benefit of that system to the public and we are allowed to serve municipal and commercial electric customers. so that would be an option. we are under the charter, the city's charter responsible for assessing the fees ability for new customers within a context of redevelopment. that's most likely city structured process for that. >> what are the areas of redevelopment, bayview hunters point, treasure island? >> yes. >> i was told there may be new customers like pg & e and if there are not already pg & e customers there might not be a legal mechanism or might be different?

>> it's certainly a clearer road ahead when we look to areas of the city where our pg & e is not already providing a service under the federal power act. we can work with pg & e in a public access tariff they have that is approved by the general regulatory commission to referee -- receive from them distribution service that allows us to get power to those new customers like the redevelopment areas you referred to. that's not an effort without unsefrnlt pg & e has filed a new whole tariff distribution at the commission that would substantially increase the cost of object obtaining that service and places new terms on that service that make it more

challenging. that's before the federal energy regulatory commission today and we are in designated settlement conversations with parties on that filing as we speak. we expect to be before a fork judge in that case. that's some of the complexities behind the solutions to finding a financial fix to our pickle. >> so, with i talk to kelly, he said that the staff is not really working on power and looking around sources around power and this was what i was told. my response was, this sound fine and good for the heche power system, but we

still want to give direction and we have certainly clear indications from the board of supervisors that we want the work continued. what kind of work is being done in your department? >> i think the areas that we are hearing of broad mutual interest is the local build component of the community choice aggregation program we've been talking about. so staff is working on more fully developing that concept. as you know we had a draft with stake holders in concept and hadn't presented it to our commission and you referred earlier when you were asking miss malcolm

questions about the lack of detail and there is no labor work force definition there or real work defined in that local build paper. and we would agree with you and one of the tasks that general manager kelly has given us to build out more detail like that in the local build plan that we have drafted where we would be able to answer some of the questions that have remained unanswered about local build in terms of projected work force, what's the still sets that would be needed, the hours that will be needed. that circles back to the question of that you were asking earlier about rim fire and financial needs. we are very much a utility dependent on 1 generation system that

heche hydrosystem. we have some local solar but in the event of an emergency like the rim fire like we just experienced we are reminded of our vulnerability of being so dependent on that asset and that also influenced the general manager at wanting to look again at the plant. >> it can build a local power sf need if that was a future need or our public utilities service need as that need matures as well. that is focused on that local build component. >> and do you think at some point if it does look like you are looking at local build out under a clean power community choice aggregation type of framework that our public

utilities commissioners would support that? >> i'm not going to hazard a guess as to what future commissions could or would support. i just know that the general manager has asked us to use that local build out plan and that's the action that's being taken at this point. >> thank you. >> when we talked about those rates in if -- in particular, part of it was how it would come out at the 9.5. is that accurate? >> we expected pg & e's rate to be about $0.09 because it's at the california public utilities commission because it not normally in an a lot of controversy oovment was that

based on a hundred percent clean power? >> no. that's their current portfolio which is about 19 percent of bucket one bundled renewable product. >> because i'm trying to get some clarity around a comparable comparison because we are talking about a hundred percent versus the potential rate pnl would -- pg & e would charge for percentage. >> are you talking about the rate pg & e proposed? >> yes. last year pg & e filed for a green rate and there was a settlement reached by a number of parties. that has been on hold pending the legislature's consideration of

sb 43 which the governor has not signed, but it passed both houses. we expect based on pg & e's statement to the media that if the rate as proposed were to be adopted by the puc, in january or later, that rate would be about, well we originally thought it would be 11.5 cents because pg & e based that rate on which it would calculated would be going up by a penny in january. >> that would be what percentage of clean products for that particular amount? >> the settlement proposes that that portfolio would be a hundred percent bundled renewable resources. not with new resources but with pg & e

has with the portfolio. it would move to another rate portfolio. >> would that be something they are able to achieve on a gradual scale basically starting at one level and increasing or would they have to start running at hundred percent? >> they already have a hundred percent. if the green tariff has a hundred omega watt participation, that hundred mega watt is all right under pnl. pg & e. i don't know what pg & e is propose inside the green tariff program. >> it would be challenging for us to be competitive without the local build out? >> dpengd -- depending oh what

you mean by competitive, we that rate and still have a lot left over for local build. i can guess what the numbers would be, but they wouldn't be accurate right now. >> okay. if i can add to that commissioner breed. >> i think what i'm hearing you ask is if it would be renewable. we would both be a hundred percent renewable. they would have a higher percentage of the bundles of the premium renewable products, but we would be constructing local renewables and their program

