a contract for 38 megawatts of power and that's in the central valley. that has been introduced into its 20 year fixed contract. we open proposals just a couple of weeks ago for 30 megawatts. we got very good results. we expect to are contracts by the end of this year and construction by the end of 2016. excuse me. and finally we've been working on a project of up to 20 megawatts at our local airport which is in environmental review. that's the end of my presentation. everybody has a website. lots of more information there and i'm happen tea to answer questions you have. >> commissioner vietor. >> do you have a local build out plan. >> we're working on that now. we spent time getting up and running. we expect to have a draft in august and a final by of the end of the

year. >> that's the goal to have that be a key component of the program? >> yes. >> all right. torres. >> the airport is santa rosa airport. >> yes. >> what are the plans? >> directly adjacent is an abandoned land field and we're going to put it there. >> they've been approached -- they've been working with marin on expansion. >> what about almeda county? they have designated $3 million in their budget to study cca. i've been having conversations and e-mail exchanges with them for the last couple of months, as i'm sure marin as well.

>> there's already a conversion call lean. >> give me the acronym. >> local energy aggregation network. >> the director is a former board member of marin energy. >> they promotes -- >> that sounds like a trade organization. i was talking about pulling resources to maybe perhaps provide cheaper energy to its residents. >> there's always that possibility. i understand some legislation is being worked out at the state senate that will preclude some of that from happening. more along the lines of counties working together but not beyond that. >> do you recall the legislation sponsoring? >> that's bradford. there's an organization called the north coast power authorization that the

districts belong to and they act as a clearing house that they sell to their members. >> thank you. >> vice president caen. >> i understood that under cca the policy would always be opt out, but year saying you have a program that people can opt in? >> yes, when we roll out to a mass number of customers that's an opt out program. that's our 33% renewable. if someone wants to go beyond that and pay extra for the 400%, they can do that just as they can choose to stay with pg and e. >> they're in the out? >> yes. >> thank you very much for being here today. >> thank you. >> congratulations.

>> congratulations speaker: that was only one joke. anyone got one -- >> so with those great presentations and thank you very much to jaime and to cordel for staying, but what i sum advised is general topics for discussion and it draws out what we have proposed through the clean power sf programming and what marine is offering and what samona clean power is operating out of. you heard differences in the energy supply mix and sources, the rate levels and options that are available to customers. customer base, we committed to rolling out just to residential, clearly both of these folks have

covered the commercial initially. we had proposed for clean power sf, the 100 % renewal offering, you're hearing today about the two different tiers, the basic offering and the enhancing offering that both marin and samona offering and how that was offered without stepping down. we had some of that in our initial program design, but you heard some more innovations there as the marketplace gets more comfortable with doing business with cca's. we had a strong built out goal. you're hearing marin has three years under their belt making progress and samona getting ready to do that and we've had dialogue about hechy supply and whether that can be apart of our program and of course time and process. i'm happy to

give any feedback if there's any on these topics. >> manager kelly. one of the things that would be helpful to clarify, when we were formulating our program, one of the things we wanted to do was talk about 100% renewable, when ed harrington was here, the talk was totally green and we went to the board and we talked about no recs because i think at the time pg and e had rec and he referred to it as [inaudible] on a pig. do you remember that dynamic but when pg and e offered their proposal, it was with their green turf, it was much lower and then everyone was concerned about we're offering something more expensive and people won't

recognize or understand about rex so we started saying, let's look at introducing rex so i just wanted to be clear that one of the things that i'm hearing from both the programs is that they're not 100 %, you know, with rex 100%, they're offering 33% program, is that -- >> i heard marin say 33%, rps compliant. >> 20% rts and compliant is 50%, general renewable is an option for 100 %. >> i'm pointing out that ours was different and that's one of the reasons why ours was more expensive. of course that was -- and then when we talked about built out, you know, everyone wanted built

out from day one and so when we actually tried to exercise our program, i mean, we had a lot of bells and whistles and we were trying to dial it back, i think now hearing the approach that most -- both marin and samona is taking is a gradual approach and i think the approach is the cost, if you're going to opt out is cheaper than it would be if you were pg and e which is a different approach we had before, so i wanted to point that out because we still had conversations within the group that i've been involved rex, no rex, 100%, not 100%. those are the conversations we would have to have and build out. do you want a day one? what is it exactly? how would that enter

the whole equation and then the other thing is that, you know, we are not having to use shell and so that's something that we don't necessarily have to do, so i'm just saying that the landscape has changed. we don't need to have the $19.5 million of hetchy money for this new program and that's why we've been working with parties to see if we were to do something depending on what options we felt that having the $4 million would be enough to start the program and then also if we're successful, we identify year two of the solar that it would be a good idea to, if we were to launch a cca program offer solar to the customers as a cca program, so that's where that 3 million of the 5 came from year two that added

up to 7 million. i wanted to put everything in perspective. it's interesting where both these programs are, but i just wanted to just talk about the challenges of where we are or where we were and then how we move forward because these are still some choices that we would have to talk about to kind of get with the appetite of the commission and everybody involved. the other thing that we were going to talk about is the legislation that wiener has approached as well with another factor that we're talking about. is that -- >> i'm happy to go there if you want to at this point or -- >> okay. anyway, maybe we'll pause right now and then if you have any other questions about the cca or if you want to hear that last before we dive into questions. >> i have a question.

>> vice president caen. >> what is the working relationship with marin and pg and e? or is it just transmission. we have a good working relationship with them. we've been serving customers for four years and we work with them everyday. of course, we compete with them, but we also partner with them because we share customers and honestly it's in both of our best interest to have the best customer service that we can provide. we work with them on all of the billing issues on a daily basis. they collect our charges for our customers and put them onto their bill and sometimes we even have joint presentations to customers in different communities that we go to together to talk about our programs and pg and e programs so i would say it's generally a good working relationship. >> okay. another question that

you probably will laugh at me, but why don't they just do the same programs you do to get you out the picture? >> well, when we first were starting the cca program, we or when we were looking to do this, so before we had even formed our agency, pg and e knew what we were looking for which was more renewable energy and we asked them to be our provider and we said could you sell energy to us and they weren't interested. the main reason that or one of the main reasons that they're not offering the same services that we're offering or that samona is offering because pg and e are required to offer all programs territory wise. if they're going to offer a 50% renewable option, they have to offer that to every single one of their customers which

would be much -- it would be a much larger task than it would be for someone who is serving a much smaller community. >> so you're saying throughout the whole state speaker: they don't serve the entire state, but central coast, santa barbara all the way up. i'm not sure. yeah, the border. >> thank you. >> sure. >> i have a follow up question. i'm interested in how much customer service questions actually go to the item on the bill that refers to mca, the generation portion? it seems like -- is it a lot of questions or concerns about that because most of it, people would just be concerned about service or their, you know, disconnected which it really belongs to pg

and e. how much of that dialogue to the customers you would have to get involved in answering? >> we get a lot of questions from customers but on a variety of different topics. we have our phone number and website and contact information on the bill along side of our charges so if they do have questions, they can contact us. but you know, people usually -- when people contact us, they usually want to know what the cost of service is and about deep green. we don't get a lot of confusion 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