and on top of to add a 3 there's per kilowatt monthly demand charge it is pegged to the maximum demand that a customer buys from the utilities so it is hard for residential customers to predict we see anywhere in the country the utility has levied levied a demand charge the customers don't know their maximum demand will be and it is difficult charge to manage more them as well to pg&e is proposed to disallow rolling over the bill credit that is part of our net metering structure and they've made other proposals i'll not get into detail but you know it is essentially if pg&e proposal was adopted by the puc it will drastically reduce the savings to the customers and

dramatically slow down continued solar growth and so you can all utilities they've proposed this combination of reduced to credit for exported clean energy and add fees on top of that for solar customers so you might be wondering you know how which of that is impacting the solar customers bill in pg&e territory and that gets complicate because it matters what the customers demand and the size of solar ray and so on we crunched the numbers in an analysis to the puc look at an average residential scloo solar customer in fresno a hot spot for the state right now this graph shows a customer who is under net

meters the status quo and have got solar with a no down payment even though up as many solar customers do on net metering the customer saves over 20 percent a month before they got solar but pg&e's process is adopted by the puc the savings go down to 3 percent you're talking about a decline of more than 80 percent in solar savings to customer under the pg&e proposal compared with net meters so you know in response to those attacks from the utilities we've got a number of pro solar voices including my organization is advocates for the preservation of net metering and for californian not make it more

expensive for low and middle-income and an out power of the preserve more comments as in the puc has seen on any issue we have a very broad coalition of voices from city government to save organizations not only organizations urging the commissions not to adopt but stick with the metering so where we are in the process raw the c puc about issue their appropriately decision and another a round of applause do comment and thirty days before they adopt a final decision won't happen until middle january so definitely time for the city to weigh in and

definitely think that is a great idea if they decide to do so i'll stop there for any questions. >> from our last comments were nothing is definitely soda up. >> the proposal has not been issued so - >> by no means decided. >> so permanently no decision on the proposed decision. >> no proposed decision out yet. >> and the proposed decision public input and we get to see that public input can influence what comes out in the final. >> exactly often changes between the changes and the. >> you've answers my next question. >> how common is that. >> it is quite common the commission seize heavy lobbying

by stakeholders who want to make changes so, you know, i think in this issue that's been so important to the public and controversial i think there is absolutely more time to look at this from the commission. >> thank you. >> commissioner crews. >> thank you so much for your presentation it is remarkable that the different solar customers in fresno 0 no will see to have the net metering changed do you have numbers for san francisco. >> unfortunately, i took this out of an analysis earlier this year i think that the results will look not too much different than san francisco but fresno customers buy more energy so probable the impact on savings

would be somewhat less in san francisco but still looking at pg&e proposal adopted a severe reduction in savings all throughout pg&e territory. >> i more example friends that bought a house looking to add solar panels and people that are you know financing their solar panels and they're looking for the cost association the cost savings association with the build in order to pay for the solar installation do we see them going underwater with solar panels. >> one thing to note the puc potential of net mooefrt will apply for customers that go solar in the future after the utility hits the 5 percent cap if i have solar the commission

says you get to keep the program for 20 years and move over 0 the new program is the puc is you know they're seeking to provide certainty so if you're under the current rules you'll stick with the rules the question what are the rules for the future customers. >> right so people who before all of this financeing you know flexibility is offered to go solar people that went green early on are going to stop being the seeing the benefits. >> yeah. for current customers and customers went solar in the early days when is serve years ago they will see good savings but this is going to throw you know a possible big change in added fees for solar customers and create communication in the

market for customers that have solar and those going solar if you look at a whole bunch of confusing fees and demand charges it is really going to put a chill on the market from the simple system of solar to a complex and that's one of the reasons we've urged the puc we have a program that works well, we're macro solar affordability to ordinary californians now is it so not the time to change could you say but to maintain this program and keep reaping all the benefits. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner campos. >> what is the what could

possible be the rational by the utilities for what they're proposing we'll open this up for public comment what are they saying trying to understand. >> the one side. >> yeah. can anyone keep a straight fast, no pun intend. >> as i've said i think their ulterior motivates on in their part the argument making sure that all customers including the solar customers pay their fair share for the grid what is the fixed costs every customer should be paying pg&e incentive to have their rate basis is the idea is we're moving into a future with a distributed grids

customers will provide clean green choices the idea not for the utilities to build out the expensive grid and require the customers to pay for it ever they don't need it yeah pg&e argument has been around solar customers shouldn't be allowed to zero out their bill and not pay towards the sgridz the fact solar customers pay not zeroing out they're bill they're paying their fair share. >> okay. thank you commissioner mar. >> thank you for the presentation i just wanted to add my $0.02 he feel pg&e's out arraign and the other utilities out arraign forecast it disincentivizes but grad glad you made it clear i have a