while it envisions construction but it would impact the local economy like the program would. >> i appreciate that. that makes perfect sense and i just wanted to make sure that we are getting all of the information we need because i would like us to figure out a way to be more aggressive to provide this program, bought the provide it that number one is of course successful and competitive and that's really important for it's success. i know we had a slight bit of a setback with the fact that the commission has determined that they will not set rates which is really unfortunate, but i do think that we as a board of

supervisors, i know this is lafco, but we as members of the board have sent direction to puc commissioners explaining that we want to see this move forward. what i want us to be able to do is work with puc and we want puc to be more aggressive with helping to support us to move this forward and to make sure that it more competitive in doing so. so, i just don't feel that the support is there. i know we are talking about and you are investing in the local build out but we are pretty much ready to go on it now. we can do those things simultaneously and we are just trying to understand at this point what's the hold up? abets besides

the commissures disapproval of setting these particular rates. what's the hold up to looking at an alternative to something that would be successful? >> i think that's the plan for a local build. that's an area whe we saw a lot of mutual interest across the board from policy makers. to try to put more detail to that, is what the general manager has asked us to do. so that's what we are engaged in at this point. >> part of my concern is the fact that we are trying to move the this program forward has really forced pg & e to finally step up to the plate and provide a product that they have had a long at a particularly competitive rate as well. i do think that we

need to continue to push forward as aggressively as possible so we need to figure out a way to do that. i personal would prefer that we not do a comparison in terms of well, we have this money available but we need it for the rim fire to pay out and fix what we need to fix because we don't have the money to fix it because this money was earmarked for a purpose to provide for clean power. imagine if that were not the case, then we would look for other money resources to fix the damages from the fire. i don't want to keep trying to add layers of bureaucracy and challenges to try to develop something more concrete to really move this thing forward, not just aggressively but of course in a smart way and effective way that makes sense so it is a success. because i would hate to see the time and effort go into a project that

is not prepared to deal with the capacity that we are hoping that this program can deal with. so, i just wanted to make some comments about that and make sure that we are trying to be a lot more aggressive and moving forward with the directive with not just members of the lafco, but also the members of the board of supervisors. >> thank you. mr. mar? >> i wanted to thank you about the work and it's been about 3 weeks since we asked the #z mayor the questions. he was really misinformed and i see the transcript. what communications with the mayor's office and the new environmental sustainability director done to correct that.

the mayor's comments were almost as if he's reading from the playbook of our opponent. there is so much in there that is so wrong. i'm wondering what have you done to correct that misperception and what we've done now and how we can get it back on track so he's an alley with us and not an opponent as if he's working hand in hand with pg & e. we have the transcript here and a whole explanation of what is there but how do we communicate with the mayor. single family -- >> i have sat down with mr. kim. he is making the rounds

and getting familiar with all of our responsibilities and we did talk about the clean four -- power sf program and he's got a learning curve of many of the details of this program and how the city can achieve it climate goals is certainly something that we spent time talking about if this is no clean power sf, how are we going to change the renubls -- renewables and greenhouse gas. it's not ours -- to hold the mayor accountable. >> but, miss hale, correcting information that on something we've been working on fore i do -- for years, is our

responsibility. if we haven't done that, what's our job. >> what i was leading to is we can say to make sure our program is understood. we can communicate what our program parameters are with the structures of the program as we have. and so that's what we will continue to do. i think we've been very open and available to address what the program give and take is and what the balance in trying to affordability and clean and green and local build. it's clear that we have not center you can that balance yet in the way that our policy makers at the puc are comfortable. as i said before, our general manager has directed us to focus on that local build and to figure out how we can provide more detail and support behind that statement, local

build, folks talk about robust local build and what that means and how we can put together a plan that is more understood and actionable. that's the task before us and what we are focusing on. >> actually i appreciate your question, commissioner mar. i found that the mayor had a very collegial and bunk alar way of sharing information when it came for question time. any other questions, colleagues? >> i just have some comments. >> commissioner breed? >> i have some concerns that, and i hope, mi -- miss hale you don't take the wrong-way. i have concerned that we don't

have direct control over or trying to move this program forward effectively because we are too dependent on a city agencies puc, for example, to help us start to implement this and there is a bit of a -- i guess challenge here where we have commissioners who are appointed by the mayor and we have director who has their policy directive as it relates to power and water which is what they do great for our city which is appreciated, but we need to think about whether or not we want this process to be a part of moving this process forward, be a part of the city through puc or we want to look at contracting this out with another entity that could help

