maternal -- marginal cost. >> good afternoon, lafco and supervisors. never can say good-bye no to power, no no, lafco, never can say good-bye no to power lafco. every time i think we've had enough power i start headed towards the door. there is a power underground vibration that hits you to the core and we want the power and i'm glad it's on the floor and i want power to be great. tell me now, i can't wait. i want this power wire great and i'm hoping that our city wire problems are all just going to work out because you know how they protest and they scream and then they shout

and i want the power to be great. i can't wait. make it happen. don't make it late. no lafco. we don't want to say good-bye to power. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you very much. you just made my day. since there is no more public comment, we'll close this and go to next item. city clerk: item no. 3, community choice aggregation activities report. a status update on cleanpowersf program, b status update on proceedings at the california public utilities

commission. and c. status update on state legislature proceedings. >> good afternoon. we are working together with lafco staff on reviewing the draft report that internet has provided. we have submitted our initial comments to lafco staff, more comments to come. over all our sense is that the report looks really good and will be a helpful product and looking forward to other input from other stakeholders on that product as well. we have been addressing questions and will continue to provide that support. then on the proceedings, the update on the public utilities commission proceeding, we don't have much to report. there has been very little activity on the grain tariff option that pg & e filed for approval of. under sb 43 there was

supposed to be an initiative july and that deadline came and went. they have assigned new staff and it's been assigned to a new administrative law judge. we'll see where they pick that ball up. >>supervisor john avalos: can you summarize any of pg & e's action in terms of the tariffs, they have altered any components of their plan, are they withdrawing anything, is this going as presented originally through pg & e? >> it's not going through as presented because a new state law was adopted sb 43 and for pg & e to add new components to the program, some of those components were addressed by pg & e and some filing and an assigned commissioner will be

taken up in a second phase. the overall objectives of the green tariff program that pg & e initially submitted remain and then there has been the state policy maker over lay additional objectives for example there needs to be under sb 43 a component of the program that addresses disadvantaged communities and their opportunity to have clean renewable development in those communities and the underground did also come up in the sb 43 legislation and pg & e would need to modify that and those were put off to the second page. more to come. >> in relation to the green tariff program, are we talking about c puc approving a new

rate structure for existing generation or brand new generation that will come with a new rate structure? >> what pg & e had requested and which remains post vf 43 changes is to adopt a new tariff that will allow customers to opt into purchase greener electricity than is available from pg & e in their base program it also includes addressing some cost recovery for pg & e in terms of the cost generation. it does a little bit of both, sets new rates, sets new cost structure. >> the rates will be based on clean energy? >> yes. the pg & e's proposal was to

have actual clean energy produced. they are proposing to initially rely on power that they have already contracted for and committed to purchase. when you say new, it's in the early years of the program. it's not necessarily new power, it's just power they have contracted for in excess of their rps obligation, their newer portfolio obligation. >> thank you. we have other parts that you wanted to explain and i cut you off in the middle of that. i apologize for that. >> no probable. i'm here to help support the understanding. so while it's dormant we are keeping an eye on it and expect puc will continue to propose this and we'll continue to initiate the city's interest on that.

and to legislate proceeding ab 24 died in the senate. when we last talked it was on its way to senate appropriation where it passed and it was ordered to a third reading on august 19th, pg & e ultimately opposed the final proposed language. it wouldn't accomplish what they initially set out to accomplish so we are happy to report that that bill died. that's the scope of my comments. mr. freed? >> jason freed. lafco staff. this part of the report is to get information of what is currently available of being planned in the city, not the necessary the final product of what we are looking at for cca program. you will see there is a lot

of discussion of the current plan but not changes that are being currently looked at. i want to make sure that we have all the facts straight or the internet has all the facts straight in the city and the department has already got comments back on this report and our consultant and staff from that department had a follow up discussion to make sure there were some comments made and internet folks made sure they had all of their facts straight to continue to go down the road of looking at that part, yesterday we got some comments from the puc with more comments to continue to follow and we look forward to getting all the comments and we received comments from the advocates which you all received copies of those comments. all of this information and any other comments that come in will all be forwarded to the internet folks to

incorporate the comments into report and do the most robust report. i'm trying to address all the concerns. if you have concerns or individual items, please let me know and i will make sure our consultants are incorporating those comments into report as well. one thing to keep in mind, when this report is done, if it's something that inter next is done and can stand behind these are the best ideas out there. it's not going to solve every problem out there. hopefully what this report help us is reboot some of the concepts. some of the concepts were based oh n issues that no longer exist. the hundred #1sh -- right now we are at hundred percent.

