed an interest. we'll definitely say categories. that's what you are seeing broken out there. the 270,000 plus the 138,000 which is about 45 interest in san francisco among residential non-care customers. >> very good, thank you. >> so the next follow up item we had was the heat map. you will recall that in prior in our prior conversations, we've taken the results of the survey and with some additional research been able to apply those survey results citywide. this heat map shows you applying the survey results from the darkest green up to

the red customers propensity to stay and we try to find a common measure that would help us break the city up. so we broke it up by district, by precinct so you can see in a more granular way handout how those services apply in our neighborhoods. relating to the survey results and the pie chart i just went through, as you look at the average score and going from the bottom, the dark green up, in order to get to that 270,000 mega watt hours, we only need to climb that average score to about 55. so we stay within the green. as you look at that heat map and i'm hoping the color on your

slides comes out as it does on the screens here that we are able to see. but we stay completely within the dark to lighter green colors, staying with customers with a fairly high propensity to say with the program and still are able to meet the 20-30 mega watts of supply where we are proposing. i'm going to move on to the third question. that was to place the assessment concept and clean power concept and how those two work together and explain where the funding lies. so just as a quick refresher you will recall that our solar sf program, that's our program for providing incentives to san

francisco properties to put solar on their roofs launched in 2008 as a 10-year pilot program and asked to fund it at $2-5 million each year. $20 million has been appropriated for the program and in the context of adopting the authorizing i should say the clean power sf program the board of supervisors created an additional $10 million to the sf program for customers. so what you see on slide no. 27, the fiscal year 13, 14, 15, appropriation and plans for the clean power sf program. in the

first row the fund appropriated for the revenues, $2 million year are funds that have been appropriated in our plan, 10 year capital plan and we had a reallocation of $10 million into go solar sf program for 2014 and as i mentioned the board of supervisors appropriated $10 million for go solar sf in fiscal 2014 and 2015. you can see the partnership between go solar sf and clean power sf where we'll be able to appropriate funds from local bills in san francisco from rooftop sooner or later arrests solar who are

participating in the program. >> those who are in the program and erect facilities on their rooftop are they going to be counted as clean customers right away? >> yes. if you are a clean power sf customer, we can offer you incentives through the go solar sf program to put solar on your roof. those funds are set aside for those customers as additional encouragement and enhancement and kicks off our local build. it's helpful to us because these are projects that are exempt from sequel typically so we can begin that local build motion modestly from day one. >> thank you for the background on go solar sf. we did have a conversation on the last

hearing about the go solar sf program and i want to ask again given additional authorization for additional $2 million for funding, you indicated it was the plan for the local build out . is that still the case? >> yes. it's an additional readily funding component of our local build. it's not the end of the story. but it is a piece of our local build story, yes. >> given the fact that we've been having this conversation and what concerns me is that it seems circular because the advocates, not the workers advocates but the clean power advocates are concerned about the fact that a build out resembles something that is more funded in a range of $2 million. we are talking about

$4 million. last month we had a conversation. i'm going to ask again, is this a build out, if it isn't, then what is? because today is the day to have that conversation. >> yes. >> as part of our commission meeting we talked about decoupling the actual cca program in the local build out. so what we talked about is that we really have to work with lpi to look at see about a local build out and so at the last commission meeting which you are probably going to talk more about is what were some of the issues that the commission had on the lpi model and the major was a billion dollars of bonding for a bunch of projects behind the meter and what had

to come online to fit the model. i think that was the concern. so we are really planning on trying to see what appetite we have as far as building a local build out because once you start planning on local build out, you are going to have to sequel. so the question is what do we have an appetite to really fund. meanwhile we know that everyone enjoys going solar and it a job creation so that was the money that was identified by the board of supervisors and the mayor asked me to increase solar for the go solar. to answer your question, we at the puc feel we have to do more and how much more do we have an appetite? >> i see the program as a tiny

aspect we need to do for the build out. i'm not sure that many envisioned that to be. >> thank you, i appreciate the comments of the general manager. i would respectfully sort of provide a different perspective and just going back to what the board of supervisors approved. when the board of supervisors approved the contract with cell -- shell. it was an understanding that there would be a robust as possible. i don't know that i would put it as the p u c trying to four -- figure out the appetite. in approving the

contract with shell is that a robust build out is an important part we do in terms of purchasing energy. i don't believe that legally there is an authority to decouple the build out from the purchases agreement with shell and in fact i think if that is the approach, i don't believe that there is legal authority for the puc or anyone to do that because the expectation and the intent when the board approved the purchase agreement was there would be a robust build out concurrent with the purchase agreement. i know that sflafco has never approved, the board of supervisors has never approved decoupling of the two. i don't know what decouple

means, but as we go forward with the shell contract agreement, we'll be continuing to do a build out as robust a build out as we possibly can. the word decoupling does not, i think, describe what the board of supervisors and what this commission have approved. >> thank you commissioner campos. i would concur. >> commissioner veet or? >> i would also concur. i believe the commissions and i'm not sure the general manager we have decoupling word has been put out there at a couple of our public meetings as well and i don't believe that is the intent or where we need to go with the clean power sf program. i think the great promise of this program is to

build a robust program to create jobs and minimize gas house contribution, combat climate change and to which we have been demanded by the board of supervisors and mayor to bring that out online. one piece i have still not received and would like to go on record once again is we have not received a plan to be able to build, conduct the local build out in san francisco in order to respond either as a commission, as the public utilities commission or sflafco. so i would ask that the p u c put together in short order a plan for what this build out will look like, it should include the financing, jobs creates, the

gas reduction numbers and everything we talked about what our program should look like. i'm okay with the go solar program and the $4 million being at the very beginning of the program as the very very first piece to get our toe in the water. but it's not the program that we need to bring online as quickly as possible. [ applause ] >> thank you. we'll continue. >> that brings us to the question of what are the key that will help the asset set of rates that are go forward, that will provide the assurance to the financial community that we can fund through bonds the local build out that is so desired the as a component of this program such an important component of this program. that

brings me to slide no. 28 where you can see these primary lievers. how the start up reserve is repaid through rates and what level we assume of care customer participation occurs in the program. what we've done to try to make this a digestible element is to show you what the approximate and i emphasize approximate cents per kilowatt hour reduction would occur under different scenarios. we have priced this program in our conversations with you assuming that 10 percent of the supply is

bundled kilowatt hours. 85 percent of the supply is firmd and shamed and 5 percent is renewable credit. shaped. under the law those are the characterization of the process for a hundred percent renewal portfolio. what you see under no. 1 under the renewable mix, the annual impact if we shifted from 5 percent renewable energy credits which are the least expensive product to 85 percent renewable energy credits in our resource portfolio, if we were to leave rate, how much funds would that free up in just that choice free up each year? that would free up about $7.2 million