thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, are there any further public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor mandelman: vice chair ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. first, i wanted to read the statement of the young man who i had referred to in my comments and whose parents spoke. sunday, september 2, 2018. on thursday, august 30, 2018, during passing period from homeroom to third period, i needed to use the bathroom. i tried to go to the third floor bathroom because it is on the same floor of my first-class. as i was walking down the stairs to the bathroom, i saw the kid in front of me. he went into the bathroom. i also entered the bathroom to use the stall. as i walked out of the stall, i saw the spider-man backpack with the bullet hole. i washed my hands and walked out. i saw roman and said what's up to him as i walked up the

stairs to my class. i also saw my friend sky letter by the bridge and asked him if he was going to class. he said he would be there in a minute. i still had no idea what happened. i got to my classroom, room 309. i sat down and started pulling my sketch book. my teacher followed the lockdown procedure. after 35 minutes into the lockdown, the phone rang. they were looking for rober roberto pena. i answered that is my dad. my dad called me to ask where i was, i told him room 309. he asked me if i was involved and i said no. ten minutes later, the swat tried to open the door but couldn't was it was locked. then freedom unlocked the door. the swat team pointed the rifles into the classroom and said sfpd. they asked if diego pena was

here. i said yet, right here. they pointed the rifles at me as they told me to standup, put my hands up and incident lace my fingers on the back of my head. when i was out of the classroom, they grabbed me, turned me around, and patted me down. after they patted me down, they asked me if i had a backpack. i said yes it's white and gray nike backpack. they asked me what i knew. i responded that i had heard that there was an accidental shooting in a classroom. they asked me if i knew who the student who shot the gun, i said no. they asked me if i knew what grade he was in. i said i think he's a freshman. i realize there were five police officers with me and four more officers are rifles guarding the hallway. as i was in the hallway with the officers being questioned, i saw my phone flash, notifying me that someone is calling. i assumed it was my dad, so i told free, i think it's my dad calling, can you call him.

he said don't worry, i'm going to be good. he texted me dad and said he was with me. freedom texted me the whole time and told me that he was going to be good. i was allowed to sit on the floor. after five minutes passed i saw two police officers come up the stairs. one police officer's pulled out handcuffs and they told me to get up. the police started talking to each other, then freedom told me that i was now a suspect and the officer cuffed me. they read me my miranda rights. they patted down again vigorously. i asked the officers where i was going, they said the station. i saw my coach, and i said don't worry, i'm going to be good. then i was walked out the main entrance. i saw the media at the corners and saw a lot of police cars. while i was being walked out of the black school gate, a

reporter put a camera in my face and took pictures. while the officer took me to the police car, everyone saw my face and knew who i was. as they put me in a car, i saw a parent i knew. he asked me what happened and i said i didn't do anything. while i was in the kari told the officers to tell anyone not to take any pictures of me. they didn't respond. i asked the officer which station i was going to, and they said ingleside. i told the officers to call my dad and gave them his name and number. the officers were it down on a napkin. they took me to the station. i waited in the car about three minutes. they opened the door of the car and asked me my name and address. they also asked me the name of my parents and a number. they took me out of the car and put me against a fence to wait. they told me i had to take a girl out of the community room and that i would be next. i saw my dad's car pull up and he started yelling.

my dad told the police that he depth wa didn't want them to talk to me at all. they pulled the girl out of the community room and put me in there. there were three officers in the room. i was still handcuffed when i was sitting in the chair. two officers were talking to me and the other officer was guarding the door. they searched my backpack again and didn't find anything. the police officers talked with me about the 49ers and football because of my sweatshirt. they asked me what position i play and i responded middle line backer. one of the officers said you must be strong then. i laughed. one of them asked me if i was hungry, and i responded no, i have food in my backpack. about ten minutes later, i asked if i could use the bathroom. i told him i could not use it and wash my hands. they put me back in cuffs and sat me down. about 40 minutes later, mr. lau came in and told me what the

next steps were and that my parents were here and were going to be in the room soon. he told me what he was going to say and ask me. he told me i could refuse. he walked out and three minutes later he walked back in with my parents. officer lau came in with the recorder, read me my miranda rights again and asked me if i wanted to cooperate. i said no. he then asked if i wanted to give a d.n.a. test and i said no. after the recording was over, my dad asked if he could ask me if the police had spoken to me. he said yes. my dad then asked me if the police officers had spoken to me, i answered yes. we were talking about football. my dad was super mad. officer 4r au told the officers not to talk to me anymore. from that point on, my dad stayed with me in the room the entire time until i was released. while i was in the room, the officers offered me water two times. i refused both tights. sergeant contreras came in and asked me if i had my medical. i said no. he came in five minutes later with some papers.

