the meeting will come to order. this is the january 18th regular meeting of the lafco commission. i am sandraly fewer. i am joined by cynthia pollock. the clerk is here. i would like to thank the staff at sf goff tv for today's meeting. do we have any announcements? >> please silence all cell phones. copies of documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you. can you please call item two.

>> approval of the lafco minutes from the november 30th 2018 special meeting. >> do you have any changes to the minutes of the november 30th meeting? let's open up for public comment. any comments? public comment is now closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> yes. moved by commissioner pollock without objection the minutes are approved. can you please call item 3. >> community choice aggravation activities report and local buildout presentation. >> i believe we have a presentation from the director of the san francisco public utilities commission about local build-up. >> good morning, commissioners. happy friday.

michael hyams. i have a presentation loaded up. if you could bring the slides up. thank you. >> i hate to interrupt as you are just beginning. we have had the enrollment presentation at the last few meetings. could we skip ahead? >> sure. if that is the wish of the commission. >> seeing no objection i would like to welcome the commissioner shanti singh to join us right now. >> before we skip ahead here, i wanted to mention a couple things pending before the board. we have a service agreement that is before the budget and finance committee.

that service agreement is required for the operation of the clean powers program. we are seeking retroactive approval of execution of the agreement executed at the end of last year for continue nowty of operations. another pending agreement that will come before the board shortly is a short term renewable energy contract for the program to support our renewable energy content goals for 2019. happy to provide any more information on those two items if you are interested.

as i think commissioner pollock indicated at the last meeting there are a number of questions the commission raised. >> reporter: to local investment for the program. we prepared material here for that discussion including information about progress to date, but also what we are planning on doing to further our progress on local investment in the near and medium term. i went a little too far. i want to ground the conversation with the goals. we are guided by the following goals within put from the mayor, board of supervisors, lafco and our sfpc commission.

those are that we lead with affordability and deliver competitive rates and reliable service to our customers, we provide cleaner electricity alternatives and to contribute to the de carbon of the city energy supply by 2030 and invest the revenues locally in renewable and demand side projects, that made include measures to reduce energy use of homes and businesses and create new clean energy jobs within san francisco and the bay area. finally, to balance these goals while also providing long-term rate and financial stability. given we are talking about local investment, i thought it appropriate to frame what we mean by local, how we are approaching local.

the sfpc defined local and power supply solicitations as projects located within our region. the nine bay san francisco area bay counties. part of the reason we framed it this way is access to diverse pool of resources, it gives access to projects that might retire moreland that is available in the city and county of san francisco which translate goes to more cost-effective resources for ratepayers. for purposes of local investment as it pertains to demand side resources that i just described a moment ago, our local areas in the city and county of san francisco where the customers are. i will add to that that this

item is binary reasonable supply can and will continue to do that and i will get into how we will approach that in a moment. since we launched we have made progress in terms of sources renewable energy supply from within the nine bay area counties. starting here at home we are purchasing the output from the e sun set reservoir solar project under contract with the publicly owned project. we use that to serve the super-green customer demand. across the bay we are purchasing wind energy from the shiloh wind farm and wind power from the golden hills wind project.

finally, starting in may of last year we started receiving deliveries under a five-year contract with the geysers, geothermal project in sonoma county. i do want to add that that contract which is with cal pine is the first contract that we have entered into that also features community benefits are visions in a renewable energy contract. we have also executed long-term contracts to support the development of new renewable energy resources in california. we have entered into two long-term contracts, including a project in lancaster california scheduled to begin generating power and delivering power in july. a 47-megawatt wind farm repower,

that is redevelopment of an existing asset that has out lived its useful life in mohave, california. that is to deliver at the end of 2020. together these projects will produce enough renewable energy to supply 130,000 average san francisco households, create 600 clean energy jobs in california combined with construction and operation of those facilities. at the last lafco meeting there was discussion about greenhouse gas and city footprint and contributions to reducing the city carbon footprint. this chart is to give you a sense how the clean power sf program performed from a clean

carbon standpoint since it starting serving customers in 2016. this discusses the average rate per megawatt hour of energy for p.g.e. and clean power sf. the orange bars are p.g.e. admissions rate. the value through 2016 are actual rates as reported by p.g.e. the values in 2017 and 2018 are staff estimates what the rates will be from those years drawing from public documents such as the power content label. the power content label is like the food label for the energy industry describing the sources of supply. >> commissioner, do you have a question? >> yes, through the chair. going back to this chart.