question i'm not sure you can answer may cal or other from the department of the environment but in the materials it says about 5 thousand san francisco homes we know of have solar installations or 5 thousand solar installations around san francisco that that are similar 10.5 megawatts do i know how is are low and you mentioned solar in homes is expanding to more low income and middle-income homes. >> i don't know that offhand i know there was recently a report that look at the average incomes of the zip codes for solar being installed over the last 5 years a distinct move from solar in higher income neighborhoods i don't know what the politician

for the solar already installed by the across the country as the costs come down most of the installations with disconnecting of in case of less than 70 thousands or less. >> maybe cal knows about the 5 thousand installations are we seeing an increase in the lower and middle-income homes. >> thank you commissioner, i can't answer that question but certainly try to get an answer for you. >> to finish up my political $0.02 pg&e's actions are outrageous bus the climate submit and the protests around the woodland is out praejz what is happening around the public

utilities commission. >> thank you commissioner mar and sir, thank you for your presentation so i have two maybe hear public comment or an explanation of the changes from mr. fried's and public comment. >> before we do that we have cal has a quick presentation how to impacts california before we get there. >> commissioners, thank you very much i said to painted a picture of a larger picture we're electrifying our electric vehicles moving away from natural gas to electrify our spaces heating we need more electricity resources and we the more we have in house in san francisco the better off we are what is proposed with the net metering is more difficult part of the charge of the department of the environment to think about green house gas emissions

so i want to point out that the pucs our puc sfpuc go solar with the metering has installed the 7 hundreds plus solar installations in addition those are providing about 23 megawatts of capacity the late number and want to make the point we've been employing people prosecute disadvantaged community in those programs as well as installing solar throughout the city including the southeast and other parts of city that are lower income and finally the point i think not been in the comments before those improve the reliance we're working on a project to provide batteries and scombrrg storage to back up the systems when we have a major

broad-based quarter we have resources that will come from rooftop solar not a solar installation in the valley the more we can do to put the solar on our rooftops that improve our conditions here thank you. >> thank you. >> so chair avalos to have public safety and neighborhood chair wiener to take the a good deal of and read in the amendments those amendments are a quick synopsis they are clarifying and clearing up up a few things we've produced that and gotten feedback from go solar about technical changes that are necessary we took the comments and your staff he provided edits and something that the public safety committee tapes not a lafco item i'll get

into that at the ends the difference and what the public safety neighborhood services committee and after reading those amendments sgoerd and then we should if you want to get public comment on this item or have a presentation on the pc i a i'll yield. >> do pc i a read the comments or do the presentation all the stuff together. >> if you like. >> i'm not clear what i have. >> maybe. >> so i would do at this point call up shawn and she'll do the presentation on the pc i a and have sfpuc do that and the

amendments then. >> okay. >> thank you he everybody nice to be here i'm shawn with lean energy jason can you help me with queuing up those slides. >> super. >> thank you. >> before i get started into this topic i think that will be helpful to set context and let you i know i was asked to give a 5 minute presentation high-level and brief i'll be happy to answer any questions but what is the definition of this power charge in different adjustments this is a long term form f 50 an exit fee it is also categorized as a departing low charge an annual calculations based on the

advantageing the pacific gas & electric has engaged in or entered into on behalf of the customers and so in order to keep the fundamental rate payers whole you have to pay a departing low charge for the case of community choices aggregation or cleanpowersf and want to be clear at this point we are not disallowing the need for a low charge we understand that is an obligation in particular not necessarily so much of the utility but the fundamental ratepayer is not unduly impacted by the departing load has to do with with the way the p kay is calculated and the mitigation strategies to handle some of these more intense rates

we see proposed this year with that, we'll sort of recap what we see as the owner currently before the c puc. 2016 it is scheduled to go up nearly 100 percent in cleanpowersf case actually a little bit over 100 percent this is the highest in history so it is unprecedented that estimates or calculates out to 2 point 3 cent and kilowatt hour the communities have to add into the generation rate to for the wholesale power rates from the market in order to then come up with a full rate at the end of the day needs to be competitive with pg&e you can imagine a 2 pointed 3 kilowatt hour charge

is actually pretty hefty charge but this means for cleanpowersf is a potential hit of $8.4 million in 2016 that is just for a partial year and only for phase one customers you have you're rolling out a modest phase if i look at 24 over the course of the program actually a potential for a much larger financial hit going forward peninsula clean energy the ambulance in san mateo that is $40 million in 2016 and that is also 2307 for the phase one program and the pc i a has a hard hits on care customers they rely on programs that help them meet in their olympics low income customers that are undial burdened by 100 percent increase in the fee per it also reduces

