name is michael hines regulatory and legislative fares. on behalf of pg & e i'm going to share some information with you about the status of the green tariff proceeding in the california puc. i'm going to start with an overview and status of the timeline of the application and provide a high level overview of pg & e's actual proposal. so the pg & e's green tariff application has actually been ready for a california puc decision since late may of this year. and under senate bill 43, which was signed by the governor late last year, the california puc was to issue a decision on the green tariff in the month of july. that decision is still pending. based on the status of the application at the puc at this california

puc i would estimate that we could see a puc green tariff launch some time in the spring of 2015. powers in regulatory affairs has been a party to the pg & e green tariff case since it was filed in the spring of 2012. consistent with the recommendations of the 2011 update on electric and resource plan we have supported the adoption of a green tariff program for pg & e for renters and others in san francisco that do not have access and cannot store their on-site generation have the anlt -- ability to support new program. we developed a program to support the development of renewable energy in california and san francisco that would be transparent and

designed fairly and equitably and promote the development of new community based renewable energy systems in san francisco. there are two major components of pg & e's green tariff proposal. the standard green tariff program and the enhanced community renewable energy program. the standard green tariff offering would allow retail electric customers to purchase 100 percent of their energy of portfolio of solar energy project, less than 20 mega watts in capacity and located in pg & e's service territory. in response to the program pg & e will sign contracts for new solar energy capacity. at the outset of the program however

pmg pg & e is going to supply energy to the continuing customers who use solar resources. once the project is developed specific he for the program become operational pg & e says it will transition customers to the new resources. during the california puc proceeding california providing rates for 12.2 cents for kilowatt hour for customers. that's about 2.5 cent premium over the base generation rate. the enhanced community renewable portion of the program would target the procurement of smaller scale resources located near the communities with the green

tariff program. pg & e has identified it's project on the green tariff website and invited customers to prescribe to services located near them. boston marathon -- pg & e is also promoting the program to allow to express interest developing the project in their community and city. pg & e intends to use that information to help inform solicitation to the market. finally pg & e hasn't provided rate estimates for the portion of this program mostly because it has yet to initial solicitation and it will depend on the types of projects and locations that they see. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about this. >> i bet you have a question. >> i have a couple of questions. i'm not going to take up too

much time but i would love to get a deeper understanding. the offering of the basic product is for existing resources that they already have. my understanding that pg & e has about 19 percent renewable. >> a little over 20. >> so a little over 20. so i would say i want to access that 20 percent? >> no. pg & e, the california rps program works in compliance periods, 3 years compliance period and pg & e is forecasting that it will be long in renewables from a compliance standpoint in the next compliance stand period. they have access to make available to this program and would set aside just for participants in this program. >> i kind of thought the way it worked and energy is so complicated

as kind of like a reservoir that is full of dirt water and you keep adding clean water but it's still getting mixed together and you are tapping into it, is that correct? >> i think that's a fair technology. the bath tub technology, the electron, isn't really green if it's coming out of the smokestack, if it's not it's green. >> if i choose the green option, they are going to put more green into the bathtub, into the the reservoir. >> they are going to set aside some of the energy that are rps compliance. they are going to say we don't need this and we are going to dedicate it to the green tariff customers. the only reason they can do that is that they expect to have some

extra capacity available to this program. the other issues that's important to point out here is a bit of a chicken and egg issue that it takes about a year 1/2 to develop one of these projects and pg & e doesn't have yet the authorization to offer the program, but when they do, when they start getting customers they are only then going out to ask the market for new products and they need synagogue -- something to serve these customers in a window period. they are going to borrow from a pool of resources that they have already procured. >> borrow power in >> borrow the renewable power. that's right. >> another way of looking at it was when pg & e was offering

their power portfolio when they had to comply they purchased a lot of green power and they would have access of that green power and they are using that excess green power to provide this new program. the challenge i guess they are seeing is once they start marketing and see how many people will sign up, then they will have enough time to start procuring more than is necessary. >> yes. they have asked the california puc for kind of advanced procurement authorization so they can go out and issue a solicitation for say like 50 mega watts of new solar. and to try to get the ball rolling, basically. but that does represent a little bit of a rick -- risk for ratepayers whether or not the program

comes into fruition. >> there is a program now? >> i believe so. this would not be a rec's based program. recs are the common courtesy of the market. because sb 43 they are by definition what we call a bucket 1 bundle resource. >> so this cost of 12.2 is this going to be constant or will it fluctuate? >> pg & e is proposing that when you sign up for this program that you make a one 1 year commitment and after that one 1 year you roll to month to month. as long as you stay on the program you won't see the renewable energy portion of your rate go up. so one of the things that

