in energy efficiency is targeted toward low income and available to customers at program launch and additional the million and go solar sf incentive also available at program launch then we have the $2 million for the local renewables. so that's the funding that is already built into the program. the additional funding will depend on the actual rates and the actual cost are after we signed our shell confirm and gotten advice from you as to the right mix as just as we discussed on the slide before. and then of course additional phases will allow for the expansion of our local and regional city controlled resources beyond the mega watts

including substituting resources in for the shell supply as our shell energy north america proposed contract allows us to do. we also anticipate including a number of other program elements and activities. and those show up on the slide 30. just to review them quickly, we will have net energy metering rates for top scale solar, p v installation, we'll be paying customers for generating on their roof tops but not consuming. we'll be able to purchase from local producers of renewables any extra power they wish to spill, if you will onto the for our program. we anticipate regularly issuing requests for offer for development of larger scale

energy efficiency programs and for local and renewable projects. we've talked before about the fact that we have control of quite a bit of land and assets as associated with our water facilities where we could develop larger scale projects that just aren't available to us here in san francisco because we just don't have the landmass, we don't have the the solar availability, the resources as we have in some other properties. so we want to make sure we have those opportunities as well. we have the ability to revenue bond projects. we are looking forward to that. as soon as we have a proven tract record on our customer base and a revenue stream we'll be able to begin that conversation with bond holders and see what our capacity is for further

investments. all of those activities will be launched with the program and be able to meet our obligations for projects that require sequel review and analysis. as i mentioned before, the seed dollars we have for energy efficiency and go solar sf will allow us to immediately begin investments here in san francisco that does require a sequel review so it's funded immediately. we need to develop a resources plan and i spoke with our public utilities commission indicating by january we'll have an implementable integrated resource plan once we know what our customer base and revenue stream is. i'm hearing and saw

lots of nods when she said she want an actionable plan. we can certainly put together that framework for the plan over the next month or so. >> i think that's going to be very critical to many members here in this room that we have a plan. via tore talked about a plan. we have here a menu of options. i would like to ask that we can come back in a month's time with something more concrete if that's where the commissioners here would like to go. commissioner has a question. >> i have a metering question . would they get an additional

metering bill as well? >> yes. we would be paying for kilowatt hours that are not consumed behind the meter but spilled onto the grid and made available to their neighbors, yes. >> do you have a sample of what it might look like. i have seen some that are very confusing and wanted to be able to see if it's friendly to view. >> we expect it to be more friendly. that's part of the state law framework that allows us to initiate the program. we are going to be in discussion with p g and e with respect to how that bill will look. >> it's much simpler to under in the current p g and e net meter. >> yes, i'm familiar with the challenges associated with the bill. as i say we are going to

work with p g and e to see if we can make it more customer friendly and understandable. >> commissioner court knee >> thank you supervisor avalos. with respect to the $2 million, are we learning that the additional $2 million is earmarked for cca customers only? >> no. the reallocation is available to all go solarsf customers. there is a separate $2 million in the authorization of the program by the board of supervisors, that $2 million you see on slide 27 showing up under the clean power sf row as $1 million in fiscal year 2014, 2015, the reallocation shows up

as a separate $2 million and can go for any go solar sf customer. >> thank you, i would like to thank you for bring thg -- bringing this up and it's important that these funds are allocated to cca customers. that is an exclusive we offer and that ought to be retained for people who put their faith in this center. >> so if there are no more questions on the part of the presentation we can move to the not to exceed rate portion of the presentation and kristin hollings will make that presentation to you. thank you.

