anymore about the bills because pg and e might have noticed on their bills, they have changed drastically last summer and as part that have pg and e redesign, we worked with them to try to make the bills easier to understand, but easier to tell the difference between why there was an mce charge and a pg and e charge and i think the steps that we took were actually productive and we get far less questions about the bills than we used to. i think also questions that you get about bills and mce in general or caa bills are going to depend on the outreach you do before a customer is enrolled and our

whole enrollment with richmond -- we had a variety of different venues forgetting information out so by the time people did get a renewal, they didn't opt out. they knew what they bills were going to look like and we did our best to make sure those questions were already answered. >> commissioner moran. >> on the pg and e program, when we were looking at the cca, that was kind of the -- it was almost the boogie man. this is something they were pursuing. has that ever happened. >> the pg and e proposal is still before the california puc. it hasn't been approved. there was activity that caused the

puc to make some method my -- some modifications but it should be before the california puc for approval some time in the summer, early fall. >> okay. >> they were supposed to have their program finalized and approve by the beginning of this summer, but that didn't happen. >> and the shape of that program, i assume is getting clearer over time? >> yes, as clear as things can be in that regulatory process, yes. >> i noticed that both marin -- that changes the risk profile because we have deep pockets of the general fund, one of the things that was kind of convenient about the shell contract is that they required that we basically fund our

liabilities and fund their risk so that we internalize the risk. we've been talking that that's changing. i don't want an answer today really, but i would like an answer, is the risk profile really changing or is the way you have to fund it changing? so if the risk is the same, but now it's invisible, then i have question was that. if the risk change, we continue to make it visible, then i with -- then i would like to know that as well. >> i would be happy to come back to you with that. >> thank you. >> any other comments? does that conclude your report? >> so the general manager did ask that i talk a little bit about the

pieces of legislation that are pending here in san francisco associated with the power prevision. >> please do. >> we have an ordinance that was adopted that asks -- that indicates the board will study joining or working with marin energy to provide community choice aggregation choices here in san francisco. so that is new law. and then it ask the puc to review that analysis and to compare the benefits between implementing clean power sf or pursuing that, or the outcome of the analysis that mc performs and to take the most add ven page us route in providing choices in san

francisco. vantageous route in providing choices in san francisco. that's before us. we would ask the board as requested in that and looking at the analysis and making sure we include local opportunities for local clean energy jobs as part of that -- as part of that work. and then to ultimately be before you with whatever findings or analysis that results then. the other -- >> what was timeline for that? >> it's law now. the board has not taken any action to initiate the feasibility work, so it's unclear to me what timeline is for that at this point, but we can investigate that further and come back to you. >> that would be great. >> sorry, what. >> and then the other piece of legislation is introduced by supervisor wiener and joyed by

supervisor breed to study when it's moving through the feasibility stage and to evaluate whether the prevision of electricity is feasible to those environment areas. the ridge legislation intends to clarify this study purpose. this is to determine whether that service would benefit all of our customers not just that one customer. and specifies that all city departments and tenants of the city properties would receive electric from the puc and allow them to collaborate with the pu credit -- puc when they go to design to make sure we're coordinating and minimizing city overall cost for those electrical

investments. we would recommend that we participate in the hearing as appropriate and of course to continue to comply with the existing law which requires such feasibility studies. finally we're preparing a power business plan to address our core objective. the core objectives are summarized on the slide and we would recommend that we complete that business plan and present it to the commission near the end of this calendar year. that concludes my remarks. i'm happy to take any questions or comment. >> yes, if i may. >> commissioner torres. >> the bill that was referenced by the samona representative, have you done an analysis? >> we haven't done a former

analysis. it goes to the environmental committee next. speaker: it was amended june 12th. >> it got out? it was amend last night again, so they haven't updated the website but it was amended to eliminate language about opt out and -- >> that's the key factor that i'm concerned about as to whether or not -- the bill wanted to eliminate opt out, correct? >> correct. that was the component. >> do you know what the amendments did last night? >> as i understand it, the amendments removed the language that would prohibit out opt, so it would stay as it has been. it would not change that. it constrains

the geographic breath of a cca. as mr. stillman mentioned, only 3 contiguous counties will pull together to form a community choice aggregation program unless the community choice aggregation entity was created prior to the end of this calendar year. did i get the date right? it was december of 2014. >> it calls for a grandfather prevision. >> yes, for example, we've been certified as a community choice ago gri gator here in san francisco for some time now, we anticipate we'll be grandfathered, same with marin and sanoma. >> we could create a conversion

