and the northern part of the sierra nevada range. there are imbedded within that geography, i just described publicly owned utilities, for example, redding, so that's a pocket of that broad area that pg and e does not serve. >> but would you anticipate that a lot of their 30 thousand residential customers would probably be around berkeley and san francisco and marine county and santa cruz. >> yes, i would expect it to be coastal communities reflecting the values we see in other choices in those communities as well. >> and then you mention clean power sf will be ramped up to about 50 to 90 thousand customers on day 1, what's the current customer base of pg and e in san francisco? >> pg and e residential accounts number 360 thousand if

memory serves me, yes. >> okay, thank you. >> you're welcome, and to talk about -- >> just one more question from commissioner breed? >> i want to know if this might confuse people, if there might be some overlap from pg and e and sf power. >> i think certainly multiple campaigns advertising similar but not exactly the same products can be confusing to folks, on the upside, there will be a lot of media and interest hopefully in our program and in pg and e's, and while we may -- that may have some negative impact on the viewing audience, there will be a lot of information message being used to communicate these choices and that's really what the clean power sf is, it's a

choice program, we want folks to understand it, not to be confused by it, that will be one of our customer notification and education program challenges, but really what we want to do is make sure folks understand what the choice is, what the value of the program could be to them, what the cost of the program could be to them and we would expect that they'll be thinking about whether the pg and e option is a better way for them to go and may have questions about that as well, so there will be a communication challenge i think around those issues but it will also make sure that folks are really aware, you know, the awareness factor should be higher. >> and since we're talking about in phases, so they're going to overlap, so the ability to opt out is based on -- i mean, you're going to be rolling this program out in phases, so in some instances, they're going to probably

overlap with pg and e's plan in some of the areas? >> yeah, it's going to be in part based on how quickly we launch our program, our current timeline says we're launching our program in october of this year and how quickly pg and e receives authorization to launch their program, what's proposed is still pending, they're not authorized to launch the program, so we will begin our notification and education campaign program ourselves, you know, throughout this summer, we'll be conducting that effort to educate folks. pg and e won't be authorized probably until late this year to have their program and so they won't have the ability to address customers directly on what they have authority to offer yet. >> thank you. >> okay. >> and just one more of the

commissioners would like to, commissioner campos. >> thank you, mr. chair, and it's great to have commissioner london breed here on the local agency formation commission. just a quick question, what is our ability to actually differentiate our program in terms of information that's provided to the public from the pg and e program, you know, pg and e is talking about the use of energy credits, we're not, so if you can talk a little bit about that. >> yeah, we definitely anticipate a lower reliance on renewable energy credits than pg and e's program, so that would be one distinguishing factor. pg and e's proposal is to rely on green e certificates which are not recognized as renewable under the renewable portfolio standard law here in california. all of the products we are proposing to offer our customers to make up the 100%

renewable portfolio are considered renewable under california's rps law, so that's another key distinguishing factor and those would be the sorts of things we would be talking about, we're also talking about the fact that our program is our building block for building locally renewable resources, for employing locally to conduct that construction, and that will also be a distinguishing factor between our program and pg and e's, and we hope that will be compelling to folks to know that by choosing our clean power sf program, they'll be choosing to invest in the community and to have energy efficiency and renewable here in san francisco and on properties that san francisco controls. >> thank you, i appreciate that and i think what you said is correct and i think it underscores the importance of the build-out in all of this because that's an important part of the marketing as well.

thank you. >> thank you. and please continue. >> thank you. so, as you may know, we launched our customer survey this past weekend, and we expected to wrap up in the following week. that will be providing us with key information that we will take to the rate fairness board, to our commission, to you folks again that will help us understand customers' readiness for our clean power sf program. the survey really, the main objective is to be able to provide an updated precinct heat map that we've shown here in this setting before, that's the map of san francisco broken up by precincts that shows with color variation where the highest acceptance rates are of our clean power sf program and that will really help us focus our efforts on locations where

