and i'm happy to take any additional questions. it's been a good dialogue so far. maybe you've exhausted your questions. >> i appreciate your entertaining questions in the middle. i think it's very fresh in our minds while you're going through this. thank you for your presentation and your work together. we'd like to get updates as we move forward as well. maybe the lafco meeting, we'll be joined -- puc-lafco, we can get updates, anything that's happening. commissioner breed. >> thank you. i just wanted to i guess -- i don't know if this is a question or comment, but it's my understanding that we were looking at putting the street lights in the next easter bond and not a bond for the puc. you mentioned that as an example. so, i just wanted to make sure that we are looking at the various opportunities there are to actually share in on the

cost of some of these things. we do know that street lights continue to be a big challenge for our city. so, i'm hoping we can come up with a solution to address the capital issues as well as, you know, the energy costs associated with them. >> so, one of the frustrations that we have is the hetchy provides opportunities to a lot of great program. and i believe street lights is definitely one of them. and, so, you know, in solving our problem with hetchy, we met with supervisors and kind of came up with some of the plans that we're working on. and, so, but we haven't had a chance to actually talk and negotiate what the deal was. and, so, with the mayor's office, we have been having conversations about raising general fund rates.

we've been talking about putting street lights in the next bond. we've been working with pg&e and we've actually reduced the costs. we are looking at alternative projects for mountain tunnel. so, on all fronts we're on this. so, i would love to come back when we have more answers because by me going out there and just saying here are all the thing we're talking about, prior to negotiating with the actual other entity is sort of premature. but i'm looking at every possible way, even cutting our operating costs, looking at our staff, just looking at ways we can reduce our costs or be more efficient. >> i'd like to think there is a way that if we're able to move forward on cleanpowersf that there could be some over lot how we can -- that can help

reduce some costs for the power enterprise. i think it's worth looking at because we have support for cleanpowersf. not always necessity in the public utilities commission, but hopefully that can change moving forward. i have hope. >> i think one of the common themes is that we have hetchy power, we have firmed up hetchy power that we can sell. so, i think by providing and selling power to customers, more customers, get us to that point and i think we're definitely going to pursue that because that's what we normally do anyway, so -- >> i'm saying there is a way we can green light cleanpowersf going forward. if you can increase your service for wholesale customers, but perhaps an overlap between cleanpowersf

around staffing might help minimize costs you can minimally. they can work together. if there are no other comments or questions from colleagues, we can go on to public comment on this item. public comment is open on this item. any member of the public would like to come forward? good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization, our city, and san francisco clean energy advocates which is a coalition working to move forward cleanpowersf. so, it's really important after that presentation to focus on this issue of available money and bonding and how that relates to the s.f.p.u.c.'s quote-unquote financial crisis. first of all in 2002 when the law what passed in order to

enable community choice aggregation, cleanpowersf, that was to be self-funding ~. so, the customer revenue stream that you bring in by bringing in hundreds of thousands of customers into this new program provides a brand-new revenue stream and also the revenue stream that you get from doing what lafco is about to do, which is design a local build out program which is going to bring in revenues over the long term. those are what build cleanpowersf. there is no connection whatsoever really, except for bond rating to the san francisco public utilities commission to bond for its own stand alone energy programs. that's totally different. so, the point is cleanpowersf is designed to be self-funding. it's designed not to cost rate payers, taxpayers, or agencies anything. and that makes cleanpowersf the biggest potential energy and clean energy asset that we've got in the city. hundreds of thousands of

customers will enable us to do things like, as mr. freed has mentioned before, more easily get hold of energy efficiency funds. as the chair of lafco mentioned, more easily be able to staff all energy programs. the cleanpowersf system is going to be an asset, not a liability. and that's why we need to bring it online before we get into the pg&e contract discussions. then we [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. okay, this item we can file, but we have asked -- very sorry. [speaker not understood]. thank you. my name is [speaker not understood], 350 san francisco. just wanted to briefly speak to commissioner avalos' point in looking at i guess it's the next to last slide, zero margin in selling power to cleanpowersf. but there is this side benefit