us effectively move this forward based on the exactly intense of the project and what we need outside of puc's jurisdiction, outside of pg & e's oversight so we are able to really move this thing forward. so, i just wanted to put that out there because i don't know if we are going to get anywhere. i mean, miss hale has been given a direction from the director to look at local build out which we appreciate, but does that move us forward. and is that moving us forward in a more timely manner. we started this process way back in 2007, we've been doing a lot of work for this program. there has been a lot of support for this program and we are at a

crossroads here. i think we need to make a decision or think about doing something more extreme than just an allowing the same plays with the same process and doing the same thing and getting the same results of no rates being set or agreed to. so i do think we need to look at possibly contracting out for someone putting on an rfp or something for an entity that can help us facilitate this process so we can effectively get it done. >> thank you, actually i heard something fairly interesting just talking to you, jason freed, is marine county, marine power, the cca program they sell to continue -- contra cost a county that we might

have a joint pg & e with with marine county? >> marine has gone outside of it's county and now serves richmond because richmond decided to join the mea program. now this is napa trying to join. m ea are going through that process and making sure it doesn't harm their program and keeps their program moving in a functional way. they are trying to do another template program on how it can join their program. it could potentially decide to join apa in marine and be part of that program. there would need to be discussions that occur with them and in the city and county. >> we can do that with the

public utilities commissioners and not being part of that process. >> there is a commissioner there and if it's power related, what's in the charter. i'm not a lawyer. >> i think that would be something worth exploring and maybe at the lafco meeting can be presented to us as a possibility and what the process was for the richmond city council to be able to join the marine cca program. >> i can do research on behalf of that and i can ask the city attorneys office for guidance on that part. >> if i might add, the point is

well-taken, i would suggest a two prong approach. i think, i think we should send a letter to the mayor pointing out the misrepresentations. if sf puc staff doesn't feel comfortable doing that, we should do that. i think lafco staff should do that and perhaps the chair would go to the meetings to talk about the concerns and frustration. i do think the point is well-taken that i don't think this is a policy question, but it's obviously also a political one. we want to make sure if we can solve the problem, great, i'm not sure that we can, but it's certainly worth keeping on that road and then checking, the marine issue we can have outside council. i know something of what richmond is doing because i have been working a little bit with them.

but the question is we don't want to go through that process and set rates with the commission. that's the first question. i'm not sure how, and the second is whether or not marine is agreeable. we are a big entity to join in their fpa. if they had conversations with them and they seem agreeable. it's something that we did look at a couple years ago and our chair at that time, we met with marine and talked about the potential and they were taking a different program approach than we were at that point. but, there is also a couple other efforts that we might in terms of cca that we might explore and i will talk to you privately about that. >> intriguing. thank you.

colleagues, any comments or questions? i think next i wanted to hear from mr. freed and your breaking down however you want to say the mayor's presentation and what you were able to highlight in terms of the mayor's main points of contention that we have with the representation, truthfulness and accuracy of the mayor's comments. >> more than happy. jason carried, lafco staff. i was watching it and dumbfounded by the comments made and some things being said auto out in the public and i was able to full transcript, sfgtv has a

transcript version which is not perfectly accurate and there are a lot of spelling errors, i didn't try to correct that but there are comments in the packet where there are inaccuracies. i'm not going to get into each one of those individually. one of those that i did want to address is when the mayor was asked the question about how can we work together, you never seen him asked the questions directly. you never actually see -- it was not in my comment and probably should have been added to my comments. >> there's a discussion about how the mayor's was trying to fulfill the environmental efforts here in san francisco

and i saw in the air district, i have been there since march of 2011 and parson was there, the mayor's seat has been vacant in the air district all this time, probably over a year. i have asked a number of times, like when are we going to get someone to be there and they say they are working on it. it been, a lot of decisions are being made about environmental efforts, greenhouse gas emissions and other issues regarding our environment and there is a no show on the mayor's side. hopefully someone will be filling that seat. we have plenty of staff who has expertise to be there. >> i will take your word on it. i don't know what's going on

there. back to the mayor's questions, there were six key categories where the mayor is misrepresenting what is going on with this program. especially the credited version. i give full description of that. what he's trying to claim that bucket 3 racks are not as good as bucket 2 recs. when you take into consideration bucket 3, you actually can control the underlying power in a much more direct way. if you take the shell letter that was sent to the puc, that said we can do 50 percent carbon neutral in california, you can pretty tell that the bucket rate from a different source from where we are getting the energy from can be much bett