with the baseline set-aside in the rainy day fund we were all discussing. i want to thank those supervisors for your input and co-sponsorship and there's been a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $181 million. the good news is i think we all understand that given the uncertain nature of future eraf shifts we should treat it at one-time money. i'm glad the mayor's proposal adheres to the physically prudent policy and we're focussing on one-time capital investment and bridge funds. i want to break down the three buckets the supplement appropriation has, $121 million to the mayor's office of housing and community development for affordable housing,

construction, site acquisition including s.r.o. acquisition and behavior health facility acquisition and $10 million to the office of early childcare and childhood education for a low-wage worker bridge fund. what we used to call cares plus. i want to thank supervisor yee for that suggestion and of course that's in addition to the set-aside that the children's fund will be getting. and finally, i hope this is music to many of our ears, $50 million to the san francisco public utilities commission for a fund to create a down payment on the fulfillment of a long held vision for green energy

acquisition of infrastructure facilities. i think there's going to be a lot of work to be done. i know each and every supervisor has ideas about acquisitions of small sites and s.r.o.s whether in my district there's been incredible things like the recent acquisition of 637 clay street and there's more of that to do. i look forward to the ongoing conversation that we have. but i also wanted to focus on the $50 million bucket and speak about another measure proposition a the voters overwhelmingly passed given the p.u.c. to issue revenue bonds for clean infrastructure project. that's a powerful tool we can use to acquire distribute infrastructure and that's the

first measure in trying to address the delays and heard at hearings and closed-session discussions at the board of [speaki -- supervisors or in supervisor mandelman's district, as the been clear pg&e have been behind policies tantamount to extortion and to the taxpayers and make it clear we're serious in looking at proposition a and the rest i'll submit. >> thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor safai.

submit? thank you. supervisor staph -- stefani. >> i'm introducing an ordinance requiring commissioner and department heads to take an online implicit bias course. san francisco prides itself on its inclusion and we still have so much work to do. this legislation will ensure the leaders of our city know about implicit bias and reflect on our biases when making decisions. as a member of the rules committee, i that'd opportunity to ask several of our police commissioner candidates about implicit bias training. i think we should not only have our commissioners engage in implicit bias courses and our department heads. as a department head as county

clerk i took the two-day course and feel everybody should have the opportunity to do so. the course i am recommending is just an online course. it's not the two-day. i was so impressed with the course i did take, the day after i called micky callahan i said it should be mandatory for as many city employees as possible and part of school curriculum and believe everybody who take the course will be happy. i hope to have your support. it's not onerous. i think the course developed by d.h.r. is profound and eye-opening and life changing. i look forward to your support. >> clerk: supervisor tang will submit. supervisor yee. >> thank you, madame clerk. >> both supervisor peskin and myself would like to close this meeting in memory of emanual

lund better known as manny. he was the founder of the jeffery toy store on 45 kearny. has since then in 1966 and since then his son has taken over, his son mark. the reason i want to bring attention to this very generous human being, was in the earl '70s i actually went around trying to do a community christmas party and tried to give gifts at a time to mainly under privileged kids. i didn't see it happening too much in my community in chinatown. i went around and by the third year i had over 500 children come to the event.

but one of the stores consistent and this was before toys r us and jeffery's toy store was there and toys r us is gone and jeffery's toy store is still there. i have to say when i walked into jeffery's toy, not being a part of anybody or any organization, i said i'm from the community and i want to do this thing and i really need help. i don't have any money to do anything. would you be willing to donate and he was real generous in donating many many toys. he wasn't the only one but he was one of the first. i want to give praise to his generosity and remember him by. so that's that. >> colleagues, this year marks

the 75th anniversary of the repeal the chinese exclusion act. the chinese exclusion act of 1882 was the first and only national law restricting immigration of a specific group of people based solely on race and ethnicity. the chinese exclusion act reflect the widespread stereotypes and beliefs of chinese as inferior and exotic and heathens and competitors for jobs and wages. perpetuating this issue and the discrimination and violence towards chinese people in the u.s. kept going many years. it separated thousands of families causing damage between husbands and wives and their children. actually in 1943, then

u.s. representatives warren magnuson of washington state introduced the repeal of the chance exclusion act which was signed later that year into law by franklin rose very well. -- roosevelt. unfortunately in the year with trump being elected, he has introduced many anti-immigration policies such as the muslim ban as a result. we have scene an unsettling resurgence of white nationalism and hate crimes and phobia directed towards immigrant communities.