that is based on the old energy model that no longer exist with pg & e. where they used to have tiered generation customers and now they are plat customers. at the time san francisco has such a good low energy users because they are small apartments at that time we couldn't beat pg & e price. all the customers pay the same price and maybe it's time to have the discussion is the hundred percent the best way to get this program started. at the time of ways based on the market research to do it that way. how big the program is and decisions were made on other parts and we'll be looking at all various aspects to try to determine what was the best approach to take for this thing and i have given inter next free reign to try to

come up with the best ideas. if any of you have comments i would be happy to get them today or send me e-mails. i have sat down with you and you've given me some feedback. we want to get as much information as quickly as we can so they can finish the report. once we have all the feedback it will take about a month 1/2 to get this report. you know, what was the potential for job creation and build out. they will give us as much information as they can, there will still be stuff that is hard for them do do because we are not launching a program now. if you said we are launching on this date you would have a more robust schedule on a small scale. if it's launching in a year, they would come back and say

we are among no longer interested where they may have been interested in it today. there are some aspects to balance and what it makes sense for the cost to do it and how to get this program moving and answer all the questions that the mayor's office has put out there and the questions that the puc commissioners themselves said they are not ready to move forward. hopefully we'll have that at that time. moving on from the inter next side we sent letters to marin and there are questions about whether or not to join marin. there is a huge report that cost $400,000 and we don't want to go down that road unless we learn that it's best

for us. based on the questions we sent them and we hope to get that back. they are reviewing our questions and after the staff have had a chance to type up the answers, we should have some answers in the beginning of october. we'll have our responses from marin and everything in october and everything should lineup to get a good discussion and we can try to give enough time for sf puc staff to take agriculture -- a look at the report to get to puc shortly thereafter to have a joint discussion about how to do this properly, and so that concludes my prepared remarks. i don't want to get into ab 145 but i want to thank our san francisco advocates. they were taking the lead statewide to make sure this bill got killed iechlt want

to thank them for the hard work. it took a lot of hours to get it done. >> for those who don't know could you explain the bill. >> bill 2045 it would have done some very bad things for cca program. it got changed from an opt out to opt in program only and pg & e had to predict their rates for five 5 years and pg & e only have to give you projected rats. pg #2kr rates. they could have said we only expect it for four or five years 5 years and the puc would have to put higher prices out there. the bill over time got changed but it was very much viewed as ananti-cca bill. thank you, commissioner lindo.

>> thank you. you mentioned the possibility of decreasing the percentage of from 100 percent to perhaps 75, 50, i'm not sure exactly where we might land, but i'm curious if you have any many of that decrease to help us facilitate this implementation. this commission is tasked with power through sf, will this help expedite the process? >> it could. it's one of the those policy decisions that needs to be rediscussed. when our next report comes out and shows that the jobs can be created and it's good for the local economy and good for the environment that the puc will say, we put this on hold and now some issues are being addressed. i would encourage at that point that puc say let's not throw the entire cca program

but let's reevaluate. is the 100 percent necessary. one thing you can talk about if especially you are starting with a smaller program, the puc can have enough energy to cover most of that, but most of that is hydroand not considered renewable. we are not going to be sgh compliant, we are going to heche power or hydropower which is more available and then we can have that discussion to discuss what's best for the price point. when we did this we weren't able to meet most pg & e prices for most san franciscans. now that that's changed we can meet it so perhaps we can get it at pg & e's price, the cost is we are not going to worry about being 100 percent renewable on day one but

start with 50 percent with the understanding in the next 10 years we are going to buildup to 100 percent. in getting us there, just not all at once. ms. crews? >> they. we talked about some of my concerns overlapped with some of the san francisco clean energy advocates concern that we received by letter. the question that keeps coming up for me is was there a decision made prior to not repeat market research or is that something we should consider doing again if some of the ideas around cca have changed with the new information on is that something that the concerns will be washed away with the new information and final report from inter nekz

xt. >> i would say if there is a difference between 50 and 100 percent, you can definitely go back out and do some market reach. now that it's a few years old, you might want to update, the city has changed but you did have three very solid years back-to-back and they all came back virtually the same when you looked at the underlying numbers. most of the numbers didn't change. you have an understanding and it's not to say when we got to a point, i don't know if it's after inter next came back, there will probably come a point where more decisions are made and will that cost us a build out or do you prefer to pay a higher price. what was the trade off and

how many customers do we gain or lose based on these scenarios and then we'll have a more robust discussion with the puc and say we are rolling this again and actually moving forward and yes we need to check on a few things to make sure we are getting with a the customers would want the most. >> okay, that's helpful because i wonder if we needed to begin that work now to have it coincide with that. >> i would wait until you get the report before we do anything else. >> okay. thank you. >> okay, thank you, are there any other questions? >>supervisor london breed: if not, we are going to open this to public comment. if any member of the public would like to comment at this time, please step forward. >> good afternoon, eric