cleanpowersf and other cia ability for the clean power this is something to have into our rates it effects our revenues and the ability to have the excess revenue and definitely creates uncertainty in the marketplace we believe the effect is anticompetitive it is essentially contrary to save policy the policy requires corporation from the utilities 19 it also requires the urban bundled customer is made whole but some things in the calculations that satisfied both needs the other issue at hand the calculations are done in a black box manner commissioner last week knowledgeed how calibrated those calculations are the costs

in ass not to my knowledge uh-huh annual calculations are unknown because of the cost information was not available to 9 parties our question what are the assumptions underlying and what is in this quote quotes black box it spits out a fee that potentially approved by the c puc we know undermines the california public utilities commission go credibility of the end result that brings us here today to a number of remedies that have been proposed we are hopeful an additional decision to the proposed decision before the puc potentially schedule to be heard on december 17th and potentially defer a final decisions into january giving me additional time for mitigations

to be povrnl considered >> one of those to increase transparency and craigslist by conducting and third party audio and verification of the calculation and more importantly the assumptions underlying those calculations what are the contract that are going into this black box and spitting out this number we don't know what is going into that we that will be helpful for the puc to have the third party verifies they're given comfort they're about to approve is valid the second mitigation that has been suggested is to consider a balancing or smoothly account to mitigate those types rates as i mentioned this is unprecedented doing so will is an annual came it could be 15ers or 50 percent

but something that provides some relief with the ability to amnesties the balance of those over a period of time so you have a smoothly effect and not have this hit on rates the figure out is to request to open a preceding at the sfpuc other issues about the exit fee including a potential very visiting obvious iuoe circulations u calculations work the memories and the policy behind that as well as how long does the p ccii kay cia we don't see a - they're no longer able to procure but monopoly has been defined so those are the remedies that lean as suggested and many others that have merging with the commissioners

we don't know for sure there is relief for the 2016 fee some indication of a willingness to engage if the structural fixed to the p cia that is a step in the right direction if you can join us for to press conference next thursday december 17th prior to the commission hearing we'd love to have supervisor avalos or anyone else a number of local officials to talk about the impact of the p cia on their program and the program going forward so with that, i the finish my remarks and i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you for your presentation and thank you as well for the invitation actually, i will not been able to make that i have my kids i

take it school at it time in the morning but well, my fellow commissioners to be able to go if theirable. >> thank you. >> and work with jason fried to see which one of us can be inherited over to the press conference. >> very good thank you. >> okay commissioner mar you're name is the only the roster okay. >> commission. >> thank you. i have one question. >> it was a great presentation thank you. i thinks that is very complicated and to stay within the timeframe was high-level going back to one statement you said you thought no relief in sight what do you mean that pg&e is not required

to procure energy on behalf of the p cia how did it play into the p cia a continual charge. >> as far it's been a continual charge ongoing discussions when a when does it at the end pg&e entered into a contract maybe 25 to thirty years at what point is there a cross over between that timeframe when the p cia halls procedure the power on behalf of the parties and is obligation to pay the load theoretically it should be wrenching down over time and go away at some point some said it should go away after the first year it is not

feasible but after 10 years they have the ability to go on the market and sell the contract the p cia is calculated on the benchmark price and what they cracked for we want to make sure we are innovate liable for the loads and the calculations is fair and that there is in no way a double dipping or making money and turning to and chair mar us. >> forgive me if i'm new to understanding p cia it is a dual component there's a something that the ratepayer pays and the p cia pays isn't that correct. >> yes. but the way it works the cca agency scombetsdz the p

cia charge so ultimately it is bundled into the overall rate for the customer. >> so the customer doesn't get this you know thanks for leaving you owe us x amount of dollars it's rolled into the future bills with cleanpowersf. >> yes. >> if i understood you correctly but the bottom line in other words, for the program whether it is cleanpowersf or lean clean energy for them to retain competitive they have to take into account the generation layer in the exist fee and the administrative costs and come out hopefully competitive to pg&e and this year we know for sure for example, lean energy

will be more expensive. >> thank you. i understand it but thank you for clarifying it thank you so much. >> any other and colleagues, any other questions okay. anything from staff? ms. harold >> good afternoon barbara hale assistants general manager for powell at the san francisco puc thanks. taking the time to review and lean and marshall for reviewing the p cia since for the last couple of weeks we've been pulsing over how to reset our cleanpowersf plan to in the event if pg&e is successful in their request at