>> every immigrant needs to know san francisco remains a beacon of hope and refuge for immigrant seeking a better life and as a community we'll continue to resist and fight against any racist, bigot or anti-racism policies from the current presidential administration. i want to thank my colleagues, supervisors fewer, tang, kim, and peskin and ronen for co-sponsoring my resolution. since september 17, marks the 75th anniversary of the repeal

of the chinese exclusion act i hope the rest of my colleagues will support me in passing the resolution. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor brown. president cohen. >> thank you. now i know many of you are probably going to be surprised by what i'm going to say thinking it's the second to the last board meeting what could president cohen could possibly have on her mind to do? today i'm introduce hearing, yes, introducing a hearing on the municipal bank task force i'll be scheduled for thursday next week. now, 18 months ago i create the task force to study the feasibility of establish mune s is -- municipal bank in san francisco. there was a group of expert to

assist us in thinking through how to build local control. of course, all while maintaining transparency about where our investment money is going and where it's going in the city. we've had a lot of divestment discussion over the last few years ranging from tobacco to firearms to the dakota access pipeline, to trump's border wall. name it, we've covered it. i'm sure i am not alone when i say i would like to see our money go towards improving our financial inclusion programs on socially responsible investments an supporting affordable housing and city college and for the last nine months the task force has met monthly to debate the issues. i warrant want to recognize the treasurer's office released their draft report.

we will have a final meeting in january this hearing will give the public an opportunity for this body to review the recommendations of the task force and give us an opportunity to offer feedback and provide marching orders where san francisco should go from here. supervisor ronen, i'm looking to your leadership and supervisor fewer as i administration >> i look forward to hearing the recommendations next week and hope we kill -- will have a spirited discussion and i want

to thank sophia kitler on my staff she's been the muscle. that's my roll call for introduction. madame clerk the, rest i submit. >> clerk: supervisor kim. >> submit. >> clerk: all items will be appropriately referred. madame president, that ends new business. >> that ends new business. so that means that brings us to item 30, public comment. our most favorite time of the day. if anyone would like to address the board, please step forward and line up and we'll start with you, mr. wright. >> 14th amendment of the constitutional and tupac says equal protection under the law. it's been violated by this administration and past

administration and i object to this proposal of 8,000 apartment unit complexes built in the city. in fact, it turns out it's 8,900 units. i object on the ground it discriminates against single people. that proposal was explained as only for family members only. so understood, -- so in other words, a single person can't put in and you're advocating you want to make the minimum requirement to be a tenant in the building at 1100% of the a.m.i. as a family unit you have to make $92,950 a year. that means people making less than $92,000 a year can't even put in an application to be a

tenant to live in the multi-million dollar complex being proposed. all these incomes are not being included in the inclusionary loan and it's another example of discrimination. i find it to be scandalous and woeful misconduct. for three persons you have to make $103,750 per year to qualify. everybody below this income bracket can't apply. it's an example of discrimination and gentrification and discrimination based on geographical location. in washington, d.c. there's an attorney filing a lawsuit based on gentrification where you give preferential treatment to white people and displacing colored people like you did in fillmore. >> supervisor: thank you, mr. wright.

>> it saddens know bring this to you but i just want to share with you an incident that took place october 25 at safeway super market in district 5. i was racially profiled by a security guard and cashier at that particular store. and the biggest thing about this is that i tried to go through the proper steps. obviously, if you stop, you're embarrassed and all these things happen to you but i showed the manager my reset and they finally apologized but there was really no follow-up on why this is happening at safeway and

continuing to happen at many safeways across san francisco. since then we've been trying to talk to the corporate office in pleasanton and talking to a guy named brian claiming he's doing an investigation but i want to bring to your attention since i did research there's safeways in san francisco and 1300 in california and 900 safeway stores in the united states. i'm getting calls and people are talking to me that the racial profiling thing is starting to pick up and you see it all the time at the stores with the security companies that's not trained well and usually pressured by the store managers to just pick people randomly or sometimes even follow people throughout the store. let me say to make a long story short, i'm asking you because i'm come to each supervisor that we need to have more maybe at the public safety level or maybe at a committee of the whole, we

need to find out what's going on with safeway including other retail stores in san francisco. thank you very much and i will be talking to you. >> supervisor: thank you, next speaker. >> thank you, president cohen. the san francisco superior court is adjudicating people from san francisco into out-patient and in-patient treatment and psychiatric treatment. they're being extremely secretive about this program. they will not reveal case numbers. those are supposed to be violating people's confidentiality. i don't know how you can find

someone's identify from a case number. if anybody knows how to do that, please let me know. as far as i know it's a serial number assigned by the clerk. [please stand by] .