from 2012 to 2015, that was just pg&e's contribution of bg and e's carbon footprint in san francisco? >> yes think of every unit of energy that those in san francisco consume those are the average emissions associated with that energy. >> why do we not have a line for clean power in 2017? >> our portfolio did not emit any commissions it was zero, 100% reduction. you can see that the first green bar here which represents the rates shows in 2016 which is the first year they started serving

customers in may. period of 2016 that they served customers in san francisco, it delivered a mix of resources that emitted 37% less carbon than pg&e's equivalent products. one thing to look at. there is a lag in terms when we get this. they file the data two years after the actual calendar year. you can see in the same year pg&e experienced dramatic reduction itself. >> that is from your work. >> thank you. that is one of the points i wanted to make. we have an interesting dynamic when it comes to addressing climate change in competition. the formation of cca's alone are delivering a benefit to the investor and utilities. the renewable energy they have

procured will represent an increasing amount of the energy portfolio. >> in 2017 you achieved 100% every deduction because of super-green products? >> let me explain what happened in 2017. these images here, the chart looks at our total sales and our total mix of resources. it is not segmented between super-green and green. it is the whole picture, come heat ar-- complete rate. >> green are default. renewable energy and hydroelectric supply, that is greenhouse gas free. in we were serving a segment of the city. it was a good winter from the

hydro logical standpoint. there was a lot of available power to be supplied to the program. >> interesting. last question. a chart that i would love to see and i don't know if you can make this or we will talk to the department of environment about it. i would love to see in terms of the dhg reduction over time for the entire footprint in san francisco. i would like to see the impact on that reduction versus every other effort we have made. i don't know if that makes sense. i don't know if that is something we have. i would love to see that. >> barbara hale. i can tell you department of environment says clean power sf the program and growth of responsibilities for providing

electricity is the most we can do to reduce the overall carbon footprint. it is the agency for the overall footprint, not just energy but everything. we can certainly reach out and see if they have an up-to-date slide for that. >> i would love that. i will do that as well. thanks. >> i will add that we work with them and share data with them every year. i think the last complete year they have prepared these figures for us 2016, which did include clean power sf. we were a small program at that point in time. what when become more important is this year and next year as we become full-scale and city wide. that is when you will see a bigger impact.

let it was see if i can get the slides back. so just to re-enforce the 2018, last one is projection for the last calendar year, and one thing i want to point out is that the development of the energy supply portfolio is complex. i think as we probably talked about in other meetings, it is competitive. there are other communities performing the cca programs. in 2018 we significantly grew demand and need to buy energy. what that means as we grow and develop that portfolio we are significantly increasing our

supply, and it takes it a year or so t so to stabilize those commitments. 2018 was more of a drought year. there was less hydro available to the system. that is something the hydro resource is really important to the state, and it is something reflecting on the hydro logical cycle, there are years with a lot of hydropower available and years with not that much. we can expect to see ups and downs in the future from those resources. we have also supported behind the meter distributed energy resource projects. to date we enrolled 6600 net energy metering customers with rooftop solar and that is 75% of

the rooftop solar in san francisco. we have a great retention rate. part of the reason is that we offer a great net metering tariff which we developed when we launched the program. we offer surplus energy three times what pg&e offers for local clean power generated into the system. we will be completing the enrollnent to the net metering program in april. finally, we are going to continue to provide incentives through the go solar sf program and other modifications to that program or other programs we develop over time to support further local distributed energy resource investment for our customers. for example, to replace inverters, support storage. we will get more into that later.

shifting to looking ahead and thinking about planning and tools for planning, i wanted to use this opportunity to highlight our regular planning processes and tools to help us lay out a strategy for local investment going forward. these include the integrated resource planning process, irp as it is referred to. the biannual 10 year planning process that sf conducts. periodic energy resource assessments. power enterprises conducted a number of studies on the potential and cost of developing the renewable energy projects in the city. we will continue to update that work as needed as it requires fine tuning and cost updates, and we also receive really

valuable information for planning purposes with respect to where we newable energy development community is targeting projects, where the costs of energy from those projects is heading and timelines for developing the projects through renewable energy solicitation processes. we can issue requests for information to market participants to get a sense of where and when projects may be getting developed in terms of private side development. i want to spend a bit more time on the integrated resource plan in particular. we completed the first irp in 2018, and it is really going to be the critical tool for resource and investment planning going forward.

