clean power customer in green and so you see the generate and the jen bill amount on the top line the pg&e charge for the clean power and the sfgh on the left the pg&e customer but a p cia in the middle you see the pg&e customer that has the higher jen rate with no franchisee fee and the different way see is that for that is a modest difference a low use $0.11 diffuse on a $1 generate bill that is kwaulth actuate to half a billion we're not talking about a lot of money but you can

see e is it cheaper than pg&e. >> any questions on this similar to what was presented i think. >> i have a reaction to that the numbers are there overwhelming go so a half of a cent everyone understand a quarter of a cent but if you the focus group and i would think is a marketing decision. >> so you're saying that is marketable but not a money you know that the. >> yeah. it depends on how i've you know how people react to a quarter of a percent cheaper i mean cheaper is cheaper that

part it understand but pg&e comes back and says yeah, but you know they're playing with you if that is a negative prospective we should look at this percent. >> what you're saying we have to be good on the value how we went into this in the first place people in this for because they want to help the climate and people in here they want more choice you know don't believe in 0 monopoly and people in here that are not happy that pg&e is doing their tricks and people that care both affordability a game even though so it is important no matter what especially with the margin is so thin to make that value proposition strong; right? >> and i just what ink can is trying to present the sensitivity analysis if we were

to reduce the discount you're not seeing a lot of return for four and a half percent is that worth it and so i think that that is what he was trying to illustrate. >> we have a revised resolution a revision to the resolution to the resolution that is in our pact for recess instructing ceqa changes and an alternative a .20 and zero discount if you want to adopt those the slides please. >> so in addition to rates and charges this item proposed a terminate fee so people that opt out of clean power the opt

period is 44 most there is no termination fee opt out for free and after the noticing a charge of 5 conflict of interests for residential customers and 25 more non-residential that is compatibility to what the cca is charging in terms of termination fees. >> can i ask a question why not us have a exit fee (laughter). >> we certainly could that would make that more attractive to lenders. >> what do you mean an exit fee. >> i'm saying the same principle people leave and . >> isn't that kind of this sfm isn't an exit fee but an opt out fee how do you collect a opt out

fee. >> i was being facetious. >> the opt out fee you're talking about. >> so just a recap the presentation the action described ♪ action to approve initial rates on pg&e rates and charges and a half percent methodology authorize an adjustment based on january pg&e raised and then approve a method for the rate adjustments so what would be the sneks next step we'll take action to submit that information for the board of supervisors for their per charter they can reject it the gm based on january pg&e rates would adjust the schedule and then present to you and the rate fairness board the customer notices the rates to be included

for opt out >> should i move on to the matter of credit item. >> just to -- on the guidance you're seeking the rates are not finally set until we know what the power costs are and the pg&e rates so the guidance is a non-binding guidance. >> pardon me. >> this not the final feel what i'm thinking the choice within a half and quarter of a cent discount i don't know i'm qualified to make that choice but i would be comfortable i said hate it have you locked into something a half of cent should have the flexibility to make the market value program as

good as it can be. >> norway reign i'm not sure that is a level of discretion. >> sorry i was writing a note to the commission president i didn't hear the question repeat yourself. >> probable not. >> the idea being that we are not setting actual rates and charges is it not to exceed. >> no. your actually you're adopting rates that have conditions associated with them before the program could launch so you're adopting rates that are in the resolution and you're then 30 years the general manager to adjust those rates to reflect the pg&e new rates in january and provided that that

rate as adjusted falls within that range related to the .2 or dolphin or differentiate authorizing him to move forward with the program. >> you're setting the initial rate and setting our acting to embed in that rate an initial adjustment in january and you're also frankly 30 years subsequent c pi. >> whatever number a half of a scent that's the goal the general manager has to meet; is that right. >> yes. that's definitely a fixed so ceiling so if the cost

come in and the other factors that go into the rate setting add up blow that ceiling then that's the rate that the program launches if they're not blow the ceiling they'll have to come back. >> okay. >> i think perhaps that confusion not to exceed terminology that was meaningful in may when the costs were not known now i guess i would go whatever way staff is most comfortable in the flexibility to deal with january when many happens. >> i would feel comfortable with a quarter of a percent because it is so thin now and then you know if we know more you know next year when we set rates we'll make the adjustment then. >> okay. >> i did you could give a

greater discount in january if that number supports that. >> for this january the criteria is that you had at least a quarter of a cent so if if january you wanted to do a half a cent you could do that a. >> it is basic math take the january pg&e rate and subtract the the franchisee fee you discount it by .25 if that is you're resolution or don't. >> yeah. the resolution. >> yeah. no discretion we understand from the city attorney to limit the mulch the discretionary to the city charter. >> thank you it would have been nice but okay. >> next item.