my dad said he is not responding to this because he should have been asked this when he got here three hours later. my dad and me were just talking to each other and had to wait for the lead investigator to tell us what happened next. the sergeant came in about 415. they took pictures of my face, and then we were let go. that's the statement. officer lozar, could you come back up? i have some questions -- commander, sorry. so you've heard now the testimony of the parents and heard the written testimony of one young man. can you respond to that? i guess my first question is why would it take three -- if the father arrived at the same time as his son, why would it

take three hours to allow the father in the room with his son? >> well, it shouldn't take three hours, and i think, as we talked about earlier, we have mentionedpress, i would be

irate, irate, if my daughter was questioned without me being present. so i absolutely understand why this family is so angry. if it is true this family had to wait that amount of time, it is unacceptable. it should not be allowed to happen, and i will do whatever i have to do to make sure it does not happen again. parents need to be with their chirnt in these moments. they need to talk to a lawyer, as well. that should be a shall and not an option. but just hearing that there was a possible -- whether it was 45 minutes to three-hour delay that the parent was not allowed in the room with his child is enough to make me irate, so i can't even imagine what the -- what the parents are feeling.

and it's problematic to me that we don't have that information. i mean, this -- that's key -- that's the first thing that stood out to me when i read the statement. and he's saying the same thing as you said, that they were talking about football. but as a parent, i don't care. i don't want my kid talking to the police about anything if i am not there with my kid, and you know you would feel the exact same way because i know you, and i love you commander, but that is outrageous. so i want to get to the bottom of that, and say that that issue alone is a problem that cannot continue to happen. so we can find that out, and that's something that i want -- i want to say that i'm going to follow up on, but i don't understand, if our policy is that a parent can be with their child, why there would be any delay at all. and the fact that the father arrived at the same time as his child, i don't know why the child was ever in the room for

one minute without his father. so -- so that's the first thing. >> okay. >> supervisor ronen: the second thing, is it your understanding that the child -- that the police came into his classroom and drew a weapon inside the classroom and removed the child? >> that is not our understanding as to what happened, and we actually have -- all the officers' actions are on body camera. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and will that footage be released? >> well, that's probably an offline discussion that we should work out in terms of confidentiality, etc. the answer is it's on body camera, so the body camera would show, like, what the officers did, so that's definitely a decision that we'll have to make and talk about. >> supervisor ronen: so i know when there's an officer-involved shooting there's a specific time period by which the camera footage has to be released. is that not true on just any arrest where the public

requests to see the footage? >> we're dealing with the california code as it relates to arrests and juvenile victims and all this surrounding youth. if we're having a conversation about this happening in a college and everyone is over 18 or what-have-you, then, it's well, everyone's an adult and there's a body camera and it's public record. we need to do a little research and stay connected on that and then make a determination as to who can view it and all that. >> supervisor ronen: so i am committing to the family that i will be following up on this. i do think these privacy issues are very important. it's why we're here, because that privacy was violated, so i do understand that, but i do believe that the parents and -- and -- and -- and other representatives of the family should be able to see that footage. and if there's a discrepancy between what the community is saying happened and -- and the

child himself and the police, and there's evidence that will clear that up one way or another, that we should all be given equal access to that evidence to understand. as a policy maker, are there interventions that i need to make in order to make sure that this -- that this doesn't happen again if -- if the young person's memory of what happened that day is indeed the case. because i have a ton -- i have a whole line of questions that we could be here all night talking about if it was indeed the case that the officers entered the classroom with guns drawn in that situation. again, i do -- i do -- i do want to -- to -- to make everyone understand that i understand how difficult this situation was. when a gun goes off in a school, it is appropriate that the police are taking every

single precaution to protect the safety of every single child, so i really do understand that -- this is a hard one. i get it. it was a real sensitive case, but i'd love to go through a timeline with you, maybe some youth commission present, maybe the family. we can talk about the right configuration to preserve the family's privacy and the young person's privacy, but to go over the timeline and how these judgments were made because once that it was determined enough that there wasn't an exigent circumstances that were putting youth at risk, i don't know about some of the judgment calls that were made, right? it really upsets me that this young person was paraded in front of the press.