they are proposing is you can hedge your energy cost, fix it long-term. other parts of the rate will go up, you know, the cost to administer the business will increase over time other regulatory cost might go up. the ratepayers will pay that, but the renewable portion will be fixed. if they leave the program and go back, they will be on the new addition, the new vintage of the rate for the generation. >> for all of he is the them, they have to pay the transmission and distribution cost. that may go up for the year but the generation if you choose the green tariff will be fixed for a year, right? and then it's month to month. if you choose not to and the program goes away, you go back to the old program and no matter, you have to pay what that current rate would be. >> you are right, kind of

like a power purchase agreement, right? when you set a price? >> yes. they are treating this like a portfolio. so what pg & e is proposing actually is that as they add new projects, if the cost of the renewable portion energy goes down, that the first participants can benefit from that decrease and that makes sense to the extent we are seeing solar power prices drop so the first customers may see slightly higher prices but in a year maybe the price will drop to $70 just for the energy portion and that will bring the overall cost of the program down. it's an incentive to stay in, really. >> and it sounds like it's going to be harder to launch the enhanced program right away because that's

really theoretically the projects located near where i live and if there aren't any, they are going to need to procure or set something up and there is going to be lead time for that, right? >> you got it. right. in fact do that point the california puc has decided they are going to rule on the first part of the program in their upcoming decision and they are going to defer a decision on the community renewables piece. there is some competing models out there that stakeholders have presented to the california puc, so they wanted to provide a little bit more time to vet that through their proceeding. >> okay. great. i would love to take a little bit more time off line to understand this. it seems like a big deal but it doesn't seem like there is a great urgency because puc has some housekeeping to take care of. >> yes. i'm happy to answer any questions any of you have.

yeah. go giants. >> thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> thank you. >> public comment on that item. >> thank you. >> thank you again for this opportunity. i didn't speak earlier but i wanted to thank president courtney for what he's done. i want to say president caen, you are very dapperer. she has you beat on the dressing. on the drought condition we have contamination. this impacts not just san francisco. so i wanted to just look at a couple things we look at pro actively. when we have severe flooding and things that are happening that doesn't mean

things are going to be concentrated and when we look at ground water as a resource. it's i mperative that we have storage and make sure it's getting to the people at the point of use and not contaminated and that's what i'm looking for trying to identify solutions for how we address contaminants that are going to be in our ground water and we have a lot of information and statistics that demonstrate some of the carcinogens that are causing a lot of health problems for our community. what are we going to do in case of an emergency room when the system is down and we have to go to ground water, what's the period of filtration to protect the residents. we talked about the rim fire, but what happens if the water was contaminated, that would have affected more than just san francisco. we need to look at how we are going to address concentrated contaminants as it enters our homes for

bathing, cooking and drinking, thank you. >> thank you. mr. cost a? >> often times when presentations are made about power we fail to address the empirical data. we know now that we get a certain amount of power to the jefferson market line. it's never ever addressed. we get over 400 mega watts from the pittsburg potrero. it comes under the bay. it's never mentioned. so whatever gives any type of presentation when we talk about wind, solar, any type of power and

the rates, we need to know in today's world using empirical data, realtime stats, what is our consumption. it's buffoonery to talk about pg & e. pg & e is in this game for over 120 years or maybe 115 years. sf puc, do you know. they are going to take our hetch hetchy power and use it at a shipyard. have you ever had a discussion. there is the rit ger act. i mentioned it generally that at one point public housing got free energy from hetch hetchy and so did

the military and so did the municipalities. so they keep changing these rules in a convoluted way bringing pg & e in. pg & e dominates the energy and when we, meaning the sf puc had to take a strong stand on power, we screwed up the people in the southeast. our sole arrests that -- solars that are reflected are people in the avenues. we need to know a realtime consumption and we need to take a holistic approach and have those that are need it. thank you very much. >> president ann moller caen: thank you. any other comments on the

general manager's report, seeing none, next time no. 9 consent calendar. city clerk: 9 a-9 e will act upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless the commission or the public request and it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> president ann moller caen: to the general public, dr. jackson, would you like the 9 e removed from the consent calendar? >> yes. >> okay. we'll do that and discuss it later. so we are going to be voting on -- may identify a motion. >> i will move everything except for 9 e. >> second. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? the motion

carries. let's take item 9 e separately. city clerk: 9 e approve the terms and conditions and authorize the jillion with wu yee children's services for use of approximately 3450 square feet space within the southeast community facility plus the use of the approximately 5,000 square foot adjacent and fenced children's play yard as a head start child care program. >> dr. jackson. i received notice over the weekend about this meeting today and i called the dean bynum to see what

did he know about this proposed action. i even contacted members of the southeast commission to see what they know about this action no one seems to know anything. and it bothers me that you are leasing for five years5 years 3450 square feet of space. i'm asking what space are they talking about in ? we have made plans in that community dealing with that college and it seems to me as though your staff keep trying to knowing the fact that this college has the responsibility for the programs there and that