what is an irp? an irp is a resource plan that evaluates scenarios to provide customers at the lowest cost for which utility can delivery liable energy and meet policy objectives. irp is required under state law. also an sfp policy to prepare it every two years. they are useful for service reliability planning, evaluating cost effectiveness of supply, also comparing policy options and supply scenarios over the long-term. achieving the de carbonization objectives. they are not to replace budgeting or capital planning or rate setting or operational or

maintenance plans. last year when we embarked on the development of the first irp, we focused on the following goals. model and analyze the program demand. as a new business and growing program, this is a foundational part of the irp process. identify options for meeting clean power sf renewable and greenhouse gas reduction targets and invest local. it specifically examined what it would take to achieve the city goal of eliminating carbon from the electricity supply by 2030 as it pertains to the service they are responsible for. optimize around the portfolio to deliver competitively priced products. since we aim to balance the program goals, this is an important element looking at the cost of different portfolios and

identifying the mixer that supports the environmental and also afford ability and competitive objectives as well. this slide summarizes the cases that we analyzed in the 2018 integrated resource plan. i believe the version of the deck that was posted including a typo to five cases. we have updated that to seven cases that were analyzed. these cases were formed based on current understanding and projection of technology. what we were looking at resources that we knew would be competitive, competitively priced and support our cost objectives, also accounted for other goals like local investment. you can see the cases summarized

at the bottom of the slide. i won't go through all of them. i will note in the late spring or early summer when we talked about this last. there were five cases. we since have added two cases that examined battery storage components. the idea here is renewable resources are variable, they produce when the shine is shining and wind is blowing. they are subject to market prices in terms of value of energy produced. one thing we noticed in the irp the projections of market prices were influencing the cases and storage has come up here before, battery storage, for example, is one new emerging technology to be used to store the power of the sun and move it to the periods of time that are of higher value when the city has demand. i did want to mention here on

the local side that we examined new solar and wind resources from within the city. on sfpc property in the bay area and further development of wind resources in the region. this slide summarizes the annual program sales and portfolio targets used in the plan projected out to 2030. each bar represents annual electricity sales for clean power sf. the segments within the bar represent the types of resources used to meet that demand. we were using these as our planning targets for each year. you can see the slight green segment represents renewable energy supporting the green product portfolio. dark green segment represents

additional renewable energy used to serve super-green customer demand. going from 50 to 100%. blue represents carbon free hydroelectric resources. grey segment represents conventional or system power purchases. you can see over the planning period the grey disappears eventually by 2030. you can also see from the slide the significant growth in the program demand over 2016 to 2019 period. we are in the middle of the process. the dotted line representing today we completed service 2016, 2017, 2018. this year we are making a significant jump in sales and associated contracting requirements. drilling deeper to one of the cases we analyzed.

this is case five. that featured local resources and pow curement focused on wind energy resources that is the case we analyzed that had the most favorable economic results. you can see in the areagraph here on the left of the slide the growth of new resources over time to meet the clean power sf portfolio needs over the planning period and the resources to meet that. they are identified below the chart. you can see the power at the university reservoy. those are sfpc sites. on the right side of the chart, the map, you can see the location of the resources we modeled in the i rp.

there are a number of local project in the bay area. you can see some in the central valley and some in southern california. one of our objectives here was to look at the relative cost of resources across the state. solar performs much better in southern california. that has a material impact on our cost. we wanted to look at that to understand how much of a driver that might be. continuing to look ahead. what have we done? what are we planning to do on the local investment side? on the supply, we have sort of separated these two into buckets. there is the supply side, which is th the acquisition of energy from plants and the demand side

measures to reduce or influence consumers demand within san francisco. on the supply side, we have been and will continue to conduct regular standard procurement of clean and renewable energy with a preference for local projects. i do want to say the development community knows this. they know our interest in it. they reach out to us as they are looking to develop projects. we are in regular communication about opportunities that may be coming down the pipe. i mentioned earlier we implemented a netted energy tariff that facilitates customer investment in rooftop solar, and we are almost done enrolling those customers in the program. we started to develop a feed and tariff program. that is an ongoing procurement

