make the additional amendment, i'm fine with that. what i'm committed to, and i think the department is committed to is working with those nonprofits in advance of this legislation. i think that's part of their job is to go out and work with businesses, nonprofits, and adjust maybe some of their business practices in advance of this to get them ready for it. so i think there's a lot of here to address what you and supervisor fewer are talking about. >> president cohen: all right. let's move into action. first of all, i am going to make a motion to -- we have before us, supervisor mandelman has proposed amendments. supervisor safai has read almost all of them -- amendments into the record. so i'd like to make a motion to accept supervisor mandelman's amendment, and i'm going to do

this amendment by amendment, okay? so supervisor mandelman's amendment, and can we take that without objection? okay. without objection, thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: and again, the department of the environment has also put forward an amendment that the sponsor is in agreement with. can we take this in this is page 7, line 11. >> supervisor safai: it says mayor -- oh, sorry. >> president cohen: well, it's the department of the environment. >> supervisor safai: okay. got it. >> president cohen: okay. so can we take that without objection? okay. thank you. without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: thank you. that one's done. >> mr. givner: on that one, with the change that supervisor safai read earlier, so it would not only apply to 100% affordable housing projects, but also nonprofit food providers? >> president cohen: that's correct. madam clerk, i just want to make sure that you get that on the record, that includes

nonprofit food providers. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. >> president cohen: and i want to -- i gavelled down earlier. do i need to rescind? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. cone koeb i'll make a motion to rescind the last amendment. and that is without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i'll make a motion to accept the department of the environment kazz amendment, including the language for nonprofit food providers, okay, and we'll take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: the port has also introduced two amendments. i believe that we are all in agreement on them. all right. we'll take that without objection. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: the --

there's two amendments also coming from the department of the environment, and i've introduced them. this is the page 4, line 5, zero waste facilitator means persons -- persons serving exclusively in the business. deputy city attorney, i have one question for you. what is the meaning -- it's going to sound silly, but in public comment, we heard a question about the word exclusively. what does that mean before us, zero waste facilitator means someone serving exclusively in the business of. >> mr. givner: that means in the context of this ordinance that that's that person's only

job for the large refuse generator. >> president cohen: okay. so that means, as of right now, one person can't have two functions when it comes to this. >> mr. givner: right. right. if the city attorney's office were a large refuse generator, i could not be the zero waste facilitator and do this job. the city attorney's office would need to hire a zero waste facilitator. that person would be exclusively devoted to that job. >> president cohen: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yeah, i just want to put a fine point on that. that person can be employed only in that, but they can be employed part-time, and they can do multiple locations. i know in the example of a

small business, i know that some of them have multiple spots, and in some cases, in some of the conversations with the city, they have a facilitat facilitator servicing three different buildings, so it's multifaceted in that regard. >> president cohen: that's actually really helpful, because i was trying to understand that a little bit. you can have one facilitator, they'll come to my business, work three hours, and then go to your business and work three hours, right? >> supervisor safai: absolutely. >> president cohen: and another question about facilitators, i believe there's some kind of certification. is there a certifying entity? >> supervisor safai: well, i know that the department of the environment and many entities that work with them, i gave the example in affordable housing, the group green streets, they work with residents to train them to do this work in the building service industry, they have staff that work with the

janitors' union that work with them and train them and get them ready. the department of the environment has trainers that go out exclusively in the industry. so some of this has to do with safety and all different aspects that pertain to the job, and understanding the rules and regulations of what goes where and how things are sorted and so on and so forth. >> president cohen: all right. so i'm going to go back to the amendment before you, page 4, lines 5, and also page 6, lines 23,024. zero waste facilitator means a person serving in the -- and that's the change. and then, the second, the director shall review and revise these guidelines as needed and small -- these are

small grammatical things, but i'm just pointing that out on the record. i believe colleagues, we can take this without objection? all right. thank you. these amendments are accepted and -- unanimously. okay. and then, i will work to cleanup the language for the nonprofit agencies and we'll probably try to hammer out some language when it comes to compliance. i think it needs to be spelled out in the legislation so we'll be working feverishly between now and tuesday. supervisor? >> supervisor fewer: you know, having said that, i think that there is a desire to get this out of committee and to have it brought to the full board, but i'm a little uncomfortable having it as a committee report

because i feel like there's been a lot of discussion and i feel there needs to be more clarification written into the legislation, so just opening that for a conversation. >> president cohen: okay. we may have to do a roll call vote on that one. supervisor safai, i just wanted to -- supervisor fewer's just indicated that she's a little uncomfortable with this legislation coming out as a committee report. >> supervisor safai: would you like me to respond to that? >> president cohen: yeah, why don't you just respond to that. >> supervisor safai: i would just say i think we're 99.9% of the way there. i think what you talked about is going to be tweaked in terms of how it applies to the nonprofits. i think there's still conversation with sfusd. i think you're going to withdraw it, and we have the ability to talk. i think we have the ability to make many of these