>> >> are we are going to talk about the loan or the line of credit is something different. >> the letter of credit. >> the letter of the credits. >> the loan was on the november 10th agenda. >> yeah. >> that you authorized the extension of an additional. >> $4 million. >> $4 million as well as the extension of the terms of the existing 4 and next 4 to 5 years as well as authorize us to work with the controller's office to do any adjustments to sort of accounts and funds that were necessary in order to sort of establish the financial infrastructure for cleanpowersf moving forward so that item went with the business and finance committee and going to be signs

by the mayor soon. >> i guess so many moving part to generate that loans for local build outs would we be able to bring on a significant customer like a lawyers or something as a cca customer would that will eligible to pay back that a lot about if need be. >> if we had additional revenue for the program. >> we repay the hetch hetchy loan and deposit it to a reserve and determine the next set of

priorities as we generate revenue. >> i'm sorry the revenue first and the hetch hetchy next. >> the way we show it we're you know paying back and identified the model but i think what you're saying if we look at where we are in a year and could live with repagan hetch hetchy longer how would that help us phase in the next phase sooner. >> correct. >> so that is something we can look at you know once we get more information because right away right now is a guessing game of so many unknowns in the next few weeks. >> tied in with that question when the phase a triggered. >> once we get more

information. >> yeah. the you know the current legislation it has to be paid within 5 years of launch extending that requires the board action and certainly impacts of not doing that and paying back the power enterprise of $8 million >> thank you. >> next item. >> right item 20. >> related to the proposed stand by letter of credit supporting the cleanpowersf power contracting effort so why did - why is a i was needed i'll spined time talking about the power contract and the key terms related to them so the standard long term power contract has a term associated with that related to early termination so if you contract

for power within 3 or 5 or 10 years to buy in and let's see we buy it at $50 a megawatt hour if for some reason the contract are terms 1 or two years into it because you know the cleanpowersf program is not for some reason pg&e explicit move like they've done now the program is not visible and need to terminate the contract you look at what market-rate prices they're the same as when i entered the contract none losses termination money so it is 50 when we sign at the year-end the prices are 50 no lost value; right? so if we sign a contract for 50

and the price goes up to 55 that contract is valuable to us and see if they were a power supplier were to terminate it we have a right to buy power at 50 and the market-rate is 55 they'll have to pay us the difference in price and the remaining megawatt hours the longer the contract the large the termination amount and the difference in the energy price the time you terminate a contract no, that goes both was as i mentioned the contracts we're negotiating right now, we're looking to cap the termination value the termination amount that the dollars equivalent of a go maximum thirty percent change

in the marketplace a not termination amount we're not implementing caps so does make sense so in august when we started putting together an rfp for a letter of credit luke for a maximize of $40 million that was i mean primarily a bit action one 5 year contract for 50 megawatts currently looking at the a 3 year bid contract and smaller bidding options and the termination amount at the thirty percent cap is looking at just under 25 modules that is really what we are talking about now in terms of the terms obligations can choose to post a letter of credit from a bank

that will pay a second-rate party in the event that the contract were terminated and a guarantee and the bank will recollect from the other party now, one of this maybe a little bit inside of baseball we're advocating that it is on this to the defaulting party that pays the termination for some reason they default the provider couldn't deliver the power that but our contract was out of the money like a negative termination that's not something we will pay if they were the defaulting party so that's under our position and negotiations so with a counter party like cleanpowersf a letter of credit is a fiscal way to meet the