>> thus thank you for your presentation. >> good afternoon, my name is crisp in hollings, rates will require additional approval and maybe lower t the rates you have seen before today are what we have received -- reviewed and the key layers by miss hale. the rates we are presenting here today are new and unique and the customer base has a choice of whether or not to participate. starting with my first slide. i want to start with this slide which shows something of a 10

thousand foot view in terms of the charges. i want to point out 2 row, starting with rates, for basic tariffs there is a flat rate. with the exception of sewer rates with basic residential customers the rate is like p g and e. the monthly program is set at 0 by state law. the charge is at s f krchltc discretion and 0 for customers. customers have a choice to participate and customers may leave at any time. other customers are similar to p g and e.

so this next slide is building up cost of service. it is based on a cost of service and this charge shows byline item and for each year of the program and then also within each year, the columns show both the total cost for a given line item and also the unit cost per kilowatt hour. it's this unit cost which we are use to go determine the rate and then also add that year one also shows the cost as a percentage of the total cost. so, moving to the rows highlighted by the arrows, these make-up 75 percent of the total cost, the line item includes the cost of renewables and can reduce this cost by 2.6

cents by kilowatt hours and the reserve is based on a 4-and-a-half year repayment term extend to go 12 years could reduce the cost by roughly 1/2 cent per kilowatt hour. if we add up all of these cost, it would fund $90 million in projects. for the last year we see 4.9 kilowatt hour but it's not the final rate. the care discount this judgement adjustment and the final rate is on my next slide. so as noted on the last slide,

the cost per kilowatt hour adding to the care low income which is shown in column c. the result is a rate of 14.57 cents per kilowatt hour shown in column d and noted by the arrow is being proposed for the basic residential not to exceed rate for clean power s f. then moving to column h, this compares to 2013 p g and e generation rate which results in a premium of 6.9 percent in kilowatt hour in column i and the premium is proposed s f rate and p g and e rate. so my

next rate translates this race to a dollar amount. although the rate is flat, the dollar impact of this premium increases with higher tiers. as we move from the columns designated by the arrow we see the premium in dollars. i have circled for tier 1, this tier, the dollar i am mpact is $10.24 a month it represents about a 30 percent premium on the total p g and e electric and gas bill. while customers in higher tiers will see a higher premium, it makes up a smaller percentage of their total bill.

this next slide translates the tier for the resident dental residential customer. it shows the $10.24 premium. the cost of the generation makes up the $10.24 premium. so, this is the final slide i will go through. the next six slides look like it. they show the rates and charges for all the tariffs that are included in this proposal. we are proposing 27 tariffs and as has

been mentioned earlier, we want to have these rates in place should such customers want to participate. we are targeting residential non-carr customers that is noted by the arrow the first two columns show the standard p g and e tariff and tariff title and the final 6 columns shows the proposed not to exceed rate for this program and you will note that rate in 2013. so at this point i'm happy to take any questions on the information i have presented. >> colleagues, any comments or questions? >> let me start off on slide 4 you have an arrow pointed to the rates of point 14 kilowatt

hour. i'm wondering what that means in term of bonding capacity for build out. has that been a -- in terms of looking at a rate or imagine a rate based on what we want to consider for bonding capacities. >> as miss hale has mentioned it's based on a certain renewable rate and customer care participation. if we change some of these choices made in the programs or changed in some of the

assumption we can change the cost of the program and apply the cost savings to either lowering the rate or we can apply it to bonding capacity, but if we were to add up all of those cost savings that were summarized by miss hale, that comes you the to $9.4 million annually and that would give us roughly $90 million in bonding capacity. if we chose that otherwise it could go into savings for rate payers. >> yes. or we could reduce the rate the 2 cents for the renewables mix and half cent for the payment. >> and the areas for commission action can you say what that

provides in terms of what it means in terms of that $9.4 million. does that go directly toward rate payers or does that lead towards -- >> it leads to the program as it's been designed as with a 10 percent mix with the type 1 renewable, 85 percent for the type 2 renewable. it's been said at the program has been designed. if we make different choices on how we design this program we can bring the cost of the program down and shift those cost savings to bonding capacity or to future build out. however this 1457 represents the cost of the

program as we have redesigned it. >> okay. i think with -- if i may add, barbara hale, it also includes a rate stabilization fund which accumulates to 500,000 each year which is 2-and-a-half million over the program. what does that work on the in terms bond of is capacity? >> 2-and-a-half million is roughly $25 million. >> so the 14 cents rate has that capacity and we are talking about changes in the cost structure, the liever gives you more and we'll be looking for guidance from our commission on what the right mix should be, how you wish to, if you wish to make those changes , how you want us to apply the lower cost in rate

