>> thank you very much. i'm david mets. i'm here to provide you with a brief summary of the results that have survey. it's already been presented to members of the public utilities commission and i will move through it fairly quickly and answer questions you may have. you will see here the methodology of the survey, it tracts the survey that we have conducted for p u c and prior years and we have conducted many interviews in mid-february. those results were statistically weighted. the survey was conducted on

land lines and in english, chinese and spanish to not exclude participation. the results of the survey we conducted last year in 2012 as well as an initial survey done in 2011. however, interpreting those results i want to draw cautions about differing methodologies which limit them being entirely apples to apples comparisons. first there's a number of places where we changed the word to go better reflect the substance of the program as it existed at the time of each survey. similarly there were predicted rates and that information shifted. this year for the first time we had an up to date data base and which was fresher and more accurate than prior years and finally perhaps most importantly last year included care customers who were left

out of this survey. so slightly different base of respondents this year than we had last year. >> could you say for those who don't know who the care customers are? >> yes. maybe i will defer to staff to make sure we have an accurate explanation. >> care customers are those customers within p g and e services that qualify for low income rates. >> one of the initial questions we ask is whether our respondents had heard, seen or read anything about power sf and this is a question we asked in 2011 and found that awareness of the program was low. in each year fewer 1 in 10 said they heard a great deal about it. this is new

information for most local residents. we then had a conceptual questions on some of the key choices around power sf asking if they would prefer to pay more from coming from newer sources rather than paying the same rate and on that question we had a slim plurality. 48 percent said they would pay more to retain that hundred percent renewable electricity. those that had not heard about the program. will give a description outlining some of the programs most features. the service they would provide, it's management through sfpuc

and the fact that they will continue to deliver electricity and service on powerlines and the energy facilities to help provide renewable energy for the city. at this point the survey we did not provide information on projected rates. we describing the program conceptually and ask the respondents once the program was operating staying with power sf and/or return to pg and e. 45 percent told us they would stay. 30 would opt out and the remaining 1/4 of rate were undecided. it's a 1-2 ratio that would stay as opposed to opt out but there is a substantial number that would indicate they were not sure and we have not given them information about rates. that's for those who were undecided

are probably waiting to hear more about. just to give you context from those surveys, you are compare them, though similar though not identical. the numbers have always showed somewhere between 37 and 45 percent that they would remain with the program. these numbers are higher that they would stay with the program. the different nature of the survey is each year. so the next critical question was giving people information about what they would be asked to pay under clean power sf. and we offered our respondents not to exceed rate and that rate is specific both to the rate tier they are in 1-5 and whether they receive basic or all service. they have the not

to exceed rate for their usage category. given that information 47 percent said they would remain and 42 percent opt out and that drops significantly once we have given them that rate information. there were significant differences between the tiers and their reaction as to the not exceed rate. the portion that said they would remain were in tier one, clear majority said they would stay with the program, over 50 percent, the other higher tiers, the proportion indicated they would opt out and majority tier 2, 3, 4, 5. at the top of the screen. >> i think it's important to note that when we talk about polls and survey, if there is a

number above 50, we are not trying to measure that we are looking to parts to see if that will be staying in the program. these numbers are still presenting. >> that is correct. it's a different between opting out and opting in. the number of customers saying they would remain in the program is a substantial number even though it's below 50. >> thank you. >> the next slide shows a different rate indicating that it might be something lower in the not to exceed rate. we offered them a projected alternative rate and given that alternative rate the proportion indicating they would remain with the program is higher. it rose to 55 percent of those polled with those heard there is a higher sensitivity there and a number for those indicating to stay with the program. we also wanted to explore the

potential for p g and e to offer a program of choosing if they opt out of clean power sf and give a description of what that program might look like hand what it's cost might be which would presumably be a lower cost. given that option, a total of 17 percent of those indicated previously they would stay with clean power sf given the rate information we provided indicated they would opt out in favor of that p g and e program. >> what was your impression of the statistic? >> what i appreciate, they were reporting the number different, the one thing i would put in there the question was split

whether they would leave the program and definitely leave and probably. the definite was 43 percent. 13 percent says they would probably leave. i would anticipate that you would see a highly amount leaving. if you say i'm going to leave. they would have to fill out a second form saying i want to be in the green tier program. it a very small percent. >> at this rate we don't have a sense between the program of p g and e [!ez >> i would yield to the difference to the staff to describe the difference of the two programs. >> what we know is what was filed at the california public

utilities commission and in that setting the initial proposal was a reliant on renewable credit and assumed that customers would pay know more than 2 cents more for kilowatt hour than they presently pay. since then there have been proposals that may change. they can work this out. we expect not to hear in a month or so until something is formed in the california pc. thank you. >> so, if we take those who indicated that initially they would stay with given the rate

and those opt out from the alternative from p g and e. the number dropped to 40 percent and 45 percent who would opt out back to p g and e. one final question we asked -- >> question for you. >> mr. mets, there was some information sent to commissioners from rick brooks and it an accompanied a very interesting charts that would provide services that we are hoping to pro i provide here in san francisco. is there anything you can access as far as data to give us a picture [!ez >> we have done with the marine services. i have to look at the