nonsubstantive amendmented at the meeting on us it. i would appreciate it having it come out as a committee report so we can get two votes in before the end of the year. >> president cohen: okay. i'm going to cut you off because we are in agreement that it's coming out as a committee report. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> president cohen: not to be rude, but heard enough of. >> supervisor safai: got it. >> president cohen: we've solved our problem. >> supervisor safai: you're never rude to me. >> president cohen: all right. so my final motion is to send this out out as a committee report to the full board to be heard on the next board agenda. >> clerk: as amended. >> president cohen: as amended. all right. here it goes. unanimous. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: okay. madam clerk, is there any further business before this body? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> president cohen: all right. we're adjourned. thank you.

>> 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, a 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 response to whether it is just inquiry or an actual bid but those projects , as they were identified in the report, because they had been identified by us as prospective projects prior to the report that we fed the information to them, they are definitely on the table. they are attractive options for us when we have the reserves in hand to pursue them. and we could pursue them as

private public partnership where we don't own them out right but we partner with the party who does. and that could be a way to make it more cost-effective for us to pursue those are resource opportunities that are not within san francisco proper and the local builds that we were talking about with the newspapers were within san francisco proper and those are the projects that are harder to make pencil because of the lands , the solar opportunity here in san francisco is not as attractive. >> i know that clean energy, local soul has a limited number of customers and they are offered a premium product to

have their energy come from a local array. >> yes. they have a biogas project as well as solar projects. >> is something like that being considered for clean power s.f. as a way to find those local projects? >> we have talked about that. it is a fairly small revenue opportunity. it doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it. but it is something that we've talked about potentially pursuing, ultimately, we want to see all of our customers on 100% greenhouse gas free product. and as i understand the way that they have structured that program, they have a separate funds where that -- the net

revenues from sales to those customers go into a separate funds and they found those projects from the separate fund. that will take longer for us and we are thinking that using the general reserves from the program as opposed to having a special reserve for local would be a quicker way to go, and then blends the cost recovery among all of our customers as opposed to just that thin slice that decides to pay premium above the 100% renewable premium. >> i'm just thinking all hands on deck in terms of -- all options. >> excuse me. if i could for a second. it just seems like since we are asking for this update and we've only really had updates on the expansion and we have not had a written report update maybe we

have looked at this. it seems as though this board could really benefit from a documents that so essentially tells us, i think my question is , also, is there a plan for buildout. we have not, or i have not seen a plan for buildout and it seems as though you've discussed this and there are things that you have discussed and we don't know about it. i think what she is saying is really timely because of what's happening with pg and e., and also if we want this to become a reality for san francisco that we will have to invest in a local buildout. i have not seen a plan, nor have you brought to us a discussion about it. today is the first discussion

that we have really had any kind of deep conversation about local buildout. thank you to commissioner pollock for bringing this forward. i feel like this is another area of dependence that will be relying on if we don't think organically of what we can do for local buildout his. i know that the p.u.c. owns property outside of san francisco, all of those things should be brought into this plan also. is there a plan? >> we have participated in the plan as drafted. >> how long ago was the study? >> january 2015. >> it might be time for another one. >> we also have a integrated resource plan. i'm happy to bring that forward as well. and i'm happy to do a powerpoint

presentation if that is helpful on what the thinking is. i would like to schedule that after we complete enrolment in april so that we can get through the polish. i'm hoping to bring to you more information about our communications plan associated with that. i believe mike and brian have been talking about that. >> but you do have a plan already, as you said, is there something that you can bring before us for the next meeting so we can at least see what you have done so far? i appreciate it but i don't want to interrupt the questioning. it just came to my mind that i'd not seen a plan. we had not been briefed on any plan. i think this is really important that we tackle this and if we want our, all of san francisco to be on clean energy. please proceed. >> you took the words right out of my mouth. [laughter]

it is certainly the key. is where are we since the reports. it was a brainstorm. so is the p.u.c., has the p.u.c. done an updated report where you've identified which projects are priority? >> i will have to talk with staff to see if we've prioritized projects. i'm happy to come back and talk about where we are at with the efforts. and i am hearing your sentiments that you are concerned that since 2015, we have been implementing this program and we have gone -- you are showing some of the improvements on the greenhouse gas that has been avoided by our program, that is good, yes we can always do more and what is our plan for once we

complete enrolment for making those advancements club i am hearing you say that when you're talking about local builds, you want to talk about what is in the confines of san francisco capital also within the bay area counties that we have been referring to as our local opportunity. i'm happy to bring that back. i think the generation is a component of it. i think one of the more challenging areas is how to do the energy efficiency improvements and fuel switching opportunities in san francisco. >> you are talking for customers >> when i am saying fuel switching, i am talking about switching from reliance on natural gas to electricity. since we have a very clean electricity opportunity, some of the greenhouse gas opportunity -- reduction opportunities are now in encouraging customers to