customers have the most interest in participating and we're testing customers through this survey to determine their general awareness and understanding of clean power sf, their willingness to pay more for 100% green renewable energy product, the likelihood of customers opting out with the not to exceed rates that we are testing, and their interest in having that opportunity to invest locally in local clean energy projects like energy efficiency and renewable generation, and then we're also going to be testing their relative interest in clean power sf versus the pg and e proposed green tariff option that i just summarized, that data should be available in early march for us to begin to share and it's one of the key steps in an update on focusing

in on the customer education component next steps for this first quarter with our newly announced or planned, perhaps it's not announced, joint puc and lafco meeting on june 25, that's going the fall within that 30 day period hopefully, if our commission decides on march 12th that it's ready to act on the proposed rates, then the 30 day period will begin shortly thereafter, and the board if it takes no action will be allowing the rates to become effective 30 days during that 30 day period, after that 30 day period, the rates would become effective, so hopefully we'll have an opportunity to engage in a dialog with our commission and with our staff about the clean power sf program on march 25th.

>> barbara, could you say how certain it is that the commission take up the rates on march 12th? >> they'll take it up by -- yes, they will be considering, and i say that assuming that all the steps that we've already gotten in place fall, you know, are taken which includes rate fairness board, getting a briefing from staff on the results of the customer survey, that's scheduled to occur on march 8th, then march 1 and 8, march 1 and 8, i should reference my more detailed schedule to make sure i give you accurate information, yes, march 1 and march 8 are the two dates the rate fairness board would have then for consideration before coming to our commission on march 12 *lt, and we're hoping we've built in adequate time for them to be comfortable making a recommendation advising our commission and our

commission will be comfortable taking action on march 12. >> and so besides the rate fairness board, do you see any other factors that could delay any kind of decisions by the commission? >> not that i'm anticipating at this point. i mean, there will be -- >> just unknown unknowns? >> yes, i don't have anything in mind. >> okay. thank you. >> and so then with that, i would like to turn it over to ratica fox to present the state legislative update if i may. >> okay, thank you, and we'll have more questions after the entire presentation. >> thank you for your presentation, barbara. >> good afternoon, commissioners, ratica fox with the sfpuc, we thought that it would be helpful to just give you an informational update about some policies that are being considered at the state level related to clean energy, i think in the past, the puc

and lafco have worked collaboratively on policy proposals being advanced in sacramento, the senator leno built focused on it being an example, i think in subsequent meetings, we'll plan on giving you more specific information as particular legislative proposals move forward. as far as the sort of broad timeline in sacramento, today is really the last day for members to introduce bills and so next week, we'll probably see 500, a thousand bills related to issues that we all care about here in san francisco. i wanted to point out really three policy issues that we think would be of particular interest to lafco, the first is around captain trade auction revenue, you all probably know that last november, san francisco -- i mean california began to create a carbon market with cap and trade dla,, the

first auction generated 280 thousand dollars in revenue, there was a second auction that year and that is generated about another 230 million just heard today, so what is happening now is california air resources board is working with the department of finance to develop a 3 year investment plan for how they propose those dollars to be spent. the three year investment plan will be shared through the governor's revised plan, the air resources board is taking both public comment and written comment around what those investment categories should look like, the puc has been working with the broader city family to try to shape some of that. our anticipation of what will come out via the arb department of process finance is that the

governor's budget may revise sal will include a broad set of investment categories and likely recommendation that various state agencies administer those funds. the legislature i think has also that their own views so we're already starting to see some bills coming out around the legislature's view and how those dollars should be spent so i think between now and the end of session in september, there are going to be i think many opportunities to weigh in on how we think those dollars should ultimately be allocated. i think some of the things we've been focused on at the puc is i think the city and the puc in particular had a strong track regard around energy efficiency and renewable generation projects particularly on public cities and for example, have done energy efficiency work at the african american center,

supervisor breed, so we want to continue to get as many dollars possible to continue that work. er >> there was a few, a couple of years ago, we had approved the sunset reservoir solar system and i think that we were talking about after maybe 7 years if the city could have the option of purchasing that site and running it ourselves, i think that could be a really good eligible use for any funds that we have, to have our own power system, we can help to ramp up. >> that's a great recommendation, thank you, and then as you know, puc is in the beginning phases of its sewer system improvement program and are trying to integrate some of the innovative technology resource recovery and the waste water process, so some ideas around that, and then i think one thing we were really pleased about is that last year when the legislature did their