for renewable energy that would be very targeted at new development right here within the city and county of san francisco. under the feed-in they offer a standard contract with a fixed price. publish that and invite developers, owners of property to contract with us. that price can be adjustrd over time depending on the up take of the feed-in tariff. that is a way to get new solar on rooftops under-utilized within the city. they may not have the demand needed to support their own behind the meter project. this is more of a supply type of project. we will continue and we have been offering incentives for customer investment in rooftop solar, and we are planning to

issue r.f.p.s for new construction on the city owned and controlled property. on the demand side, we have been working on insuring that customers and our ratepayers know what is available today. it is important to know that clean power sf customers continue to contribute to public purpose funds that go towards energy efficiency programs and projects. they continue to be eligible for those incentives. we are working to make sure they are aware of those opportunities while we work on developing our own programs to serve gaps that may exist. we plan then really to expand with the goal of targeting creating locally responsive energy efficiency and demand

response programs. one of the things that is exciting is being able to try thinks, to test things out in a pilot environment, to efficiently respond to a customer interest within the city or need that may be under the pg&e programs not addressed due to their large size. then another important category here that we want to focus on is spurring investment and building and transportation elec electtrification. i don't have any content on the city wide climate inventory. one thing you will see is that the electric demand within the city is a relatively small and shrinking, rapidly shrinking portion of the city's carbon

foot print. what remains are challenging wedges like transportation and natural gas use in buildings. the exciting opportunities on the horizon are with to helping further electrify, switch fuels from burning gasoline to using clean power in automobiles or other transportation systems, and within the home. this is my last slide. we are at a critical juncture in the implementation of the clean power sf program. as a result our team is very focused on insuring we are successful with the april enrollment effort. we skipped over that content. i know you have heard it before. we are enrolling 280,000

accounts, more than twice the number we are serving today. that is the best way to ensure success and ability to influence the city's carbon footprint as it pertains to energy use to ensure successful rollout of the program at this time. that also means that we procure to meet all of the regulatory obligations and power content goals in short and long-term. i talked about a contract before the board to support short term needs. we have more long-term contracting to do soon to ensure we meet the state's requireds renewable energy purchases in the portfolio. we highlighted key actions and timelines for supporting the enrollment and moving beyond.

first, finalizing the rate change. we had a hearing earlier this week before the board. we are waiting for the california pc to take action on the rates so we know where they will end up. wever shortly have to commence sending notices to the customers we will be enrolling in april that starts in february. we have to send four notices over a four month period strateling the april enrollment. we are little working on a bay area newable energy solis station. i talked about the focus on the region. we want to reach out to the community to find out what opportunities exist in the near term to develop resources within the nine area counties t to buid that local content in the energy portfolio. i have identified march for

that. the april enrollment occurs in april. we then starting in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year will be commencing work on our 10 year capital plan. then really following the successful enrollment into the program we intend to really direct a lot of our energy and efforts towards creating new local energy programs for customers to really drive local investment. we are looking forward to coming back to this body and reporting on ideas and getting input and getting some of those going. with that i will stop and i am happy to take your questions.

>> let's start with commission pollock then. >> thank you so much. i think this is so helpful, this answers a lot of the questions that we have. i want to jump around a little bit to the presentation because i have some notes. going back to slide 24. just looking at the priority sites, they look very similar to the sites that were in the 2015 inter next report. that also identified the sfo parking lot and hunter's point

parcel e sites. what is the status of those projects and are there what you say between r.f.p.'s on 25? >> i think those two sites you mentioned fall into that category of an r.f.p. for projects on city property. those particular projects were not modeled but in this particular irp but it doesn't mean we won't or can't. we absolutely can. we focused on what we thought were the best projects in the near term from a cost standpoint, but the beauty of the irp is that we are starting the next one this year so we can model cases and develop a business case for any of these

projects we looked at in the past or new projects. >> what are the steps required to make those projects shovel ready? >> there probably needs to be feasibility work from an engineering standpoint, probably working with the entities that control the site a bit further, for example the airport. preparation of r.f.p. those come to mind immediately. i am happy to get more information on what it would take. >> that would be great to understand that better. is funding for that beginning work including in the sfp budget currently? >> not explicitly. we do have work for planning purposes sort of broadly.