security and secure the facial cover and it didn't will have a credit rating we're looking for the power enterprise ignore the letter of credit for cleanpowersffignore the letter of credit for cleanpoweroignore the letter of credit for cleanpowerrignore the letter of credit for cleanpowersfgnore the letter of credit for cleanpowernore the letter of credit for cleanpowerore the letter of credit for cleanpowerre the letter of credit for cleanpowersfe the letter of credit for cleanpower the letter of credit for cleanpowersf >> what are the terminations as i understand angle agreement between the power enterprise and in this case j.p. morgan chase not to exceed $40 million and ran a competitive rfp issued one to 12 national banks two responses so it shows you what one of the provisions for this letter of credit because we didn't want to impact the power christmas deck capacities on the

lowest senior lien the repayment is blow omi and commercial paper and r and r payments and that's why we got very few bids and those were very attractive bids for the looming we've offered for security so the response to our rfp was term for letter of credit between 3 and 5 years the cost for a short time letter of credit is lower than a longer one 1.20 and 1.6 percent for 5 years and modeled 6 hundred 40 thousand in the performa it assumes $40 million at one 60 the cost is or lower this letter

of credit for the benefit of our power purchase counter parties and asking for letters of lower credit only drone an termination not for anything else other than termination and we'd be looking to close on execution of the power contract in early january let's see the repayment terms the next slide is while we don't you know expect to have you know a termination we have to look at the worst case would be and actually, i'm going to deviate from this outline for a second and provide context so power

prices showed earlier near historical levels that provides assurance that we're more likely to see power prices rise than of all the termination payment is to our benefit rather than our ranch adverse to us but if there were a termination and cleanpowersf couldn't fund it the provider widraw on the l and a term of the power enterprise to be paid over a 7 year period that's at term out the power enterprise repays that from revenues there would be obviously if we were in this kind of situation and number of mitigations we'll pursue but you know the measures

to pay this off could result in increased po u rates we have i think commissioner vice president moran the information you've talked about well, the forms of the documents of the before you for consideration the reimbursement agreement is really the meat and potatoes of the agreement so, now are you able to see that no throw away and magnify this - >> can we magnify this?

>> eye to hand coordination. >> okay should i stand up there. >> you can point. >> so you know as i mentioned prices are near a historical although, the termination payment if were into our benefit, however, important to understand if things go wrong if were were an early termination because cleanpowersf couldn't pay for the power we first determine if interest there is a termination payment no draw on the letter if there is one

percent the price is one percent to thirty percent difference verse the contract price if it let's assume this analysis assumes a thirty percent price difference in the second year the program 20 initial termination cap of $25 million a year into is that termination amount will be $18 million and convert the bank pace it converts to a 7 year that costs 3 point plus million dollars a year so it will be repaid on the lowest priority what you have brand new i can send this out yeah, the 10 year we have the 10

year financial plan you adopted in january for the pour price assuming this model assumes no mitigation so there might be a range in mitigation from the let of the contract. >> so the mountain tunnel is still in there. >> mountain tunnel is still there and funded by the power enterprise debt and water enterprise debt. >> you didn't make any adjustments to the rates. >> no, this is a no mitigation scenario and doesn't assume that the power enterprise is repaid the $8 million if it assumes what you see there is a basically assumes you make those payments on a fund balance a reduction in the fund battalion of the power enterprise to a low of 1-800 million dollars from

$42 million today let's see and it didn't take into consideration if we defer any capital project deferral. >> no capital program we compete our debt coverage of one 25 we have not yielded that much debt and the fund balance declines from 24 percent today to 9 percent which is blow the 15 percent policy targeted if you look at raising the general fund rate as the only mitigation action to address that and make the 10 year plan whole verse before the termination you'll be looking at depending on when general fund

rates to increase an increase of .85 to a 85 an increase of half a percentage per year and adjusts the general fund is 674 projected to be 750 in 2017 ideally use a mix of strategies; right? have some you know you might look at you know if the power contracts with in excess of the term out and looking at the power enterprise and paying the amount over time verse seven years you could look at refinancing