building, 1800 oak dale. they keep not wanting to understand the first thing that occurred because of the expansion of the sewage plant. i am the one that requested that we have a college there, a city college because when the people that lived in the southeast sector will learn about -- when they find out about it, the classes are closed. that's yes -- why we got a college. i demanded a college. what happens is the programs that i had worked with the college before were setting up a program and it's over there on ever street campus. one of the best programs that got started in the united states of america because i knew my people didn't know how to read, they didn't know it was a stop sign to stop. but they came and stole the

wheels off my car and that's how the program got started. i said we needed a ged so these young people can learn to read and be trained. that's how that program got started. and here we in the community have made plans for what we want to see especially in that area that 3450 square feet of space we have been talking about for over a year, but i don't know how you are all making a decision for something that you have no business making a decision over. that college don't belong to you. that college belongs to the community. that's what the mitigation was about for the community. not puc. ever since willie brown became mayor in 96 and you are established. every program that i hear you talk

about, work fork, city built, the houses of bayview hunters point. you have taken those away and they became citywide programs. we have received nothing in bayview hunters point. i have asked the commission, the board of supervisors to have an audit on these programs, these monies that are coming in. they owe us that money. some people need to go to jail because nothing is happening in my community, but nothing for us. and here you want to give somebody a group, i don't know nothing about, never heard of them. because the last i knew, the state college was running the day care center. a black man, named david parson. what happened to him? no one seems to know before this wu yee children's services

started. there was a meeting going on with the city and i asked them to please get that information. whereas to say you all decided that you did not want to be responsible for the day care centers that belong to the community, and here you made the commission give up those day care centers and give them to the city. but now this is not a city project and you are talking about annually $32, 775. you should be ashamed of yourself. the programs that we want to establish in our college. don't vote on this. this is not right. thank you very much. >> okay, let's have ms. russel. >> first of all this information was

in the commission package, the southeast commission package and we can definitely give you that. >> they didn't vote on it. >> well the other thing the head start program was voted on two 2 years ago. it was there and just changing the operator because it is subsidized child care which i know the community had voiced. that's why we are trying to facilitate that. you may have not heard who the operator is. the program is still the same as it was. >> you have to add 3450 square feet of space to them. that was never there and i requested that they leave it out. that was whatever they are called to leave out because they had no business of being there either. >> hsa was put there by who?

>> hanukkah. >> by who? >> she was the dean. she took away all of our programs and gave them to someplace else. when we didn't have a ged program and nursing program and she started representing the spaceout. i asked for her removal and she was removed from there because she wasn't there for the community. that's why we have a dean now, the young man because i requested. i want to see a young brother to go on the corners and talk to the young men on them corners and talk to them and get their ged and get trained for jobs. go ahead. >> mr. kelly? is there a new area?

>> i want to go up and explain. >> good afternoon commissioners, this is replacing an existing day care provider. the day care provider was selected through a competitive bid process. these are separate tennants. they don't have anything to do with each other. >> what about that 3450 square feet of space. it wasn't part of the center. >> yes it watt. >> no way. >> i think that can be proved. >> it surely can and i don't want nobody rewriting stuff to make it seem like because that area is empty. we already made plans for that area . it's empty. >> this is a replacement for an

existing tenant, if you have any other questions, i'm happy to answer. >> let me ask you, the actual foot print of the day care that was there before that they are replacing the exact foot print or not in >> correct. replacement of the exact foot print. >> well it's easy to find that out, right? >> yes. >> -- commissioners courtney? >> mine is related to the southeast commission and if they have this item in their packet, under what agenda item was it how would they get this item? >> it's my understanding that the commission approved the program quite a while ago. >> yul i julia ellis. the commission received a memo september

23rd saying the federal head start program selected wu yee as the existing operator for the head start program. it wasn't selecting wu yee. there is a federal head start program that selected the program operator and when that decision was made it went to the south commission which our staff have talked to those commissioners and the folks responding to that memo. there is no action the commission was making. it was the replacement of the operator and the existing foot print. who years ago we talked about all of these tennants at the community's southeast commission. the head start program was always clearly going to remain as a program out of the southeast community center. so we talked about the tennants and the pace that city college has asked for it's always been baseline

the head start program was going to be there and all the information we got from the community requested that subsidized child care is happening in the center. >> from my understanding from dr. jackson is she's only concerned about the expansion of from what it was and the expansion of the additional 3450 square feet. >> yes. >> but all the other questions you are talking about wu yee is a head start program that what the community wants. i just want to clarify because you made it seem we are doing other stuff. all right. got it. dully noted. >> i'm talking about the space, the foot print. thanks very much. i don't want to see that