i don't understand why more precautions couldn't have been taking place to prevent that. i understand people were antsy, i understand people were hungry. i understand that perhaps there were issues of still safety concerns, and that's what i want to understand a little deeper before making judgments? but how this kid could not have been guarded from the press or more efforts were not taken place to guard him from that -- from the press is really problematic. if that clearly needs to be written in an m.o.u., then it needs to be written in an m.o.u. if there are laws that i need to write and pass, then those are laws that i need to write and pass. but those are parts that unfortunately, i don't know if all these questions are going to be answered today, and i understand the sensitivity here with really making sure we protect the family's privacy, but also get answers to this

and decide how to move forward. >> quick comment, quick suggestion. so in terms of what you said, you know, we should -- let's just, you know, have the dialogue and go a little farther on this because you've alluded to, like, chaos, scene, gun, discharge, confusion, what-have-you, and then we don't know what the officers were thinking in terms of, you know, what their perception of safety and officers' safety was. we don't know what they were told, information over the radio, what-have-you. so definitely, let's have the conversation. the other thing is i've been very impressed with all the speakers today. they've come up, they're brave, they're talking about their concerns, their perceptions, how they feel. the letter is beautiful. and you know my personality. i think what we should do is we should sit down with youth commission and other folks and let's just have -- let's just talk about what happened. i'd like to hear further about

what people feel, and i'd like to bring in other people, definitely acting captain yolanda williams. i know that captain hart got ahold of the father the next day and had a great conversation with him. but you know, the community today is talking about trust with the police. and we need to be about having -- in the spirit of procedural justice, we need to be about having a further conversation. i think none of this would do us justice if we walked away and said that is that. i offer that up. >> supervisor ronen: i appreciate that. i am personally ready to take you up on that. i don't know about the penas, but what i would say is i clearly have some disappointment. we clearly have some notice of what the hearing was about. i introduced the hearing request, what, five months ago, carolyn? i don't know. so it wasn't as if there was notice of what we would be discussing today, so it feels like there could have been more

information provided at this hearing today about what the officers' state of mind was about why they made certain decisions. and again, as i said many, many times, this was not an easy one. so i'm not even necessarily criticizing the decisions that they make if i understand why they made the decisions. that's what i was expecting to hear today. but what i'm hearing from the pena family, and i'm hearing from them -- and i already heard it from them, which is why i called the hearing this afternoon, is concerning, and i hoped to hear from you the opposite of that. what was the decision-making process involved? and if there was the wrong decision-making process, i need to make new laws in the future. i'm underwhelmed with the

amount of information i'm getting today. if captain hart -- in fact, he's one my favorite captains in the entire police force. if he made decisions, i'm sure he was very thoughtful about it because he's a very thoughtful person. but if i believe that someone who's that good at his job led to a youth being paraded in front of the press, then maybe the system is broken. this is what i wanted to tease out and get to the bottom of today? and i agree we started -- i agree the testimony was very powerful and compelling. i will definitely take you up on your offer to have follow-up hearing -- i'm sorry, follow-up conversations and maybe do our best to protect the privacy of the family. but i wish we would -- i wish we could have gotten a little bit more information from you today. >> well, supervisor, you did

accomplish a big goal here, and that is to put out about how the three young men were taken to the car. it's not falling on deaf ears, and i don't want you to think that i'm leaving here saying well, i told my side and you told your side, and it's going to be business at usually. believe me, we're taking what you said seriously. we're always looking at how we can do things better. we balance in the moment -- you know, we evaluate, we try to debrief situations. i hear you loud and clear. it's how can we do things better, how can we improve? we can always improve in so many areas, from the largest of policing to these areas. so your message is loud and clear, and we take everything that you've mentioned today seriously. i know you felt underwhelmed. we covered a lot of ground here

today. we answered a lot of questions. if there's follow up, maybe we can get together and go over everything point by point, so i'm hopeful that that happens. >> supervisor ronen: okay. well, i will take you up on that offer, and i will be talking to you, and the family will, as well, so we will have that follow up conversation. do you have any other comments? >> i mean just to thank you for bringing this forward. i was not aware of what happened, and this is enormously disturbing and this is enormously disturbing, and i thank you, commander lozar for taking this seriously and for being here and for your openness to continue working with supervisor ronen to work on this. this was an extraordinary and we hope unusual situation, but i -- the united states being what it is, this is probably not the last time that a gun will be found or even discharged in a san francisco public school. >> unfortunately.