initial bills around happen trade revenue allocation, there is a requirement that up to 25% of dollars be spent in disadvantaged communities, historically, san francisco, the definition of disadvantaged communities that the state uses is one that keeps income relative to the state and so we often don't count as a disadvantaged community though we have many neighborhood that are struggling, i think the definition they're using for disadvantaged communities in the context of cap and trade dollars, the bayview hunter's point community will be eligible for those funds so we are hope hating we can try to get access to some of those revenues for that, so we will continue to update you moving forward in the cap and trade, but you as lafco members may be interested in that. the secondary ya around clean energy that we thought you would be interested in getting an update around st prop 39

funds, you all will remember in november, california voters approved prop 39 which basically creates 515 million dollars for a year for five years to go towards energy efficiency renewable generation projects and public buildings and primarily public schools. this is again going to be a big decision point for decision makers in sacramento, so the governor has laid out a set of proposals around how he thinks those dollars should be spent throughout his budget. there's about 3 or 4 different state bills that are also proposing how the funds should be allocated. we've been thinking with the city family about how we really maximize just the amount of dollars that first come to san francisco because we -- it's very unclear, will it be a block grant, a competitive grant dollars that are

administrated by the state, if it is a block gront, what would be the distribution, so we're trying to maximize the amount of dollars that come to san francisco and then in particular, that we have strong partnerships and places that have strong partnerships between the school district through their power provides like the puc, that emphasizing partnership at the local level is something else we've prioritized and quickly, the last bill that we wanted to bring to your attention is sb43 which is a bill that was also introduced and didn't make it to the finish line last year, that's focused on a community renewable energy supporting the creation of local renewable energy projects and i'm happy to provide you more detail about that but given the interest of lafco, that's something you should be aware of, so i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you.

>> thank you, i appreciate the presentation, separate from what was discussed, we've been getting a lot of communication or san franciscans have been getting a lot of communication from i believe it's one of our unions that is a union that's closely associated with pg and e, it's to undermine our progress so far with clean power sf, i believe there was a mailing that went out last week that people picked up, especially in our green area, we're expecting to have the largest concentration of people who are going to be staying in the program, the clean power sf program and i think that there's a lot of information and possibly misinformation, i would say more definitively more disinformation going about this and it's trying to paint a negative picture about the sf clean energy program, but it's

conducted by a labor union, we're also getting a lot of e-mails about this as well and i'm curious if the puc has been aware of this effort and what you think needs to be done on your end to kind of counteract the mez saj that is are coming out against clean power sf. >> yes, commissioner, we're definitely aware of the mailers, and e-mail communications, in part because your lafco staff is helpful in making sure that folks at the puc see the information, if it hasn't landed on our doorsteps, we get it from jason which is good. you know, our objective is to inform, provide accurate information to our customers, our potential customers, so that's what our customer notification and education program is focused on.

we don't want anyone being surprised by becoming our customers, we want them to understand what the service offering is that we're providing. i expect that in order to do that effectively, we will be answering people's questions that arise from receiving this mailer and then hearing from us about our program and saying, you know, how do you reconcile these two different messages and we'll have to be careful to make sure we get accurate information back to our perspective customer, not anl because we think that's the right thing to do, under the code of conduct law, we're required to do that, so we need to be careful to be giving accurate information and we know pg and e is obligate under that same code of conduct to provide accurate information and i believe the materials that you're referring to were not provided by pg and e. >> okay, by the international brotherhood of electrical workers. >> that's my understanding, by

an organization funded by them. >> and you mentioned having a response, has any material been filed so far by the communications department? >> not in direct response to the flyers you're referring to, we certainly already have a website, we are addressing particular information that is addressed to us, we did receive a letter, our commissioners and our general manager received a letter from a representative of the international brotherhood of electrical workers that raised some of the same arguments that appear in the flyers and we did carefully respond and provide accurate rebuttal to those remarks. i believe that letter exchange was made available to you through your lafco staff. >> okay, and we're seeing since the mailing into the e-mails, i'm not sure we have the