of achieving environmental benefits. i just wanted to -- i mean, that is definitely true, but i wanted to point out even looking financially as mr. brookes was just pointing out, the zero margin out pouring all revenues into build. but the point of pouring those revenues into the local build, if you look at the basis of all the discussionses that we're having, the basis of all these amazing benefits to the city, all this largess that we've been able to provide to the general fund, it's all coming from selling a very valuable city-owned renewable resource that just keeps oncoming and making us money. so, what we're talking about is pouring this funding, pouring these revenues into the local build which will increase the pool of renewable assets that just keep oncoming and provide the entire basis for the puc's future budget and all capital costs that we will need to pour that money into going forward. so, we're talking about

hundreds of megawatts more of renewable resources that will be locally owned. and once that system is paid off, it will be just another revenue source for the budget. so, kind of talking about making an investment for our future, but not just environmentally. also financially. i know that this power that we're selling at great loss to the general fund is providing a lot of benefits to our beleaguered social services fund. it's worth noting the bacon certification commission estimates projected sea level rise damage in the area at $62 billion. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. jeff dorian, 350 bay area. i agree with everything the previous two people said. i'm just kidding. i do agree with most of what

they said. a lot of it i'm not familiar with. being new to these programs, but i can see, just looking at this ~, there is a lack of stuff written under lafco, just anticipating the future changes like the drought that california is going to be faced with that most of us are probably worried about. and the big gaps in services that will occur from those droughts and where is the power going to come from? hopefully it will come from [speaker not understood], was questioning about that also. there needs to be secure retail enterprise customer and revenues underneath lafco also just as well as with the dam. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? and seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> again, this is a non-action

item or possible action and would like to request that we get information about our power purchases that we made recently, proposed ones we could be making as well. i also asked for a sense of what our generation is through the years, especially looking at drought years so we can get that over the past, say, 20 years and will be great to see. maybe going back to last route which i think was '89 through '92. so, it's over 20-year. that will be historically helpful. i know the conditions are different, but like to be able to see that and share with us as well. thank you. let' go on to our next item. >> item number 5, cleanpowersf update. >> for purposes of the

regulatory update, i can report that we have continued to be very active at the california puc on pg&e's green tariff application. for context, the city supports the development of a green tariff. we've said that in various policy documents. the city supported sb 43 which was a law passed in 2013. it requires [speaker not understood] with certain elements and we'll stay engaged to make sure the program is designed to succeed, but is also fair and equitable to customers. what pg&e has filed, they proposed a program at the california puc that would allow customers to voluntarily purchase up to 100% of their energy needs from small and medium sized solar projects located within their service territory and by small scale they're talking 20 megawatts or less. the program would initially rely on projects fitting this description that are already in

pg&e's portfolio. so, not a new build opportunity, but existing resources. and pg&e has stated that they would eventually -- the program would eventually result in the development of new projects spurred by the number of customers that enroll and their green tariff program. our objectives in the proceeding at the california puc are to develop an enhanced community enabled program element. so provide specific mechanisms in the green tariff's proposal for procuring energy from small distributed renewable projects one megawatt or smaller. so, trying to carve out a niche below that 20 megawatt level that pg&e included. and located in disadvantaged communities, this was an important part of sb 43 that we advocated for and really are trying to sort of give ourselves, our community a leg

up in the process. if we are successful in getting a good program available to our residents through pg&e. we want to make sure that we have an opportunity to exercise that local build opportunity right here in san francisco. the green tariff costs, we want to make sure are borne by participating customers. that's mostly focused on trying to avoid shifting costs to nonparticipants which would make it difficult for a program like cleanpowersf to compete against it. so, trying to preserve those options. as i say, that's all activity ongoing at the california puc. and then of course there is some legislative activity picking up. we have new legislate ~. we have a bill introduced by assembly member bradford ab

[speaker not understood] that we're keeping an aye on and a bill introduced by assembly member ammiano, ab [speaker not understood]. we don't think they're meaningful so i'm not going to get into that. they are on our watch list so we encourage you to keep an eye on them as well. thank you. >> if you could give us an example of what 20 megawatt would be serving the community. >> so, for example, there are some large warehouses in the -- sorry, in the bayview hunters point area. we thought solar there would be less than 20 megawatts greater than 1 megawatt. those would be system that would be considered distributed under the rules. they'd be local. they could be located and what qualifies as a disadvantaged community here in san francisco. so, that's an example. >> great, thank you. and then what's the current status of our shell contracts? >> so, the shell contract, you know, i think i told you last

