e steps that we propose moving forward with. i would be happy to take any questions as i seek your support for moving forward. thank you. >> does any of this change the timeline? >> no, it does not. >> commissioners, questions? >> just have one question that is somewhat related, that you note about -- if you wouldn't mind addressing that, what the cpuc is doing with electricity rates? >> yes, sorry. i forget to address that question. yes, so you may have been reading in the newspaper recently, the california public utilities commission is making some rated structure changes for residential customers and those are rate changes that affect pg&e's customers. the changes that the cpuc, the

california puc will compress pg&e's four-tiered residential rate structure into two tiers over next few years. this will increase the total cost of electricity to low-usage customers, and it will reduce the cost to high-usage customers. it won't really have an impact on clean power sf and the rates- the not to exceed rates that you adopted. the new rate structure that has been adopted by the california puc for pg&e, redistributes costs between transmission and distribution functions, from high-usage tiers to the lower-usage tiers. the clean power sf program competes with pg&e's generation component of the rate, not the transmission and distribution component. so that generation rate was flattened several years ago for residential customers, which means that

these customers pay the same rate for generation, regardless of how much they use. so the rate compression that the california puc adopted affects transmission and distribution costs, not generation, and the clean power sf program competes with the generation component of the pg&e supply -- of the pg&e bill. so we don't expect the adoption of these changes to pg&e's rates to affect the clean power sf program or its competitiveness or require a change in the not to exceed rates that you have already adopted. >> if we're -- if the customer is responsible for paying the pg&e portion won't that portion of their rate go up? >> yes, it will, but it's not going to affect our costs or the rates that we charge. so the component of service will

be responsible for, which is only the supply portion, the generation component of the rates. so the effects that we're talking about on pg&e's residential customers, that increase in transmission and distribution costs for low-usage customers, and the decrease for the high-usage customers, that is going to happen to them, whether they are receiving their supply from pg&e, or they are receiving their supply from us. >> so we don't have anything to do with it? >> we don't have anything to do with it, but it's going to affect our rate-payers, both cca and pg&e. >> it's going to affect san franciscans >> low users will seize see their rates go up and high users will see their rates go down, which is crazy.

>> any other comment, commissioners? any public comments? i don't have any cards. >> jason creed, executive officer for lafco i want to [-eurg/] you to approve this. so the nowline is in your hands -- so i don't want to encourage to you do that and i want to address one of the things commisioner vietor you mentioned about the pg&e rate structure changing. i do agree with you and agree with agm hale it doesn't impact the rate structure we're talking about. one of the negative impacts of that occurring across the board not just for ccas, a lot of time you go to the tier users, paying a lot more and do energy-efficiency work. it can go for higher or more expensive products that they can utilize to reduce their usage and do behind the meter solar. adu you have reduced that down a little bit and make it left cost competitive for solar and

behind the meter efficiency work to occur. once again, that is a problem that will be seen by cca and pg&e customers and doesn't directly impact cca, but if one of our bools is to did a lot of energy offense behind the meter type of work, there could be a small negative impact. tier 5 customers in the city, last time i saw the numbers were 5% of the load. you are not talking about a lot of customers that this would impact. so i think it's something to be paying attention to. there is also a state legislative bill by assembly member tinge, ab 1110, could have have negative impacts on how greenhouse gas get reported. some of the behind meter solar rooftop may not be counted as greenhouse gas-free. i know the puc has some discussions with assembly member tinge's office and that is another area we're

going to potentially see changes at the state-level that we need to keep our eyes on that could have a negative impact on ccas and how we can go out and market and advertise programs that we're trying to do that are good, clean, green program and because someone is trying to monkey with the definitions, all of a sudden "solar" no longer becomes a green product somehow. so to keep in the back of our mind as we move forward how these could potentially impact us later on. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks, san francisco green party local grassroots organization. our city and co-coordinator of san francisco - san francisco clean energy advocates. first i want to just touch on what commissioner vietor and jason just spoke about and that is that there are impacts to clean power sf. to the rate changes.

because as to amplify what director freidsaid, if we offer a much cleaner project -- product and we're offering incentives for businesses to get energy-efficiency and rooftop solar as part of the program; and suddenly suddenly their wasting of the energy has been less expensive, they have much less incentive to go with clean sf and that is a factor also regardless of the fact that it's transmission and distribution where the excess charges are going. that is going to affect both community choice and pg&e customers. we have got to really make sure that the staff studies and aware of dynamic of when we start rolling in customers, are they going to get a rate hit? that they think is coming from clean power sf? so we need to pay attention to that and be careful about how where we enroll customers and look at what is happening with the

rates around that as well. to the item itself, it's a little behind. so it's good to see that it's moving forward. i just want to speak to the timeline. it looks like the timeline is still hitting final approvals at the end of october, just before the election. and as we now know, there are going to be at least two ballot measures regarding clean power sf, and clean energy reporting on the ballot. and if we want to avoid being caught in a firestorm around those ballot measures that affect our ability to enroll customers and educate people, we need to get this timeline continued to push forward to be accelerated to make sure that all of the approvals are done by the end of october and no later. because otherwise, then we're in that election session, where pg&e is going to be spending millions of dollars to attack this program by using that election as sort of a

manipulative device. and we need to be prepared for that. so let's just make sure that the schedule keeps running. and the last thing is we do need -- we met with staff, and we do need commissioners to help us get the build-out planning going. and so anything that you can do to encourage staff to get separate stakeholder process going, to really get all of the agencies, like workforce development and san francisco environment and yourselves, et cetera, involved in planning the build-out, as much as possible. while taking into account ceqa issues. we need to get that ball rolling so we can show labor what is going to come from this and we can guaranty labor gets what we have been promising. thanks. >> hi. thank you. president caen and commissioners, jed olson from