savings and capacity >> what would be providing with us the different scenarios that shows the bonding capacity and increase in bonding capacity because it gives us a sense of how we want to adjust the rates in terms of how we want to accomplish that plan. >> mr. torres? >> i want to make sure that we understand that this issue has to be extended until our april 23rd meeting to make sure we have the scenarios of the chairman referencing this. this is the first time we have seen this data. >> yes. commissioner, we understand this is your first exposure to the rate and to these choices that we are describing to you in such a more concrete way. and we understand that there is work for us to do to respond to your questions about not only what

that bonding capacity could be but what we could do with it under an outline of -- >> a third hearing at the puchlt p u c and more conversations we board as we move forward. >> i would like to move as quickly as possible and we are more information we need. i was hoping that we could have approved rates today. but i understand where people are at. >> that was my hope too but after all this information we need to take the time to do it right and make sure your questions are answered as well as sflafco. >> thank you. i just want a

point of clarification where you have -- that means that they are for example with the first phase of those who will be able to choose to opt out or just allow things to take it's course, they will be required to pay the exit fees on the way they are set or can you be clear about what that means for the actual customer? >> well, our own, you are talking about the departure charge? >> here on 5.4, there is a specific rate that is listed and says exit fee is charged by p g and e and maybe i'm not reading that correctly. >> so there is the p g and e is

sur charges. it's the power charge and different adjustment which accounts for the fact that p g and e has bought on the market and this is an additional charge that is added to the customer's bill. that charge and how that manifest in terms of dollars on the bill is shown on slide 6 and that comes up to roughly 85 cents for a customer. >> but that's not necessarily going to be included in the actual rate that we set? >> that is not part of our rate, no. >> but that will be a rate consistently on anyone who chooses clean power? >> that's correct. that follows

the customer's p g and e portfolio. when we describe what the premium is for the customer, it is included. we are making sure customers understand that that is a part of the cost that they will incur. >> okay. i had another question, i don't know if this was discussed but i know that earlier in the presentation there was a 60-day window to opt out without a fee, does that include the care folks. >> there would be no charge for residential customers including care. if the care customer joins the program there would

be no charge for leaving the program. >> if they opt out after the 60 day period? >> even after the 60 day there is a proposal to the zero. >> there is no fee for anyone anytime they choose to opt out of the program >> for residential customer yes, we are proposing a $25 fee for commercial customers after the first 60 days. >> okay. thanks. >> six months, sorry. >> i had a couple questions that might be for miss hale. this number is assuming as far as our bucket mix, because we had conversations around diluting the mix, i wasn't

comfortable with that unless there was a plan to get back to the purist mix possible but in order to try to create a powerful rate, we talked about that as a possible option. does this include the greenist mix of rec's at this point? >> yes. i'm sorry about the microphone. yes, it assumes that we have the richest if you will, mix of california certified renewable products. it assumes 5 percent renewable credits. if you choose to have more energy renewable credits the cost would go down. >> we don't see that here? >> no. in the newer slide, if you go from the 5 percent to 85 percent credit mix, you free up

$72 million ear year. if you didn't lower the rate. >> you still call these liever in it's decision whether it would be accelerated research recovery, late reduction, local build out or bonding capacity as a combination thereof? >> did i miss anything? >> no. you got it. >> thank you. are you done? >> yes. done. >> i'm done. up for questions. >> we are ready to move on to our fairness board presentation.

>> the chair on the fairness board. we are and advisory board. our position is to uphold meetings and rate recommendation. the board has met 9 times this year to discuss these rates. we have had considerable public testimony, testimony from the p

u c to come up with some of our recommendation. the back part of our board is made up from customers and various members from departments within city government such as the controller administrator and office of public finances. the biggest challenge around evaluating these rates for the board is to balance a number of complex and often conflict issues and value sets large around balancing the rates to customer segments, the ease of understanding the rates for the rate payer. when we come to that lens we've come to several observations that both sf