time i met with you, we are not engaged in discussionses with shell. we have told them that we understand that we aren't moving forward at this time given the lack of movement at our commission, and have had it, sort of an amicable conversation about the ability to reengage if the opportunity presents itself, but we're not obligating them to hold to the dialogues that had occurred with us since we could not get authorization to sign that contract. >> so, it hasn't been really approved -- it was approved finally. >> the contract terms -- as i understand it, the contract terms were approved through the board process and certain criteria were laid out that needed to be met before anyone

could sign the contract. those criteria included setting a rate and having the hetchy enterprise be financially stable. since we were not successful in setting a rate and we are not in a stable situation financially, we had that conversation with shell and let them know that we don't anticipate hitting those targets. those conditions. >> okay. and if you were -- the contract is there to be signed at some point? >> we could reengage with shell, yes. >> okay. other question i have is relative to the california public utilities commission and they have 800 million for statewide fund -- statewide fund for energy efficiency work. >> yes. >> and that was one of the areas that we feel would be really important to -- i think lafco would be able to go forward to, to be able to do

some work in san francisco. heretofore, i don't believe there's been an effort to actually access some of that 800 million. certainly cleanpowersf, it's possible wondering what the [speaker not understood] in the public utilities commission. >> i'm happy to share with you a memo that we prepared for our commission that addresses the options here. from memory, i can report that, you know, san francisco does take advantage of some of the funding that's available through our department of environment. the department of environment has a contract with pg&e to spend some of those energy efficiency dollars. they are part of the every three-year reassessment and reengagement with pg&e on those programs in doing research on the balance of the fund available, we are aware once you are cca, you can access those funds. you don't have to be -- you don't have to have cca customer

to access though funds. but it did you the california administratored at the sfpuc do expect you to operate a community aretion ~ aggregate [speaker not understood]. i'd be happy to provide for you a copy of the memo that goes into more detail about these options because we did explore them, but we don't believe that we can pursue them at this time given the status of our cleanpowersf program. >> and wonder if there is a counter opinion to that, whether we can actually pursue them. we don't have customers, but we do have a framework for, you know, program. mr. freed? >> jason freed, lafco staff. i will not disagree with what ms. hale said. the one difference between the purchase, if i were moving this forward is actually go and talk with the cpuc if this was a

good program, could we get money for the program if not addressing customers. one thing cpuc isn't able to do at this point, lafco could draft that letter on behalf of the board. as far as the cpuc is concerned, they have oversight over this program. [speaker not understood] could send a letter of inquiry to find out what the status is and how we could go about cashing in to that kind of money that might be available for us. >> thanks for teeing that letter up for us. is that something you can [speaker not understood]? >> [speaker not understood]. i'd be more than happy to draft that. it would be something that could come from the board of supervisors, not lafco itself. i could dylan ratiganv it since we have an advise i level to the board. i'm sure there are a few of them that might be interested

in having it go through the board process. >> great, thank you. any other updates to provide on the cleanpowersf program? any questions from colleagues, no? we can go to public comment. good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization in our city and san francisco clean energy advocates. so, first, just touch quickly on the shell or the horse shoe of the shell contract. it has been clearly stated by ken malcolm, the cca director in more than one hearing, that it's a fairly easy matter for the sfpuc to do that sort of brokering of energy in-house. it's not clear that could be done, especially now that the sfpuc has a bond rating for doing energy purchasing and so on. that would obviate the need for

the $19 million bond that we're holding to make shell hold. that didn't work out. i wanted to point that out real quick. i want to get to the competition with pg&e. this is crucial. that's what cleanpowersf is for, to compete with pg&e. in july we're going to be doing that new interconnected agreement with pg&e. if we started our cca and we're up in their face competing with them for electricity generation, we're going to be in a better leveraged condition to get a better deal so we don't have to pay the 3 whatever cents extra it is. and along those lines, what lafco needs from the sfpuc is for the sfpuc staff, especially cca director malcolm who for some reason is not here and was not at the last lafco, we need the staff that was hired to work on cca at the sfpuc to get engaged in this rfp process

we're going to talk about in the next item and engage in helping design the build out and how that will impact the power enterprise, working out all these things jointly together and work together both staff so that we can get the best possible program. once again, that will be an asset for the power enterprise and an asset for the city. >> thank you. any other member of the public? hi, jed holtz man, 350 sf which is in case you didn't know, grassroots claimant advocacy organization. i wanted to kind of finish my last comment. i hate speaking after the microphone, but it relates to this item as well. so, our own policy agencies are letting us know that we are facing between, according to the s.f. bacon certification and development commission, 62 billion of the area shoreline development at risk.