the irp. we do have under professional services as needed contracts a number of engineering firms that do this kind of work and we have worked with them in the past on these kinds of projects so it is certainly possible for us to direct some of that capacity towards supporting these efforts. >> thank you. i know that there are for me a lot of questions in terms of distinction between the power enterprise and clean power sf. i know that is sf p.u.c. looks at them very differently. for those in san francisco at least for me it seems power is coming the same thing and i just wanted to ask some questions about the differentiation. as clean power sf gears to start

building renewable energy power facilities, can you talk about how the sf p.u.c. views the dynamic between clean power and the power needs or resources and how would the dynamic change if pg&e is broken up or municipalized. >> i will head over to barbara. >> thank you barbara hale, assistant manager for power. within the p.u.c., three lines of business. water, power, sewer. within power, two retail service programs. clean power sf. the distinctions between the two are because of the services that we provide, right?

under state law we only supply the supply part for clean power sf. under our constitutional authority as municipality that is able to establish publicly owned utility we provide all services that brick power to the customer. they are both part of power enterprise. it oversees both of the programs. one of the differences for us as we manage the programs. the ratepayers are different. we are not allowed to commingle the funds between the two programs. when you are a clean power sf customer and make a payment to us those dollars go to a separate account. mike charges his time to that, all of the supplies he has been

talking about gets charged to that program, the study work he is talking about gets charged there. we have revenues from the customers that go to a different account. if you are working on heche you are charges to them. we are not allowed to commingle funds. we do share resources and book time with the shared thought in mind. mike referred earlier to the fact that the sun set reservoir provides energy through a sale to clean power sf customer base that we use for super-green program. that is a documented between heche, the controller of the supply and clean power sf, whom they sell the power to.

even though we are in the same house we operate as two separate businesses. both of those businesses have their own budgets, capital plans. in the evict pg&e files for bankruptcy there are different impacts on the programs. they reply on pg&e for service and make payments to support the service. transmission and distribution where we pay the rates. on the heche we pay $10 million a year for the distribution they provide to us through the tariff. on clean power sf, by contrast, because state law requires us to use pg&e as the billing agent,

customers pay pg&e for the service. pg&e provides the payment to us. they are holding the funds our customers are paying to us, making payments to us through pg&e. it is a pass-through function. in the face of bankruptcy there is a concern pg&e could end up having a delay in the remittance of those dollars from them to us. even though a customer paid for the service and intended us to be paid, since it goes through pg&e we could have a delay in receiving the funds from pg&e. that is a potential impact that we are keeping an eye on and taking steps to mitigate. as mayor breed has asked us to

do we look at municipalization. that has come up in the context of bankruptcy to further expand on the question you are asking. what happens to the two programs? under that scenario the heche program would explain. that program would absorb the clean power sf program customers. instead of just providing supply to the customers we would provide fully integrated services to all those in san francisco that we only provide to a portion in the heche program. under clean power sf the contract they have signed, that supply would be absorbed. the commitments we are making that the director was reviewing would continue. we would be in a position then

of being able to expand our ability to invest in renewable resources. we would have a higher revenue stream coming in. we are note for profit. we would have more funds available to pay for these programs and to achieve these goals that we are trying to achieve. >> thank you. that is very helpful. if pg&e, if the route we go is not municipalization of pg&e, how do you identify the heche sites for renewable energy and which are clean power sf? i know there are a number of things happening in terms of bonds to build renewable sites

under heche. how do you decide which program it goes under? both programs are growing. clean power is growing at a much faster pace. they have a higher need for new supply. in terms which site goes where? for us like sunset solar, it can be a jointly utilized project. it really goes to the question how do we, you know, how do we fund it through our capital planning process? we have on the heche side a credit rating, we have a capacity that to perform the work with that credit rating. we don't have as big -- once the enrollment in clean power sf is completed in april, we will have

a higher overall revenue stream coming in from that side than we do from the heche side, dramatically larger. we have bonding authority on both sides, financial statements and credit rating only on heche side. our task is to get the credit rating on clean power sf to utilize that same bonding authority. we don need to be bound to that. we can expand the -- sorry. we can build out a renewable site utilizing the heche balance sheet and credit rating and prop a authority realizing through a contractual reallation ship we can credit the revenue stream on

the clean power sf side. >> is there currently an m.o.u. or something connecting the two? >> we transact business through the two through power purchase agreements. it is a business relays ship like we purchase from third-parties we purchase and sell between the heche and clean power sf program. we could do the same at individual sites as we are able to do that, right? >> i saw in august they approved three contracts for 2.$6 million each for renewable energy projects. can you tell us about the scope of the work they will provide? >> those are some of the professional services the director was referring to earlier with engineering

capacity to perform evaluations, engineering, design work, you know, to help us evaluate the feasibility of different program areas, to establish and advise us on readiness. from a staffing perspective all the way through to site evaluations. those contracts let under the power enterprise, right? they provide services to both heche and clean power sf program. >> couple more questions about revenue bonds. i saw there was an item on the december agenda as a pc revenue bond revenue committee about sf power? >> that was the growth fund.