-- >> depend ongoing the -- depending on the grandfather clause. it could be more than three. >> who is the lobbyist for the puc. gilbert. >> can you have him call me? >> yes. >> we can send you an update tomorrow about what happened. >> thank you. >> can i have a question along the rate issue because it sounds like in marin's experience and in sanoma that you've been able to get a reduced rate for a better product and it still has a half of rex in

the mix, but it's rps -- and beating the rate, is that correct? >> yes. >> it's lower rate and greener power. >> thank you. >> for mte. >> and jobs. >> mrs. hale, does that conclude your report for the third time? >> it does. thank you very much. >> all right. >> i have another question. i don't know if it's for barbara or for you. >> i think maybe we have some staff from the supervisors that would like to get up and talk as well, so i don't know -- >> just one more question that might lead into this, but i have a question on this ordinance -- >> who are you asking the question of? >> either barbara or our general manager this question that -- about this ordinance that is supervisor wiener's ordinance

about becoming the power development and in a redesign cca program that can potentially be some of the cca customers if you will. >> we're interested this trying to help shape this legislation. i think one of the challenges is that we want to make sure that we have an opportunity to select the developments that we'd like to pursue because we have to, in order to serve, we have to putin

intervening facilities in and if it's an apartment building or something small, it may not be feasible. we're going to say that we want to maximize our resource because right now, we would sell it so we would like customers make money so we can reinvest in our capital needs with hetchy, so we're going to talk about language to help us with that. i do, you know, i think as far as development is concerned and retail, i think we actually have a spread sheet -- we actually get the bigger return if we are

able to sell our hetchy power to customers so that's something we're going to focus our attention on. i also want to point out that, is apart of this business plan that we are doing because we now need to -- we need to look at where we want to be, so we've been meeting every week to talk about certain issues and addressing certain issues so i think we are -- we'll get this business plan for our power enterprise. >> mrs. hale, does that conclude your report? [laughter] >> yes, it does. and we do

have supervisor breed, supervisor scott. >> commissioner vietor, anymore questions. >> i have speaker cards and we'll move to public comment. i'd like to call jeremy. >> good afternoon. >> thank you for this presentation and it's exciting for me after years and talking about the abstract to see marin come forward and see the system work. we have cleaner power at a cheaper price and you have local jobs and you have this trajectory and now we're seeing napa and alameda.

>> i think -- the question we're looking for and some guidance is what would be acceptable to you. i think supervisor avalos has specifics and what -- it's the energy -- and i think we don't have a particular formula. we're looking for whatever balances, for those needs and the other question is whether we go off on our own and they both have their pluses and minuses. with marin, we know what we're getting and we can move quickly

and we can be apart of that program and i think as commissioner torres said, we can help achieve the economy. the down side, as far as we know, if we join with marin, we're with them for life. it's a marriage that's permanent. we're going to have limited control and we're going to be along the ride for them and that's something we need to hear from you. if you want to design your own program that's going to have a more aggressive job as a program or a more aggressive energy mix, we may not have that if we join marin. so i think that's what we're hoping to get some indication on that and it's good to hear from them. if that's not acceptable, then we have capable staff who can learn from what marin has done and they can design

their own program. we heard from you and from the mayor that local jobs are paramount and we can go a long way with the considerable resources you have for a build out to accelerate that. that's acceptable to supervisor avalos. we can't afford to wait any longer. we have aggressive greenhouse targets, 100 % renewable power is the only way we can get there. climate change is worsening and becoming more and more, i think, apparent to everyone, i think, upon poll and the san francisco residents will show increasing concern and i think if we continue to fail, we're failing those people of san francisco and we're failing to provide power and provide local jobs and i think it's important that we get over the disagreements of the past so we can move forward and get this up and running so give us, you know, a permanent funding source for local jobs and for building renewable power and to give the

people a choice of 100% renewable power. thank you for your consideration and i hope we can move forward. >> thank you for your comments and your remarks. the next speaker is johnson. >> thank you commissioner. >> thanks for being here. >> johnson to aid to london breed. your committee had a fascinating meeting during which public staff talked about three issues they're dealing with right now that has had an impact on the pc itself. we're facing the worst drought that california has had in decades. last summer dealt with the third worse wild fire in california history and we're facing sea water flowing into the san francisco sewerage system. and the puc staff attributed this to

climate change. it's interesting that the utility commission is facing the consequences of climate change and the city's climate action plan says that the single greatest thing we can do as a city to address climate change is move to 100% renewable power. the urgency is there and the board has been consistent and i would argue adamant in it's support, it's not dog mat i can about how that works. which on behalf of the board of suppose adviser was coming to you to say help us design a program that works and it's not to dictate to the utilities commission, but it's rather to say let's move on something quickly. we have successful model in two neighboring county that's are clean and cheaper and working. and i think it's time for the people of san francisco that we join in that effort and we're