>> supervisor mandelman: and i think that we need, you know, next time, if some of this is, you know, what folks are believe it to have been, then we need to do better. so thanks for taking the time, thanks for bringing this to us, and i'm super impressed by the youth commission and by this family. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: and i just want to -- this is just hillary ronen, supervisor of district nine, i want to apologize to the pena family, because everything i've heard and read about your experience, mr. pena, you and i act very similarly. that would have been exactly how i would have acted in the situation. i would have been going nuts if my daughter was being held, i didn't know what was going on, and i wasn't allowed to be with her. so i just want to apologize to you for this incredibly traumatic experience and just tell me how much i feel for you

as a parent. i'm choking back tears a little bit because as a parent with kids, it's our job to protect them. i just want to commend you for the work you did to protect your son. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor mandelman: all right. so i guess i'm going to ask you, vice chair ronen, what is your pleasure to this item? do you want us to continue it or do you want to have this heard and filed. >> supervisor ronen: if we need to reintroduce it, i will, but for now, i would like to make a motion to file the hearing. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor mandelman: and thanks, everyone, for coming out today. mr. clerk, is there any other items before us? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. then we are adjourned.

sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online,

it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill.

>> great. the meeting will come to order. this is the november 30th, 2018, special meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i am sandra sandra lee fewer picture of the commission. i am joined by commissioner cynthia pollock and cynthia -- and commissioner hilary ronan and i think we are waiting for commissioner singh. i would also like to thank the staff at s.f. guv t.v. today for recording today's meeting. are there any announcements? >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker card should be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you very much. can you please call item number 2? >> it is the approval of the

ministry october 19th 29 --dash 2018 regular meeting. >> are there any changes to the minutes? seeing no changes, i would like to open this up to members of the public would like to comment see no public comment, public comment is now closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> seconded by commissioner rowan. without objection, these minutes are approved. can you please call item number 3. >> it is community choice aggregation activities report. status of the clean power s.f. enrolment and regulatory updates >> thank you very much. i believe we have a presentation from the san francisco utility commission. >> good afternoon. just give me a moment.

i am the assistant general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission. thank you for having us today. we continue to actively serve our customers successfully. right now we are serving 109, let's see if my presentation could come up, please. thank you. 109,000 accounts. we have an opt out rate of three-point 2%, which means 97% of the customers we offered to service stay with us, which is a great statistic. that is our cumulative since the day we launched in may of 2016. we have three-point 6% of our customers choosing to upgrade to our super green product. one hundred% renewable. those folks are paying a little bit more than they would be paying if they weren't on a super green cat getting 100% renewable products. we are proud that our upgrade rate exceeds the opt out rate.

with more people saying yes. we want to upgrade then be due saying -- folk saying no thanks. we are planning to enrolled 280,000 more accounts in april of next year. those will mostly be residential accounts throughout san francisco. let's talk a little bit about our growth plan. we presented our plans in may o. our plans to conduct enrolment in phases until all eligible san franciscans have become our customer or have been offered services by us and opted out. our commission adopted our goals in 2017 as well, to complete the citywide enrolments by july of 2019 or sooner, if possible. we are on track to what we had intended to. they've also, the commission has given us direction to have our

target for renewable energy content for our basic -- basic product, to be 50% by the end of 2020, or sooner if possible. we are on target for that in our procurement efforts. we have now enrolled 30% of the accounts in san francisco. that's about 230 megawatts of average demands. our plan for completing citywide enrolment includes the april enrolments that i mentioned, predominantly residential accounts. about 280,000. that will bring our load up an additional 115 megawatts, and once we've completed that, we are expecting to serve for 305,000 accounts, and that will be 340, 350 megawatts total. our largest commercial accounts, we will in role subsequently and

we feel that's important for us to do on a customer by customer basis. these are folks whose energy bills are a major part of their business operations and we want to engage with them individually to determine their interest so it is good for them. we also want to make sure that we don't procure or a load that is going to opt out. it is important for us when we are talking to these large customers to make sure that they are comfortable staying in the program before we make financial commitments to support their electric demands. you've seen in the press recently that the most recent activities by pg and e. imposing fees on our customers during this growth period. they are folk -- forecasting that their exit fee is going to