that with taxable debt or defer or defund the non-essential projects or raise rates you may be wondering thank you, eric quam what do you mean i think that from the contracts were termed because of the clean management of the cleanpowersf an unquantifyable if it were pg&e maneuvering an explanation financially we need to put together a plan for razors the plan it didn't have the financial projects we have a negative outcome on our rating and probably a down rate of the s&p but those are the kind of

worst case scenario. >> the bottom line first of all, eric has done exactly what i asked for the nativity stress test you don't do anything of the things you should or could do how straightforward could it be if nothing else happened if not pretty that's kind of my idea for the conclusion on that but the hetch hetchy enterprise in my view can afford to take on this obligation knowing the worst we can live with that and

knowing we have a lot of things to do to make a smaller impact i wanted to go through the nationality questions when we return to the more positive version of this discussion we do that with the confidence we have looked at t looked at the worst-case stuff thank you for that information my conclusion the proposal in front of us do it more responsible. >> thank you. any questions about this item? >> commissioners? >>i understand it better i want is it make sure it is required that you specify the criteria that governs the

adjustment but that you specified that was in a range of .25 or point you know one 57 or .15 whatever the criteria being that there showcase is much drount prudent of the other cost factors that you would have taken the action and provided the criteria that would be a lawful designation to him you can specify a range if you think that flexibility in that time period is necessary but you can't do just is go forth and accelerate okay so i think i maybe misunderstood what was question was that's helpful i'll defer to the

general manager what the staff thinks. >> i have an amendment to offer a measure in front now. >> you have not yielded moved them yet i'm not sure when you'll do public comment move them and move an amendment and then ask for public comment if that's you're pleasure. >> yeah. why not get the motions on the tackle and take public comment and then a motion we have 3 - 4 items, 19, 18, 20 and 21 a motion to move forward. >> i want to make sure for item 19 the summary of changes were promoted ii went throw in the presentation i made have been provided to the commission secretary so let's make sure we

circulate those as you can see in those as you can see a rated setting policy excuse me. a phasing policy changes where you see red lines for recuse the rate discount is from .5 to .25 if there is interest in a different version that will be where that appears and you see the letters policy change to relax the rate stabilization within the first 3 years of the program launch make sure those are appropriately before you before you vote. >> did you move the amendments to the rate resolution as well i did not move it but presented on the record you referred those

okay. thank you. >> we'll first put i'd like to hear a motion on the four resolutions and with these amendments we have on number 19 18 and 19 are those 18 and 19? on 19 before you. >> on 19 let get those on the table a motion to put those four on the table. >> second. >> okay open up for public comment and because we took several items together we're going to give you a little bit longer for public comment if you need it. >> i'll suggest as one way of expediting if i could put my amendment the public comment can refer to that as well. >> let's do that. >> which item. >> for item 19

and it would be to add a resolve after the first resolve therefore, be it resolved that hetch hetchy support the go solar program the limited to power customers of hetch hetchy and between cleanpowersf. >> i was wondering if that was it so with respect to go solar because go solar is not on the agenda you can move to direct the general manager to look at that and bring that back to you for subsequent action but because automotive adopted a go solar program which is separate from cca you'll have to agendize those go solar and action on changing the conditions under which people will be entitled to apply for and receive go solar

we didn't advertise go solar. >> that amendment will be out of order. >> if you want to say resolve the general manager shall go and look at it go solar and bring back to the commission a proposal that will make go solar inclusive to hetch hetchy and cca customers. >> we'll give that direction with or without a resolution. >> in this case i'll withdraw the amendment and offer my direction for the general manager as you stated to come back with something that will accomplish and encourage that happen on the first meeting in january our marketing will begin and it had been a strong as marketing program as much as possible.