switch off of natural gas, and onto the clean fuel supply that we are bringing to our electric grid. >> that was one of the things that someone had talked to us about when he presented. it was the ways in which the department of the environment could partner with clean power s.f. to do those types of switches, and to work on innovative programs and really engage customers in that way. they do that for pg and e. >> they do that for customers. but they partner with pg and e. on that. they utilize funding that is collected by them that is rate payer dollars to implement programs and yes, it is an ongoing dialogue with my staff on what is the work plan to take advantage of the great skill set that is at the department of the environment as we -- once we get

customers enrolled, pivoting to our attention as staff to k., what are the program opportunities, how do we execute and use the resources that the city already has, and by resources, i mean the good minds and hearts of our staff and our colleagues at the department of environment. absolutely. >> i think i want to say that in these conversations, we have also talked about the amount of clean energy that we can procure and that we will be in competition with jurisdictions that are also going to be switching over. it only makes sense that we would have a local buildout plan and that we, quite frankly i would have assumed that while we were implementing our clean energy, that we would also be actively working on a plan or implementing a plan at the same time, aligns with clean energy

sources. so i'm a little surprised to hear that we haven't invested a lot in a buildout plan in san francisco. >> i don't want to overstate or understate. as i said, i will have to check with my staff to see mount how much additional work has been done and i'm happy to come back to you and presents that information. >> with that, do you think the next meeting would be good timing for that? >> i think probably not an either or, but a yes, and. yes, i would love to see that information, and i think that they should start taking the steps to have the next, you know , what is the next step? what is the plan? how do we prioritize the project and i would love for that to be

something that we work with the p.u.c. on. >> one of the areas that we want to integrate into our local builds plan and into our program more thoughtfully is some of the equity concerns that i think we are in a really good position to address. it really distinguishes us as a provider from the services that pg and e. provides. and that's an area where we are very interested in collaborating with your staff and thinking through how to integrate our strong environmental justice policy, our equity concerns in the local build program and in the clean power s.f. program more broadly. that is an area where we were hoping that we would be able to engage with you more on in this calendar year.

>> i see the equity piece of it as being a part that would be baked in to anything that we would do. when i think about two areas that there's been a major gap in work, i think the local buildout plan. what are the nuts and bolts of what builds san francisco charge a local build? the second thing that i see is what are the opportunities? people have been talking about, what are the innovative programs that clean power s.f. could be offering to customers. and i'm sure your staff has done a lot of work on that. the equity piece, i just want to be frank. i don't know if that's just a piece you want to hand to them to manage this commission, but i don't think that's the work.

i think that is a piece of the work. what we really want to see and what we need to take back to the board of supervisors, because i think that the s.f. p.u.c. is in the business of running clean power s.f. and you are looking at how does it pencil out? had do we serve customers that day-to-day building infrastructure. and having a larger vision of the city is something that they are thinking of any holistic way what do we need to build to make san francisco independent from pg and e.? that may not be what the p.u.c. is looking at. and it's tied to it, but i think we may be talking about apples and oranges and i want to make sure that we are -- we have the whole basket of fruit here. so i want for them to work on

something larger and that the equity piece will be obvious to any part. to programs or local buildout, that of course, we have the equity piece. i don't think that that's the entirety of what they will work on. >> yes. i didn't mean to imply that that was the entirety of what they would work on. i just wanted to make sure that i was putting that on the table too. as we talk about programs, and how to implement a local build program, i really think the equity and environmental justice issues squarely belong there. so that is why i was making sure i was vocalizing that component of it i think that is -- when you look back at the energy

sector in general, what is one of the failings of the energy sector in general, it is a blindness to that. it is like after the fact that people say oh, yeah, what about affordability? what about the impacts on the neighbourhood of what we did? we don't want a local build program that takes that approach we want to think about the impacts on the community and bake it in, as you said. >> right. >> i have one last question before we move on and i know that in june, 2018, this past june, prop a authorizes the p.u.c. to more revenue bonds then prop be. this would be more authority for clean energy projects. if we are moving into the budget

cycle, the p.u.c. have revenue bonds proposed for local buildout projects? >> we are on a two year budget cycle we will not be presenting a budget this round. and developing a capital plan and determining how to fund it for clean power s.f. it is one of our two dues for the next budget cycle. >> the question was that if a buildout plan was included in the budget -- is that the question? >> are you planning revenue go she would obviously start planning right now for the next budget cycle and last year is when you submitted the last legislation so when you submit the next one then do you have revenue bonds plan for the local build out? >> we don't have a capital plan for clean power s.f. yet.