increase. at the same time that they are proposing that the generation rates will decrease. that would be, if they stay on schedule, that would be effective january 2019. so we are going to be coming -- staff will be coming to our commission in december with a rates action. it is intended to protect the customers from the impact of the pg anti- fee. we will do what we can to absorb those -- pg and e. fee. we will be proposing to our commission what we are calling, and shorthand, the name may change, a.p. c.i.a. impact credit that will absorb the pg and e.d. increases, the asset fee increases on our clean power s.f. customer builds. our rate is already substantially below the rate. what we need to do is lower that a little bit more and apply this impact credit and between those

two, we think we will keep our customers at a rate -- on a bill basis competitive with the offerings. that proposed rate action is forecast to reduce our program revenues by $11 million in fiscal 2019. so that means $11 million over the balance of fiscal year 2019. it is about a 20 million-dollar annual revenue hit. >> can i ask a quick question? >> sure. >> if we took over the transmission lines from pg anti, built our own or bought they are his, we still have to pay the fee? >> so the way, it would not be called a.p. c.i.a., but the state of california does have a structure for when a city municipal ices, and assumes responsibility for not just the

generation component, but for a transmission, distribution, generation, all of that. our customers would face what is referred to as a municipal departing load charge. so there is a functional equivalence. it tends -- it has been, in the past a lower fee. >> is it a one-time fee? >> it depends on how they municipal eyes asian -- it depends on how it is handled. there is a opportunity for a municipality to buy outs that obligation, if you will. so it doesn't remain an ongoing obligation. >> audit. thanks -- got it. thanks. >> i'm happy to take any questions but we have already enter the question period so we can keep going.

>> i appreciate the update. thank you so much. i know that we all saw the news about this and you have addressed that a bit. and i will say more about the article that was in the examiner on the 27th and just how this connects with local build outs. i have on local buildout what can the legislature do to address this and help? is there something in the works now? i know you are still appealing this. >> it is a two step effort. >> we are san francisco

individually in the community choice association has filed an application for rehearing of the decision that is reformulated the methodology. we see that methodology as inappropriately including some assets that we believe the legislature said should not be included in that calculation. specifically, those are the generating facilities that the utilities own as opposed to power that they are procuring on the market. so we have that avenue that we are pursuing to try to right the wrongs that we saw in that decision. and then we also have conversations on going with what sort of legislative solutions could be possible. certainly the inclusion of the

utility owned generation and the methodology, the california p.u.c. adopted to, we see, as we say in our rehearing application as being in conflict with existing state law and so we know that there are legislators that are concerned about that aspect because it was state law and it conflicts. but we are looking at what other options we may have. we haven't settled on any particular proposals, but we are working with our city p.u.c. lobbyists, as well as the cal c.c.a. community to see what sort of solutions as an industry sector we would propose. >> in terms of our local state legislature representatives, do you know if there is any legislation being drafted now regarding the pcia?

>> we are working with our local elected his and there is a coalition of -- i am saying our local elected his, that is san francisco, wherever there is a c.c.a., there are similar people and they are all talking to each other. there is conversations ongoing to try and see what is the right solution for the c.c.a. community and for the community of cities represented by local elected his incense and six door san francisco. >> if the pcia stands in the appeal fails or there is some version of the p. c.i.a. -- of the pcia that impacts clean power s.f. customer his, do you know if the attorney is planning to take legal action? >> that will depend on how the cpuc responds to the application for rehearing. because i have asked the same sorts of questions. what are all of our options, and what happens if we like what

they say, and what happens if we don't like what they say? what is our recourse, all of those options are being evaluated when we have the information to evaluate. so we are working closely with city attorneys on that. >> okay. great. sort of pivoting from pcia questions and about the local buildout, and -- in the examiner article, you are quoted as saying that the impacts of the $20 million from the pcia takes away, and i'm paraphrasing, the city's options for creative buildout. and i'm concerned about that because in your presentation you said that clean power s.f. will grow to 350 megawatts after the 2019 enrolments.