numbers. the structure of that survey and the context of the questions was a little bit different, but the nature of the questions was similar, yes. >> i didn't notice any charts or questions in the is you are service that related to the job of this program. there is some debate about that. did that come across in your questions? >> we did not have questions that would impact unemployment. >> where are the objects? >> this survey was one in which we did not test a series of message that either proponents or opponents might offer. it was focused on specific price where it might vary under those different conditions. there is a whole host of things that people on the other side of

issues might including those points that you are raising. >> i'm knew new to this process, i share the same novice approach. was this issue raised before because i know you made some reference in your opening remarks on the labor issues. >> the way this program has been envisioned is it would lead to a massive job creation. we would have jobs to build our energy generation supply and we would have jobs to maintain it as well. so the belief that this is something that is a job killer is not really i believe with meets reality. we had economic impact report that showed -- i didn't think it was correct that may have shown the loss of job was minimal, but we see it as job creation. there

has been one union that has expressed a lot of alarm about the loss of jobs, that's the union that is actually currently servicing p g and e power supply 1245, we are seeing that we have many people in the room believing that it a program that is going to be about job creation and that we are definitely moving in that direction to make sure we have a very robust program that will lead to energy efficiency and jobs here in san francisco. >> may i ask mr. kelly a question? >> march 12, you issued -- question was specifically on the 95 local jobs and in your letter you indicated that the certain is an act that was different from what we seem to implement. do do you recall that letter?

>> would you give this to mr. kelly? >> for the colleagues who are requesting to speak, i don't see that on the roster. we are trying to fix it now. >> yes, kelly general manager what was the question again? >> the question is you make a reference to the 95 jobs that would be lost assumes a different scenario that is being proposed. central is that correct? >> yes. >> what was the scenario that would have included the loss of those jobs? on the fact that is a different approach before us. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager. the report

that the city's chief economist prepared, did not look at the prospects for local investment. so it looked at the shell contract and at the increase in pricing assumed that if you were paying more on your electric bill, you as a san francisco resident wouldn't have that money to spend in other ways here in san francisco and it would therefore decrease jobs in other sectors. but the report explicitly acknowledged that it did not look at the local investment, local build portion of the clean power sf program. so that's how it's distinguished. >> also in terms of the renewable as well >> correct, the contract is on renewable and the local investment component is not

located in that chief economist report. >> california certified renewable, yes. >> thank you, we are getting into the territory about why -- we discussed this in the last meeting that there is misinformation put out about the loss of jobs and energy created. that's confused a lot of people in san francisco. although the survey we'll see that was measured perhaps it wasn't a great number of people in san francisco. that information has been out there and it needs to be rebutted by communication staff within offices and puc. commissioner campos? >> i look forward to the information. i think the numbers we have here are pretty encouraging in terms of the numbers put out here, i think a

lot of misinformation has been put out there and i think their strategy has been sort of let's throw everything up the wall strategy and see what sticks and you mentioned they mail, at times i do wonder who is doing more to kill this program whether it's p g and e and having to put out some of this information to be honest i think it's unfortunate. >> commissioner breed? >> i just want to go back to a point that commissioner torres brought up regarding the reduction of employment. i think clearly if there are a logs loss of customers for p g and e there will not be a need for as many employees if a number of people choose to be a part of this program. so for

clarity's sake i want to understand if that has been something that has been taking into consideration with regard to moving in this direction. there will be clearly a loss of job opportunities, although i company realize as a result of what the city plans to do with clean power, we are talking about building plant, about hiring locally, there is a lot of great local opportunities that will happen job wise as a result of this program. but clearly san francisco statewide, there will be an impact job wise. i just wanted to understand what that means or if that's something we are even talking about >> i think staff can answer that question, but i believe the measure of job loss was pretty minimal from the economic impact report that the controllers office had done, it wasn't measuring the job loss

in the p g and e but the overall economy. >> that's correct. i was looking at the overall san francisco economy assuming that dollars spent on increase in electric bill would not increase other products. it did not focus on electrical work, but to that point, remember that the clean power sf program enabled by state statute remains for all p g and e customers for all services. it's only the supply of electricity that san francisco power program would then partner with p g and e to provide. if you are a resident of san francisco and member of the clean power sf group, your lights go out and you still go

out and call a p g and e they roll out and respond to that outage and then refers the crews out for work. there is a very much heavy reliance, a partnership for implement thg program. >> for clarity, what you are saying to me is that we are not looking necessarily for any job loss for employees of p g and e based on how this is being rolled out? >> that is correct. the city's chief economist did not look at particular job sectors. they just looked at how much money would not be spent on other things since it's being spent on the electricity and conoh metric modeling as to what other jobs would be lost because the money is not

circuiting in the economy. >> i understand that but we could not say for certain that there wouldn't be job loss because of certain sectors. >> that's correct. we can't say there will be job loss or job gain. we do have investments that we expect that there will be job loss and job gain. >> 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