u.c. berkeley estimate is for transportation facilities, 500 billion statewide, most of that in the bay area. i have a lot of figures here, ~ but the idea is we're talking about budgetary problems for an enterprise agency. part of those budgetary problems have come about because that enterprise agency is essentially subsidizing a lot of our other public programs. that is a social good and we think the enterprise agency for doing that, notwithstanding we're here now because of that systemic imbalance. ~ thank as time goes on, what i'm getting at is these costs are only going to ip crease and it's looking, accord to our best scientists, they're going to increase at dollar levels ~ we simply will not be able to fund. so, we're looking at essentially a bankrupt public sector as our infrastructure faces the brunt of all of our planetary physical forces he.

i think it's very important that we think not just in one or five-year range, but that we think about the fact that this is inevitable even if we stop emitting today. and we need to start thinking about how we are going to get through that. i think it's very clear that with all of this damage coming resiliency is very important. and if we have our own local electrical infrastructure generating and delivering to customers, that would keep us [inaudible]. >> thank you. any other member of the public who would like to comment? and seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> and we can go on to our next item. >> item number 6 is an update on request for proposals to provide build out strategy and plan for cleanpowersf program (energy efficiency, facilities, and local jobs policy). ~ >> thank you. we have our nancy miller

[speaker not understood]. >> yes, good afternoon, commissioners. what do i have to do to bring it up? here we go. with a lot of help, i should get this momentarily. so, since we last met jointly which was in july 9th, that's when the rate issue was brought before you and was -- [speaker

not understood]. the commission has met and determined that based upon that meeting there were some concerns that were raised by commissioners and the public. and our commission determined that it would be a good idea in order to proceed to try to answer some of those questions. and the three main issues were the issues of jobs and local economy. the issue of the shell contract itself, and whether or not that was a good contract, and then most importantly what was the build out. so, the rfp that ha been issued by lafco, tried to answer those three questions along with some other issues that came up. so, the rfp was prepared by lafco staff, but it relies heavily on documents that had either been approved by the board of supervisors or the

draft cleanpowersf build out road map and strategies that was dated june 2013 and other reports that had been presented to the s.f.p.u.c. and to the lafco commission. the tasks that are asked for in the rfp follow almost directly those that the sfpuc staff had identified approximately one year ago. so, the goal of the buildout obviously was to answer the questions and to provide a plan to improve electric power to the citizens and businesses he within san francisco. obviously the project objectives have not changed with cleanpowersf, that is to reduce energy costs, create higher renewable energy sources for the citizens of this city, to reduce exposure to fuel cost volatility. you will recall cca started because of the bankruptcy of

pg&e and the unreliability of certain transmission issues. we're at the end of the transmission of the power grid, was to increase reliability and improve environmental quality. so, what we're looking at asking and what we're asking for is a consultant or consultants to create a city-wide integrated clean energy and efficiency installation network. now, there's a number of components. the rfp has been attached to your packet. i wasn't going to go into all of those, but basically to tell you that the rfp -- runs parallel with the current program as devised with the shell, but it also asks for alternatives to the shell contract such as as you heard previously, what alternatives be they other power purchasers or sfpu staff itself. and it identifies financing and asks for an overall plan for

implementation, both short term and long term. the critical issue, we've talked a lot today about revenue and revenue issues that the sfpuc is having. you will recall that cleanpowersf was a self-contained program. while it did rely on advance funding from the sfpuc and it did rely on a reserve, the funding was to be repaid and the reserve was to be identified in reserves that are already currently occurring within the city. now, given what we have -- what has happened between our last meeting and today, we will obviously take that into consideration with our consultant and i'll pull up a slide that ms. hale went through in just a minute because we do want to make sure that our financing projections and plan is the most up to date possible. so, we will take into consideration the newer

information that we have received from the sfpuc. the draft timelines [speaker not understood] is also a task that we've asked for consultants to provide to us. just so you also know that within the last year there have been a number of communities that have moved forward with cca steps, both the northern and southern california. so, there are more consultants available than there is more data available for us to take a look at. so, with the financing task comes the comprehensive financing options for the program. and once again, these are to look at not just the program as designed, but a program that probably does not include the shell contract. an integral part of the r efficienttion p is to identify the local jobs