>> we have a motion on the tackle for the four items and we're going to open up for public comment at this time david please. >> less clarify to the when you made the motion you moved the amendments to item 20 the rate - >> what rate item that had the red lynn before you eric sandler read into the record as part of his proposal there were red line edits that have been handled out to you want to make sure the record is clear you mentioned items 19 and staff initiated amendments to items 20 before you moved the items okay. >> .25 so amendments to 20 as

well 19 and 20 are red lined as .25 in item 20. >> as well as additional language. >> you should have before you in addition to the amendments that many hale presented on item 19 just to be clear can you have an alleged motion on those four items as amend. >> i'll second. >> open up for public comment thank you david i go in el cerrito i am co-chair the sierra bay area chapter of committee i'll speak on all the items you need to go ahead with the cleanpowersf now putting it off the approval will

only delay the program and confuse the residents we have momentum let's keep the momentum going and if the c puc allows the increase by penguin we can adapt we've got good minds working on that and can be creative and design energy and the energy efficiency service more convenient and financially lucrative than pg&e's especially with go solar involved as appropriate thank you very much. >> next dawn. >> thank you. i'm dawn i'm

with 350 san francisco and usf faculty want to say so many people care about that and can't be here in the middle the afternoon the i'm in college have an education and resetting what is a corporate welfare through the p cia is interesting described but i'm here like david to go on the tone that is super important to move forward and i feel that we're on that cusp and neutral site you're posed to do this we'll be moving and every time he hear the report from the binding agreements that's the best to contribute to the draw down in a significant way so, yeah i would

urge you know, i see really credit cards caution and i see the difficulties that are being thrown but feel like the way it is distributed and the way i'm understanding it i hope i'm not two optimistic but many the worst case scenario it is still can work and really to say people believe in this will be working with 36050 to get it enacted so thank you. >> thank you very much. >> jed >> i support you moved on all those items and ann mentioning

paris today, i got an e-mail from the program director and air quality district we work on g h g regulation and refinery issues she pointed out to me that was a presentation yesterday on community choice energy by all bay area people to designates in paris that was well received the mayor of richmond had folks there this is definitely spreading far and wide and people have not heard of merry ran county a good illustration how once we start doing something that information can spread quickly peaking to the items from 350 i'm the co-cornered and on the board

from 350 bay areas prospective we work in sacramento as well as in the 9 county area the p cia charged the corporate welfare the questions that came up in our discussion are spot on in terms of why is this not sunset why do we have to pay for power they're able to sell to other folks and really encourage you folks keep on that i know that you're staff is on that ultimately my experience as a advocate at the puc are grim so here the kind of badgers is night and day in the california puc where things are really happening behind closed doors

and require a law license to be practicing in front of the the commission to have a substance in that process i encourage you ultimately you guys are going to have more effect on this hearing on the 17 than we will as the public utilities commission of the california that is not the way it should be but it is what it is i want you to nail that down and ultimately a moral hazard for i o u they can miss calculated and not bother to do prudent business mr. haney and have that cost picked up by the people of california this is real money we saw it on the $4 million you're going to be losing if we pay this charge that money goes to growing the program and providing discounts

for customers and rate stabilization but that is you know it is terrible we need to - that will be funded in 2016 as much as originally funded not until 2019 we are funding and two years earlier 0 that is a great move and given the kind of crap sandwich we've been given pardon my language a great move to get us on solid ground ultimately pg&e is trying to instill fear by doing this they're also trying to effect public policy by doing this and

by reasonable dictionary definition would be chaired and economic terry recidivism and definitely economic hostage talking to capitulate would be to allow the economic hostage takers to win i urge to move forward with the letter of credit should coffer not only phase one but multiple contract we know with the customer base will provide that letter of credit so thank you very much for everybody. >> thank you mr. brooks. >> good afternoon, commissioners another really good day for cleanpowersf i'm hearing from the commissioner

that was the most careful to make sure those staff got the numbers down pat as he's ready to move forward that's really good to speak specifically to some of the things you've raised first, i want to get this out of what go solar we have to register we're improperly customers in cleanpowersf in trenches and not all at once of we get people to say they want to enroll ahead of being automatic enrolled can't enroll them all at once only our customers and cleanpowersf customers are allowed to use cleanpowersf we're not clustering people that can't get them so i asked the general manager to factor that into the

equation especially low income customers and nonprofit customers that are already lefrnldz that program it helps them specifically and for some reason one of the customers can't be part of the program until two years from not not go to include them from solar panes but agree with the commissioner vice president moran that that once we've enrolled everybody go solar sf should be for our customers not pg&e's customers that gives a great way to market to our customers and get more pentagon customers to come to us with regards to the issues around the financial viability of starting now it sounds like you're are you insured i want to add for reassurance when merry ran county started in 2010 pg&e played games with the structures