happy to be apart of that conversation, however you think the program is best structured, we're here to be a partner in that. thank you. >> thank you for being here today. >> i'm sorry, bare with me, please. peter laterborn. >> good afternoon, peter. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thanks for hearing this item. legislative aid of supervisor mar. i do want to move power with clean power sf. the details of the program are less of a concern. we're hoping that you who have heard this issue time and time again can give us input and give your staff input on what we can move forward with. we want to be partnered and be collaborative but we want to move forward. i'll end there and thank you for your

time tonight and we look forward to getting some results forward. >> nice. thank you peter. >> the next card i have is from justin kudo. >> hi, justin. >> hi, thank you very much. my name is justin kudo. i'm a san francisco resident for the disclosure. i should mention that i do work for marin clean energy, but i'm speaking as a resident of san francisco. there's a lot of folks, there's a lot of [inaudible] who say that they want a program that try to go too far, too fast. there's a lot of people out there who say that this is something that's not durable. the fact is it's durable and it's a successful method and it can be done. whether san francisco makes its own pca or joins in an existing program, the thing about the cca is it gives san francisco or any other community that chooses cca, a

choosing its power supply. without cca, you have to hope that pg and e are going to make the choices in its power supply that you like and that you desire. well over ten megawatts and new renewables are in redevelopment or being built in marin county and the city of bridgeman. that wouldn't have been built if marin wasn't there. >> thank you for being here today. can i see jed, please. good to see you again, jed. thanks for coming here today. >> one day they're make these microphone [inaudible]. general manager, lots of agencies. thanks for the time. i really appreciate you having the hearing. it's really great to see that data in front of you folks and i echo commissioner veto and i would like to have this, but i would not like to move. i would like to have

this here in san francisco where i've lived for 15 years and i don't want to leave. we've soon cleaner and cheaper power and we've seen folks starting with what's cleaner and cheaper than pg and e with the ability to get up to 100% and we think that that's the fastest way to get to 100% renewable energy for everyone because if you have everyone buying into the program and you have that economy scale you can rach it up as resource problems come down. i'm representing 350 san francisco but i think you know that already. the second point just from your discussion that i would mention is that the shell contract as i understand is pretty more a bond and i think, you know,

further discussion of kind of those pitfalls is unnecessary. to the general manager's comment was the build out, i want to highlight again, that lapco has approved a build out program, rfp and a contractor named internex are working on build out planning now and again, i would encourage you folks to get involved with leftco and looking at that work. we've seen the great work that they were able to do and they did not have the experience with power purchasing, schedule and sales that they have in-house.

>> i would like to hand these over to you which i'll do here and then lastly we'll say we're working on ab 2185 and that fight is not over. we don't believe that restriction has any policy reason for existing, so the north bay to east bay and the south bay are looking at this. we would love to have this in the west bay. q. >> thank you for being here. mr. brooks. good afternoon, sir. >> eric brooks, san francisco green party and local grass

root for our city. i was working on ab 425 which i'll get to in a second. i want to reiterate that one of the reasons that marin and sanoma has had spectacular success is the two tier rate system. the light green and the dark green. that's something that the advocates in san francisco has pushed for a really long time. i think it's time to do that because it makes it clear when you have a good utility that's playing rate games with you to try to under cut you, the thing that made it possible for marin and sanoma to keep their rates low was their ability to have those two different types of programs and two different types of customers. we need to do that and get on the track. with regard to local

build out, it's crucial, we have things that marin and sanoma and other counties don't have. we have the power enterprise and the bonding. [switching captioners]

>> so we can be an example for the state. with regard to the ab 2145 they are hinting at a three-county con tingous limit, but they are not necessarily there yet and the bill is still being written as we speak. so what we need and your staff to do is push against even the three-county contiguous, because if we get the spectacular program in san francisco off the ground that is building hundreds of megawatts and hiring union labor and we want to incorporate el cerrito into the program we won't be able to expand and expand the jobs. so we need your lobbying staff to hold firm to say not even the three-county thing is too restrictive. we need freedom to create the best program possible for any

city in the state and make sure that -- if we are the anchor of it we'll make sure there are union jobs and we'll be all to spread that to other city withouts restriction. >> thank you, eric. we're glad you made it today. brother jason freid. >> hi, jason fried, executive officer formality local agency formation commission and you hatred from my bosss and i won't repeat what they said. there is one part that is important and we're currently doing a study, as mr. brooks said, the work not completed by your staff. why is it not completed by your staff? because this commission has not told the staff to continue to work on this program and that is the key thing that i think is needed to figure out how to do all of this stuff. yes, we can have outside experts look at it, but your staff are the