director hyams will talk about that. >> the presentation to the revenue bond oversight committee was more background around the effort to complete city wide enroll meant in clean power sf. we did talk a bit about contracting, and there was some discussion around the potential for bonding and sort of the steps that worry choired to get -- required to get there. i think ms. hale walked through it in terms of getting a credit rating. >> do you know -- what i am saying the models for what the budget, scope and timeline for clean power sf revenue bonds could look like?

what i am asks is you are waiting for the credit rating of clean power sf to sort of begin the bond process if you were to have clean power sf revenue bonds. with the city wide enrollment, what is that timeline and scope look like? is there a timeframe that after city wide enrollment then that capacity is there? >> i can give you a general sense. we think that it could be about a three year period following stabilization of the program's revenues and enrollment so i think this is something that our sfpc finance team is thinking about, working on. i am happy to flush this out further. the clean energy the marin

county program were the first to receive a credit rating. it probably took them like 7 or 8 years following the service start. we don't think it will take us that long. we have put in place a number of policies, financial policies that we think support a rating effort really from the get-go, right from starting the program. we are confident that we can compress that schedule quite a bit. generally speaking, three years is sort of what we are thinking after completing city wide enrollment. >> the remainder of questions are around p.c.i. a and our upcoming joint meeting with your commission and so i wanted to yield the floor if the chair would allow me to come back for those two sets of questions at a

later time before we end this agenda item. >> if i could come back to my questions on p.c.i. a. our upcoming joint meeting, my questions for that, i will yield the floor for other commissioners, thank you. >> commissioner singh. >> hopefully it is a short question but maybe a long answer. under this area that commissioner pollock was discussions, are there changes in state law necessary for us to pursue that course of action? >> the answer is no, not changes in state law. i mean just to explain a little bit. as barbara mentioned in the comments before. the city's constitutional right

to provide public utility service within the boundaries. state law structures and frames the cca program and in state law the ccas don't exist in public utility service areas for maybe some straightforward reasons. the local government is already providing the service. the idea with the cca model is local governments providing the energy supply portion of the business and investor owned utilities territory. >> that clarifies it. with barbara's comment it requires it to be used as a billing agent. i just wanted to doublecheck. thanks. >> great question. i had the exact same question. one other question in just trying to understand sort of the difference between hehche and

clean power sf. it seems like we have two programs because of the history of how they developed in san francisco. it is not necessary. whether or not we municipalize which i have been very public about hoping that we will and hope that lafco will play a role in getting us to a point where that is possible. would we start a process of merging those two bodies anyway? >> in any ways we are merged in terms of operational components. people doing the purchasing and selling for heche are the same for power sf. what i talked about was really an accounting separation that is necessary to respect the different ratepayers, right?

any municipalization process will take quite some time, and there will be a transition period where both entities would continue to operate and ultimately we would assume responsibility for metering and billing for customers that are currently clean power sf and they would be absorbed to the heche program. >> let's say we don't municipa municipalize is there still the thought that we will merge the two. >> the statutory requirements make it so that we would always have two separate rate pawer revenue streams that we would have to continue to account for separately. that doesn't mean we can't do partnership projects and programs. we will do the go solar sf

program to provide service to both ratepayer sets. >> how is it decided who goes into which program? >> if you are a pg and e customer today you are eligible for clean power sf. the if you are a heche customer you are not eligible. >> there are some new customers suited for heche. for example when the shipyard was built out, it was built out knowing san francisco would be the owner and san francisco of the distribution system. from day one those customers have always been heche customers. >> the difference is who distributes the power? >> right who handles distribution.

>> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> any other questions, colleagues? commissioner pollock. >> i'm fine. thanks. >> so the question i have we have talked a number of times in our past meetings about the p.c.i. a exit fees. have you had conversations with our representatives in sacramento about legislation to fix pg&e's proposed increase in the p.c.i. a? >> so the city and the sfpc is working with our cal cca colleagues on, you know, developing approaches, legislative approaches to address things like the