>> okay. maybe we can call the ballot. >> on items 31 and 32 quad. >> yes, ma'am,. >> supervisor mandelman? [roll call]

>> there are ten aye. >> thank you. these items passed unanimously. thank you. these resolutions are passing. would you like to talk about item 33 quad. >> may i read the item first class. >> this is the item that establishes the board of supervisors regular meeting schedule. >> i know i am interrupting your dinner, but i was curious, our people aware that we swapped out -- veteran's day or a meeting about veterans day for something else around thanksgiving, and i

will go with whatever other board members want to, but i was a little uncomfortable with that i feel like that i am not honoring the veterans. >> okay. you severed this item to talk on this item. is there anything else you want to do or any action you want to propose? >> i'm asking -- our people aware of this? i guess i was a little uncomfortable knowing that it was tied to veteran's day that we cut. >> did you want to say anything? >> yes. thank you. regarding the veterans day holiday, which we normally have taken off, at this year, because i asked that the board follow the board to rule and meet the week of thanksgiving, and not to the week of after thanksgiving, if you could point that out on

the calendar so the members could see the month of november, we would not be meeting two weeks in a row. so we would have for three weeks to meet in front, i indicated we would be meeting on the 12th, if you can see that. otherwise we would have a meeting on the fifth, we would be dark on the 12th, a meeting on the 19th, no meeting on the 26th, no meeting on the third so we would have three weeks off november and december, and two meetings in december and the winter break at the end. i am not opposed to making november 12th veteran's day holiday, but since we were taking off the 26th and the third, i left it there as a meeting so that the board could get the business done before we went into the thanksgiving break and the winter break. >> thank you.

supervisor ronen? i had brought this to the attention of the boards because it has been really helpful when we have the week of sense just thanksgiving off because sfusd is off that week. for parents, we have to get childcare that week. if we don't have it off, which is not something, i mean we can figure it out to, but i know a lot of aides and a lot of supervisors have children so it's been really convenient when the thanksgiving week is off, because san francisco is supposed to the clerk's conference, the clerk needs to take that following week off, and so that would mean that there was not very many board meetings in november and december and so angela's way of

accommodating that was to take the day after veterans day. we would still celebrate veterans day, but we would usually -- usually when there is a holiday on a monday, we don't meet on the board, and we thought that that accommodated the needs of parents, and also make sure we had enough board meetings in the months of november and december. but i'm open. i wanted to see what the opinion of other parents on the board was. i just know that having thanksgiving week off has been really helpful given sfusd's schedule. >> i agree. we have done that two years in a row. we have had the week of thanksgiving off. i know it is extremely health -- helpful for myself and for others and for anyone else who have children. i would absolutely agree with that. this year, we did both. we had the week of thanksgiving off and we had veterans day off,

so this year, in your proposal, we would be pushing the schedule farther in to the month of december, right? because of -- does not mean that the entire clerk's office will be at the conference class. >> we are hosting the conference >> we are hosting the conference in san francisco so the entire office will be part of that hosting. that is why we are pushing the schedule deeper into december then we normally do. >> to the president, supervisor kim reminded me we did not take veterans day off. we actually took off elections day. >> that is why we had -- >> in the current year there was no veterans day holiday. >> okay. >> we celebrated veterans day, but we still get up on tuesday. >> okay. >> i just raise the issue and i am okay if we agree on this

calendar. >> and we take this without objection and excellence. we can take this same house, same call are there any other duchess or anything else? >> yes, i have three housekeeping items before i read the in memoriam his. on the agenda for december 11th , there will be the seniority pole for the newly elected members of the board, not supervisor mandelman or supervisor stefani, so that will be one of the first items on next tuesday's agenda, and given that there will be a board meeting potentially a december 18th that is when we will have the commendation saying the farewell commendation saying goodbye to the supervisors who will be leaving the board will put accommodations on the 11th thank you for that direction.

do not forget to which the board president happy birthday next thursday. with that, i will read the in memoriam on behalf of supervisor peskin and supervisor yee or the late manny lunn. on behalf of supervisor peskin got jury robbins, and on behalf of supervisor mandelman, for the late cannot eke a cow. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank our friends at s.f. golf t.v. for assisting us with this evening's broadcast. is there any other business before this body class. >> that concludes our business for tonight his. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen. we are adjourned. [♪]

>> 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