350 san francisco. definitely obviously support your approval of this document. it's really great to be able to be here at this milestone day with you all. and hopefully these other few decreasing number of milestones on this chart will be happening on time or even early, and with we can keep ringing in the good times. i want to point out we were at the puc commenting on their rates and your public comment is much better. thank you very much. everybody is talking did the news like it's happening on january 1st, but this is not happening for years. it was just preparing the groundwork for them eventually doing this. so i think this actually provides a stronger incentive for us to roll folks in quicker, do really strong pushes on energy-efficiency and

demand response quicker. if we can get that stuff rolling to 2018-2017, a lot of financial incentives will still be on our side. they won't actually be disincentivized as was pointed out. so i think this really incentivizes. i would also urge the commission and the city to put its legislative folks in assembly member tinge's office to ensure that the kind of renewable energy credits that are coming up that are the focus of some of this bill, they are talking about categories 1, 2 and 3 which is

what we mainly talk about, but pg&e has category 0, that are grandfathered and not called out in the building language in sacramento. those might actually be able to be called clean green, et cetera, when category 1, 2 and 3 recs can't. so i would urge the city to make sure that we are doing apples to apples and oranges to oranges and we have an equal playing field and whatever we do going forward is look the same for all players in the market. which we can all agree is fair. lastly in the report, i know this report is not really the place where this would necessarily come up a lot, but there is not a ton of mention of sf environment. and with the exception of outreach activitiess, we do really think that they have a lot of technical expertise to play as well in the program and hope that that will be taken advantage of. thanks. >> good afternoon.

san francisco bay chapter -- it's been a long few months. i really appreciated the implementation plan, urge you to approve it today. i also really appreciated the page that brokedown the staffing roles for every phase of the program. and then each component of it. because it says what puc or lafco or city attorney or board of supervisors -- kind of on-point for what we are hire a third-party to do. and i had a question that keeps coming up it says i program governance." sfpuc and board of supervisors." how is the board of supervisors formally involved in governing this program? they can pass resolutions that is a this is what we like to say, and lafco obviously get

ing regular updates from puc. what is the process for ensuring that the board is fully aware of what is going on with the program? and that their input is actually valued and being part of how the program moves forward? i think that is really important that officials that are elected by the people of san francisco are part of this process somehow. and not that you don't have amazing expertise and we're very happy that you are serving and providing this service to the people of san francisco, but it is also important to involve the board of supervisors in the governance. so since that is listed here, i just wanted a little more information about what is the process is for them to be officially involved in the program governance? thank you so much. >> thank you. do we have any other speakers? seeing none, may i have a motion? >> i will make a motion. >> second. >> further discussion? all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries.

all right. madame secretary, i would like to change the order of the following and i would like it to be permanent: in other words i would like you to read the items for closed session then i would like to take public comment and i would like the motion. so if you could read the items for closed session, please. >> item 61, larry wasserman vs. city and county of san francisco. item 17, ccsf vs. pacific gas & electric 18 conference with legal counsel. 19, existing litigation, restore hetch hetchy vs. city and county of san francisco. >> 20, existing litigation, city and county of san francisco vs. pacific gas & electric.

>> 21, existing litigation, city and county of san francisco vs. pacific gas & electric. 22, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. 23 existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. 24, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. 25, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. 26, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. and 27 will not be heard today. >> okay. are there any comments? public comments on the items to be heard in closed session today? >> noreen ambrose city attorney's office. i just wanted to ask for a motion to recuse commissioner courtney from item 16. >> correct. may i have that motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. i also need a motion whether to assert -- >> move to assert. >> second.

>> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. okay. we are now going to take >> the commission has now reconvened into open session. the announcement following closed session is that items 16 and 17 were settled. items 18-26, no action. now i have a motion regarding a vote to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? aye? >> opposed? motion carries. >> any us in business. >> madame president, before we start the birthday party -- [laughter ] -- there was an item earlier today we had a brief dialogue about item no. 10 and i want to thank my colleagues for indulging me. there were a number of questions that i have.

my concern was that those questions would lead to other questions. i know that cathy -- cathy, do you mention answering a quick question for me? is there a way that you might be able to provide not just to myself, but to any of my colleagues interested in reviewing it, documentation or summary related to due diligence with reference to item no. 10? >> yes, can i provide that. -- i can provide that. i had responded to a number of questions regarding our process for this amendment, and coming to this point. so i can definitely put that into a memo format for all commissioners . >> that would be great. thank you very much and thank you for staying today >> well, my new business is i want to thank you all for my birthday card. and the only announcement that i have about my birthday is that my nephew said now is the

time to start counting backwards. [laughter ] >> smart fellow, your nephew. >> so with that, this meeting is adjourned at 4:09. [ gavel ].

>> good morning, everyone yeah. today, i'm very proud to you know have this meeting because we are very luke in our you know city history we have the best leader you know leading us you know we've even though i feel everybody agree with me our mayor is the