and on the p cia and other charges that made the rate fluctuations that marin had to deal with more crazy and marin was able to weather that storm with no problem and so and also the california san francisco public utilities commission recently rapidly changed the rate structure for californians and unfortunately in not good was the people will get to use more energy for less energy and people will have to pay more we activists in california raised a major fit and managed to get the california public utilities commission to reduce the impact of that on low income rate payers by 25 pierce

and on this issue the exit fee for the community choice customers and fit being pinched statewide the commissioners are getting e-mails they canned follow them all on the issues angry about the p cia doubling angry about that increase they'll compromise with the public and that of we get a 25 percent decrease in the exit fee that will be around what the staff was projecting green before so but what that said you're staff made clear in and the commenters made clear even in the worst case scenario if we accomplish nothing this program pencils out and time to start it today this is it the public may not realize this we're flipping

the switch that is excellent so wards a little bit more on the exits fee charge i want to amplify the negative itself this is not just pg&e take advantage of us by finding every this charge might not be charged to their customer and charging use it is worse than that this current policy in stale for this exit fee charge encourages pg&e and the other utilizes to make bad deals buying energy ahead of time for 10 or 20 years for the as good a price deal because when community choice customers leave they will ding those customers for more to be sloppy

and purposely manipulative encourages them not to do contractors that are beneficial to design their contracts that specifically is an attack on communities choice programs we need to get the legislators to change that policy and not just fight the increase but change the policy finally we had a great meeting with staff yesterday they reassured us the community choice advocates i'm here on behalf of the green party and a coordinator with the cleanpowersf advocate we had a great presentation with the staff they presented here what they presented then we want to make sure we make one quibble that is one thing in the business modeled model i think

the summaries the business model assumes nothing major will occur with 2020 with global warming that is too late to state so we ask staffer yesterday to please set up a workshop to meet with them but figuring out our experts and interacting to make sure we do bonding properly and the most cleaver way the way we fought ways to use the power capability to build things to feed into cleanpowersf without having to have a cleanpowersf go bond rating right away creative things to make sure we start building substantial projects before 2020 but staff like i said reassured us to work out that and even i want to flag

that as a concern but not a reason not to move forward because staff is being very receptive and working with us you've given me more times only one more comment sorry i just remembered it is for the issue of the back in 2012, we the advocates for cleanpowersf and on the clean power programs did work with our staff and went to the board of supervisors and pushed for the record the half of cent for the previous customers you're talked about previously commissioner vice president moran and i would say regardless of waiting for staff to report on had you written and how much to raise the cost of the general fund customers it is important that we at least get something small like a half

percent increase for continuance past 2017 i'm recommending personally i haven't talked to my colleagues personally recommend going forward and moving that so financiers and risk analysts know you'll continue the half a cent increase past 2017 more of a cushion for pg&e issues and more pg&e customers that the power enterprise is behaving to afford its own operations and cleanpowersf with no cost thank you for allowing me time. >> jason fried please. hi jason fried executive director for lafco thank you very much for this staff presentation he wanted to go over a few items so vote yes on

all the things that's the quick itself why the details first of all, the discussion around p cia pg&e is totally trying to rebuff the customers builds with a b bus of over collection of pg&e charges not good at the calculation figuring out how to do the contracts correctly we suffer the resolution on the p side is important once through december 17th pushing hard for the will p - a complete joke it was created in a by done era and not updated with the generations back had there was a lot of things that occur within the generation line items we should be doing a lot to push those changes made i would hope the

san francisco public utilities commission will take a lead but there are loaf people not only impacts us but impacting the pg&e program they're charged the p cia what the sfpuc we care about chair mar our people good examples why we need changes i hope utilizing you'll vote yes own is resolution today, i heard about the comments things that are forward thinking i'm appreciative of those make sure we're not getting too far ahead but voting. >> yes. and brought up good ideas make sure we're not excluding people anyone if gets the go solar funds this be part