ability to do a mail piece or some kind of campaign through electric media might be necessary. i'd like to think that, you know, well, i'm worried now that we are looking kind of flat footed and their goal is they want people to stay in the program, we did not have the customer base that we expect to have for a clean power sf and i think we have to do everything we can possible to make sure we have that customer base, there's a lot at stake moving forward and i would think we could explore today just how the puc and working with lafco and our offices can have a proactive response here that we can all take part in and make sure we're getting our message out in a clear way. >> i'll let ms. fox take -- >> i'd will happy to do that, and i think it would be helpful to summarize some of the key

activities that are part of the customer notification and education plan because i think it will partially answer some of that, so the customer notification and education plan which i think we presented the overview of that to this commission at the end of november and our commission sort of approved that moving forward with that plan at the end of last year as well, so the poll is the first piece of that to really understand the market to generate that new heat map of where is the greater propensity for clean power sf and then beginning at the end of april is where the first phase of our early notification customer education begins and as part of that work, we will be reaching out to 10 thousand people in those darker green, the dark green medium green precincts going door to door and through phone to educate about what the clean power sf power offering would be and to get peoples' feedback

on it, we're also planning on doing partnership with non-profit organizations and we are in the process of figures out who those will be and how that will roll out to help support us in doing overall education about the program so that early notification work is scheduled to happen and we're currently on track for that to happen in april, may and june. then, you know, in june, we have a key decision from our commission around the contract the purchase energy, you know, assuming that that were to move forward, then we enter into the mandatory opt-out period which is another big opportunity for education where we will be doing agm for power barbara hill has described, that would focus on broadcast media, radio, etc., educating about the program, so we continue to

move forward in our efforts around customer education and notification and then commissioners are happy to provide factual responses if you would like to, to some of the mailers. >> i think it makes sense that we have the plan we had approved before and that's one thing that certainly we have to continue with, but we also have a countercampaign against what we're doing that i think needs to be considered in terms of stepping up our efforts to make sure that a clear message is going out about the program, and i'd like to figure out just how we can be really strong about that. i think april for the start of that could be a little bit late because there's already a lot of messages have been going out now for a few months now and that kind of worries me that we're losing, we're falling behind in terms of the message. commissioner campos? >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you for raising this issue. thank you to puc and lafco

staff for looking into this matter. you know, just -- let me just get a copy of these mailers. i certainly respect the right of any entity or any group and in this case of ibw to put out information about our program, but i also feel that in many respects, we are not doing enough in terms of really countering the misinformation here because whether intended or not, the message here is that somehow our program is unique in the sense that there is a purchase of energy from shell without really saying that pg and e itself is actually buying energy from shell as well, and that the

difference between our program and ours is that we are buying energy from shell with the idea as eventually building an infrastructure that allows us to create our own energy, and in many respects, you know, the message to the consumer is that in fact if you want to get out of business, you know, get out of doing business with shell, that the only way we're going to do that is through community choice aggregation, so i think that when someone is providing misinformation about your program, we have to figure out the level of information that we can really provide out there to counter because i don't think that it's enough to simply say this is the truth about our program, i think we should definitely do that, but is there an ability to say, you know, they're not telling you

all the facts, is there an ability to say that is there anything legally that precludes us from doing that? shall -- maybe that's a question for counsel. >> well, this is and it isn't a campaign, and you know the city cannot participate in a campaign, but you can always even in a true campaign, which is this is kind of a pseudo campaign because there's nothing on the ballot but it will be a fiekt, can provide facts and information and that i think is what we're trying to do through the education program, but i think you're right, that as these pieces fall, there probably should be a strategy or at least a discussion about are we going to, you know, sometimes you think early money spent is well spent and sometimes people forget about it and until we'

ear ready with our program, we know big money will be spent, we have limited resources, so it's a discussion of should we respond now, we have the ability to put information in envelopes to rate payers. >> i would encourage us with the puc, the lafco and the city attorney's office to really figure out how aggressive we could be in countering this because i do think that a lot of people are confused and rightly so. i've had so many people come to me and say, how can you be buying energy from shell and i sort of point out, well, you right now as a pg and e customer is getting energy that comes from shell already, unfortunately, it's part of this business right now, we're kind of stuck, but we have a strategy for getting out of that. you know, but that message is not getting across. the other