so if we only have three-point 6% of customers upgraded to super green, we need to dramatically increase our sourcing for renewable electricity to meet this 2030 goal of 100% renewable. >> right. >> i just wanted, i prepared a slide and i can give it to you. >> could you please put that up on the -- >> humour me, if you will. i'm just looking at where we are now, 2018 clean power s.f. green and a super green, and

then you look at 2019 after we enrolled the rest of the city. and pg anti- is on here as a line item fear. for example. if they were doing a similar megawatts load, then i have, right now that we are producing clean power s.f. customers are producing 363 tons of co2 per day and then when we go to citywide -- and there is a savings there if it were pg and e., it will be 595. we are saving 232 tons of co2 per day by being green versus pg and he. if you look at 2019, and then you see that the tons of co2 per day that san franciscans will be producing a 683. i just feel like there is such a

long way to go from 683 tons of see you co2 per day to zero. so my concern, and we can take the slide off of their. so my concern is based on the greenhouse gas emissions and -- there's a long way to go to 100% renewable. i think that the local buildout is key. and going back for other commissioners, in january, 2015, they release the final version of the report, and that report showed that over time, clean power s.f. has the potential to produce a large number of jobs, and it showed a job creation rates for various types of energy projects so the local

buildout was addressed in the report with 20 potential projects that are key to the long-term success of clean power s.f., independence from pg and e. right now, protesters shut down the cpuc yesterday because pg anti- is not serving their customers with safety issues and the pcia. so the time is really ripe i think for san francisco to create some independence and have independence. we are not going to meet our climate goals if we don't have the local buildout. that is where i feel some worry about the quotes quote that was in the examiner. because what are those creative

local buildout plans? what is the status of the p.u.c. buildout plan right now. i have a number of questions, but basically, how much capacity do you think that we can build by 2030? what are the projects that are being prioritized right now? >> thank you for that. i think the main point of my comments with the examiner was to talk about pace. this program will continue to advance our clean energy goals. the purchasing we are doing, and the long-term contracts that clean power s.f. is signing in order to serve this customer base is creating new generation, new jobs, the issue that we were talking about with the examiner

reporter was the difference between what we can do with those cost-effective resource options that are not located in san francisco, versus what we can do in san francisco when we are taking a 20 million a year ahead to our revenue because of these exit fees, and having to absorb -- wanting to absorb that impact on our customers. so it's really an issue, in my mind of the pace of our ability to make those san francisco specific investments. and you are right. is a type of investments that were identified in the report in terms of actual generation. like solar on university mound, or on other watershed properties here in san francisco. and the opportunity -- those opportunities, when compared to purchasing outside of san francisco, where the land costs

are lower, where the solar profile is better, for a solar panel in san francisco, it just does not perform as well as a solar panel in the central valley. that is just the science of its. so for that same purchase, you get less project which makes the cents per kilowatt hour more expensive. that is what makes it harder for us to make a local investment in owned generation. so that is why i was expressing a concern about pace. our ability to take advantage of that opportunity at the pace we had hoped for. we will still make local investments through programs and the distinction i am making there is we can partner with our

customers who will make an investment in generation or storage, regeneration plus storage that will then contribute kilowatt hours to our system, to our portfolio. that is a more cost effective option for even when we are faced with the kinds of hits to our revenue stream that the pcia increases represent. we will still be able to make those sorts of local program investments. the pace of being able to invest in a city-owned generation located in san francisco is what's more challenging for us when we have less cash to work with. >> i mean, i know $20 million is a lot to me but i don't think it's a lot to the city in the sense that projects like these will cost in the billions.

i think for a full local buildout plan, for these types of projects that will be built, has the p.u.c. identified projects that it will invest in in the city, and regionally? >> we have identified projects for consideration for investments in the city and regionally. yes. projects like you saw in the report. we have not done other work. we have not presented a decisive plan to our commission to vote on. so those tasks remained to be done. as we have said from the start, once we complete enrolment, that is when we will be able -- and we have a stable balance sheet, and an ability to show the market place that we are a good counterparty for that kind of investment, we will be in a better position to act on those plans and present those plans for adoption by our commission.

>> so with the report identified the tesla portal sites as being the most promising projects. >> right. >> they recommended issuing an rf baptist rfi to prospective project developers. do you know if it is being considered? >> it has not been issued. it is a step that we may take. we have had some informal conversations with developers who come through and say, we are interested, what are you thinking of? we have seen reports, what are you thinking of quote we have had informal inquiries and informal conversations with prospective partners that would be in a position to respond to a request for information or a request for bids from us. of course, before we pursue anything like that, we would have broader outreach efforts to the development community to make sure we have a good and competitive and robust respons