of p cia to provide energy they'll be agreed to first on the wait list for the next customers that come in and once pg&e agrees they'll not opt out probable legislation or something that needs to be worked out with the city attorney's office and commissioner vice president moran i'm more than happy to sit down good ideas how we can do that if you go back to 2008 land use commission that is how long ago people were thinking about this tied together it is appropriate to have go solar customer hetch hetchy full power or treasure island or like me at hunters point and that maybe legislation needed i'll encourage you to pressure pursue that there here or the board of supervisors to agree to get

those people as quickly as possible to be part of phase one that is the best way to go i'll encourage you to do that as far as i know i believe that commissioner president vietor was talking about the worries that is great forward thinking think about them full fledge of power but for some reason their cca customers you know you're staff is extremely intelligent they'll make the financing work they'll figure out how to come back with a proposal it might mean making a proposal but you're staff a will talented and will come back with a changes a very good opportunity and might be there is a really good, opportunity with construction that fell into their laptops we can't pass this it is cheaper and there is some new incentive

that will dry up and they'll come back make sure you're moving the package forward today to have a program to have those discusses in the future and one over 6 years working on this the frustration at times not gordon's anytime you've had a question the only time this commission go said put the brakes on this and you're staff stopped work an cca that's the original time had they - they talked with the staff and pretty sure this report was things you're staff knew and first and foremost give our staff the authority and move forward and so with that, i'll end with that, please vote yes on the resolutions and everything so we

can get moving forward it is extremely important. >> thank you, jason. >> any other public comment? yeah >> straurlg comments introduce yourselves and i'm karen babe it the outgoing chair the sierra club so i want to say this is not the kind of meeting to drop in on our fourth item so i'll not speak with any level of detail but sounds like things are looking good we're forwarding to, yes votes and as someone that is a environment i was and the world will ends and ice melting all that stuff we've

been scaring you what i'm glad. >> thank you for all you do and hope that goes forward and hope we environmentalists are making it work thank you. >> thank you. >> fufrlts public comment? commissioners. >> i'm going to say i this was meeting was getting dry i have a comment on public comment that was valuable to hear organized and you guys it is very important let the record reflect under the commissioner vice president moran it was under 3 minutes in all seriousness thank you. >> it is appropriate that this is coming for a vote before us the week that the paris climate talks are underway and our state

governs and your president was there to really advocate and evaluate the importance of climate change and come up with solutions it makes me proud as the city of san francisco from. >> far we can be viably participating in creating helping to create some of the solution for our generations with that, i'd like to call the vote all in charge of the four items>> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? that motion carries thank you very much. >> (clapping). >> indemnities i believe we're going into closed session will you please read the item. >> item 24 a litigated claim listened vs. the city and county

of san francisco 25 existing litigation restore hetch hetchy vs. city and county of san francisco 26 is existing litigation city and county of san francisco verse pacific gas & electric 27 existing litigation pacific gas & electric 28 existing litigation pacific gas & electric and 29 existing litigation pacific gas & electric thirty existing litigation pacific gas & electric and 31 existing litigation pacific gas & electric and 32 will not be heard. >> thank you. any public comment on closed session items if so i'm going to ask you to indulge me a tiny bits. >> back to our right back to the 3 minute rule. >> right. >> excuse me. are you commenting on something.

>> a future closed session item that's the best to justify this i was down in our coffee shop in the wonderful puc building and noticed the coffee is closing at 4 o'clock but for you have a lot of employees that work until 7 o'clock i'll encourage you i think that is a closed session to work with your contractor to not short you're staff and the public and leave that coffee shop open longer and not keep reigning in to 5 o'clock that's silly. >> may i have a motion to insert this privilege. >> second. >> a >> >>session.

>> so we're back in open session took action on item 24 and no further action beyond that can i have a motion whether or not to disclose. >> >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? one clarification that i'd like to put forward some confusion of multiple copies of item one the four items we voted on its version number 2 which you should all have before you the red line version we voted on. >> for the one .25 compatible to the pg&e not a range but specific if 25. >> so if no objections entered into a record as the one that was adopted to mar that is

perfectly clear. >> thank you. >> any further something else on further comments commissioners hearing none this meeting is adjourned. >>