brooks. mainly on the inter next report, we want to thank inter net for establishing a couple things. we do not need some outside company like shell on consolation to buy electricity for us. we can do it with puc staff and the report nailed that down well. we are also really pleased that even though we as advocates had a preliminary meerg with inter next where they indicated they weren't sure whether they would operate like what's called a virtual power plant where you have renewables and efficiency like if you have a power plant on 24 hours seven days 7 days a week and you don't need fossil fuel power pour electricity. this report really lays out

all of those resources making it clear they are heading in the right direction in developing a citywide network like a virtual power plant. do you want to highlight that. we definitely do as advocates want to see a tiered option to get a hundred percent from the beginning but a lower percent to by make it easier on prices and to avoid things like volunteer renewable energy certificates which aren't real clean energy and don't promote local building of clean energy and important that we get full customer inclusion by that outside process and that wasn't clear on this report. the final thing when --

>> thank you. we have a copy of your letter. >> hi. representing 350 bay area. to commissioner lindo, basically what we've seen with marin and sonoma's cca sthe off 100 percent renewable power but the possibility is to offer cheaper and cleaner. they have light green 33 to 50 somewhere above respects p rps that the cheaper than pg & e and then opting up what they call to the 100 percent green option if you want which usually for these programs has not been more than a few dollars a month over pg & e. so just to answer that question. i think we as a

group would be happy to talk with you about that. just to speak to the to highlight the power has been sold, the excess power that is not going to facilities. the hope would be that certainly as we've talked about potential cca programs access to hetch hetchy power is key to our economic viability in what makes power sf ahead from the beginning of a lot of other cca programs. we just want to nail down those power constructions. lastly the shell contract as we all know is defunct.

so references about a 2030 mega watt which come from that original project should be taken out. thank you. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, bruce wolf. i'm just going to echo my support with my colleagues presented plus that we are very glad that the report outlined very good robust build out suggestions and support. what's key about that is that it will provide jobs and that's one of the biggest obstacles of getting implemented. we are in touch with some labor folks now and they have seen what's going on and we are going to have a

little bit smoother sailing going forward. >> thank you, next speaker, please. next singer, please. >> thank you. strolling along city roads in the district, i feel the power go up my spine. and we know we are going to make this city shy. i left the lafco in the rain walking hand in hand with the pg & e ooh! how i love this stormey power day and it's going to happen today. after a while we run under a tree and i think of the puc and we are going to have stormy, we are going to have

good prices that are free. ooh! i hear lafco, i see lafco in the rain walking hand in hand with the puc. ooh! how i love a rainy day and we are going to give it pay today. and power in the sunshine. we are going to have good change. power happy day. sunny solar sunshine. give it the dime. we are going to have power that is free and we are going to have it today thanks mayor lee. happy day sunny sunshine. give it power. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. any other members of the p be who would like to make public comment at this time,

seeing none public comment is closed. before we move to the next item, mr. freed i did have some concerns and we briefly talked about some of the same concerns that the coalition had about the ability for the corporations to opt in rather than opt out. i was wondering if you can briefly touch on that particular issue. >> sure, talking about the commercial load, customers, cca's don't require and program that be offered to commercial. it does require residential customers be required. for phase one what the report talks about is the puc for quite some time had a long list of customers that said even at a more expensive product we want 100 renewable for whatever reason and they have a very big list. the question comes do you

save for phase one, we know we have a bunch of customers who want to be in, let's let all of them in first and give them the ability to do it. it was my understanding talking that a 30 mega watt program that you have enough customers to fill the load up with some residential customers added to it and you don't need to do an opt out program like the residential side. there would be future phase where you could then offer an opt out process for them. where the letter stated for the advocates, one of the biggest concerns if you have someone doing a lot of marketing against this program, having people saying you are in it first takes away that risk from marketing the issue because people already want to be in the program. for phase one, let themmen, in, we have enough to cover them

and have an opt out process for commercial as well. >> is the legislation that supervisor scott wiener and i are proposals is that somehow incorporated into this report or taken into consideration. >> those customers would not be cca customers. i know we talked about it earlier. i'm going to talk with the inter next focus to folks to see how that works together and if the legislation passed and the cosigners sign with the puc that way they would never be offered this service because it's already offered by puc and based on the discussion

earlier i will sent that to inter next so they can incorporate that into report as well. >> lastly can you talk about the system around the rates and what that could potentially mean in terms of options in order to successfully implement the program? >> yes. i'm assuming you are talking about having a 50 percent renewable? that is a potential option that is available to the puc to do. they can follow marin or sonoma type model. what it comes down to is you need to make sure your energy generation from an environmental standpoint is equal or better than pg & e and gets to incorporate all of their -- hydro. as long as we have that we can set any standard we want for the generation. the report while right now talks about 100 percent because that's what the current city pl