>> okay. >> there is a plan that's been adopted by the planning committee and presented to our commission and presented to the board of supervisors for power and it includes only power revenues. >> i feel like i looked at the last capital plan and was that only that company or was a clean power s.f. listed? >> there is no clean power s.f. listed in the ten year capital plan. >> in the next budget cycle, we want to have a capital plan specific to clean power s.f. and i would expect it to be a couple line items. and energy efficiency item or may be a distributed energy resource item and stand if we feel we are in a position to invest and own generation of our own, then that would show up in the ten year capital plan. over the horizon, i would expect

it will, absolutely. >> i know that commissioner ronan has questions and i have been taking a lot of time on the floor. i have a couple more things but i want to yield the floor to my colleagues. >> thank you. i just wanted to continue on the capital planning point. because when i met with brian strong who heads up the capital planning committee for the city, i mentioned the next phase of clean power s.f. is a capital priority for me and that would include a local buildout plan, but also, again, paving the way towards a complete independence from pg and e. and building or buying a transmission network to be able to deliver energy to our customers directly.

my understanding is that the draft plan is coming out shortly , but that there is still time to get certain priorities in that draft plan which then will be under review and the final plan will have to be approved by the board of supervisors. but i would be interested in seeing that in the draft plan, which is not that complicated. it is 150 word description sent to the capital planning committee and they will included in there to be reviewed. i would ask that that is something you consider. >> i will take that back and that will be on the capital plan and that would not be on the clean power s.f. plan. i will take that back. >> yes. >> couldn't you put in the capital plan for the entire city , the ten year plan for the entire city, a placeholder for a clean power s.f. or c.c.a.

capital plan,. >> my reaction is, why i am saying them and not clean power s.f. is the statutory construct for a c.c.a. is that the customers receive their transmission and distribution service from an investor on utility and third-generation service from the c.c.a. that is the statutory structure. so when we talk about the city having transmission and distribution responsibilities, that puts us into the other side of our business and not the clean power s.f. side. >> i see that. that makes sense. maybe we could do both. may be we could put the plan -- the buildout plan under clean power s.f. and the transparent dose transmission acquisition under the other company. >> we could. we could put both under them and the sales of the power could be to the clean power s.f. portfolio. there are options. it is good to hear you are talking with brian strong about it and i can go back with him and get an understanding of his

thinking of how it would actually be structured in the plan. >> that would be great. i would love to see that priority in the capital plan and i don't know if i really want to approve the capital plan without it. >> duly noted. so let's wrap this up. i believe commissioner pollock has a last comment. >> this has been so helpful. thank you so much. i am really looking forward to you coming back to us in january and talking about local buildout i don't know if we are overdue for a joint p.u.c. meeting and maybe that is something we could explore in the near term, is to understand, and maybe that is what we do for your presentation on the local buildout, because i have not seen that presented to your commission, is that we get, we are together when we get that and then, just in terms of the

work that we will do, i will be asking my colleagues' approval on this. is just concurrent that they begin looking at an update to the report. i think, if the local buildout is the next step, then before the next step is, if local buildout, then went, and when? do you agree with that? >> i guess. i would like an opportunity to talk further about what you mean when you say the next report, building off of a reports. i'm not sure that third-party consulting resources are necessary but i am happy.

>> wouldn't expedite it? i feel like a third party resource report would expedite the work if it has not already happened. >> i can work with my staff to see what we think the best approach is to doing that and with your executive officer to think through the best approach for that. >> may be what we can present in january would be the work plan. >> am i missing your point? >> when you say. >> i'm hearing you say you are interested in another report and that report, you would prefer the report to have a third-party view through a consultant and what i am reacting to his i'm not sure that is the most helpful approach at this point, but i would like to talk that

through with your executive officer, my staff, and come to you with an answer to that question, it could be in the context of, here is the work plan for understanding what it is you want, and having an opportunity to best understand what it is you wanted to say, here is how we will deliver that product to you. >> i think that there is concern on my part, you know, when i'm looking at, it has almost been four years since the report. if we were talking january 2019. so you will be coming to us in january 2019 and if there hasn't been a comprehensive local buildout plan, then i think, it does get the work done faster. i think for us to look at third-party resources. and that's just where i am. how do we get it done and how, the time is now to have this

independence from pg and e. is so important and it is important to san franciscans. it is all over the news and i think, what i am hearing from advocates and hearing from the public, i represent the public seat and i'm trying to best say how they can serve the public and also serve the board of supervisors. so if that is not part of what the p.u.c. presents in terms of revenue bonds are getting started with the local buildout, than maybe they can inform the board of supervisors so the next bold steps can be taken so we can reach our climate goals. that is just where i am. i don't think that it's your resistant to doing the work or that the work even hasn't been done, but just that there is an urgency. there is an urgency. so that is something i will be asking my