>> the work at the produce market for me representing the intersection between environment and community, and when we are working at that intersection, when we are using our resources and our passion and our energy to heal the planet and feed the >> good afternoon, and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, february 25th, 2019. i am the chair of the committee, supervisor aaron peskin, joined by matt haney, and sandra lee

fewer. i wanted to start this meeting, as we will tomorrow, at the full board of supervisors, by taking a moment of silence for our public defender who passed away on friday evening, jeff adochi. i rarely do things like that, but i miss him dearly. our clerk is ms. erica major. ms. major, do you have any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and all electronic documents. le electronic devices. >> chairman: thank you, ms. major, and i'd like to acknowledge that we're joined by supervisor stefie, who is four

minutes tardy. >> item number one is an ordinance for many of the buildings who are vacant to pay annual restoration fees at the time of registration, update the penalty for violations, and affirming appropriate findings. >> chairman: thank you, ms. major. before i turn the microphone over to supervisor fewer, i want to thank her because this is one of the rare instances where an ordinance has been co-sponsored by every single member of the board of supervisors. so supervisor fewer, i think you and your staff are on to something. and with that, the floor is yours. that's not on a meeting -- we can co-sponsor whatever we want, as long as it is not a ballot measure. >> thank you, chair peskin. most of the thanks, i

think, goes to my legislative aide for working so hard on this, and something that we recognize is a problem not only in our district, but in all of the districts in san francisco. i'm excited to be moving forward on this legislation and ask you for your support in sending this committee today with a positive recommendation to the full board. when this item was before you on february 4th, i spoke about how we got here and why it is so important. on that date this committee approved two amendments at this legislation. in order to clarify the refund amount for property owners who lease out their property within one year of paying the annual registration fee, and to require a third-party licensed professional, rather than d.b.i., to conduct annual inspections on vacant properties to ensure they're maintaining the exterior and interior of the property up to code. my office worked closely with d.b.i. on this legislation, and they will

simplify implementation without excess administrative burden. once again the purpose of this legislation is to increase the accuracy and affectiveness of vacant store fronts, to ensure they're propertyly prompted identified to remain safe, to avoid hazards and nuisances resulting from being vacant or abandoned. this ord nan will do the follow: ensure all vacant storefronts are properly identified and registered regardless of whether the property is being aver advertised or release. and to monitor or enforce registration requirements at the time of registration, and penalties for failure to register, and requiring annual inspections of vacant storefronts to ensure they remain safe

and do not pose a hazard. i would like to thank the building inspection commission and the small businesses commission to their positive recommendations and all ten of my colleagues for unanimously co-sponsoring this ordinance. and i want to thank the golden gate restaurant association for the letters they sent in support of this ordinance. no one understands the importance of addressing this issue more than than our local restaurants and businesses, and i'm proud to have their support. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you, mrs. fewer. mr. william strong, do you have any comments on baf behalf of the building inspection or your commission. >> thank you. as the supervisor fewer mentioned, we have been working closely with her and her staff for the past few months on this. we're looking forward to seeing it move forward and hopefully tightening up what is a complicated situation. >> thank you, mr. strong. is there anybody here on

behalf of the small business commission? okay. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item. please come forward. >> okay. as i dislike closed storefronts as the next one, i would like to know if anyone would like to characterize the comments held by the local real estate and the chamber of commerce. and i am wondering into which city the inspection fees will look to, and for what purpose they may be expended. i would also like to know any such fees and inspection are both reasonable and thorough, and they are not conceived of as a punitive measure but as an instrument taken

in the interest of public safety and the local commercial development. i have been surprised to find how cheaply storefronts can be held under lease in prime quarters, such as central north beach and the balboa triangle. the relative business turnover and periodic business formation in these neighborhoods cannot nearly be attributed to the high cost of lease hold, but to the totality of rising overhead. in fact, the low cost of leasing may lead to an increase in business failure, owing to the relatively low cost of market entry which acts as a lure. of course, the enterprise failure -- well, of course enterprise failure fuels business development and redesign and remodel, and the repurposed restaurants have a tendency to flame

out in a year or three. they may be doubling hit by loss of leaseholder, and to reconfigure the floor plan, as well as a need to reregister the renewed need for property inspection and fee schedule. i'd like to conclude that the new enterprise might find itself at competitive disadvantaged with established businesses. >> chairman: i appreciate your comments. and, you're right, it is not all a function of leasehold prices. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. you know, there is a bunch of different ways that we're trying to attack our storefront and problems. it is going to come as a shock to all of you, one of the ways we think is a really effective way of doing that is to add housing at all levels of aaffordability along our

commercial corridors. we have so many great neighborhoods all over the city. i walk to most of my goods and services in my neighbourhood. i go for hardware stuff, i go to h.d. markets to buy my groceries, and i get lunch just down the street. and when there are more people in the neighbourhood and more people walking around in the neighbourhood, we know they are spending more money. we've seen plenty of data specific to san francisco, specific to the merchant quarters in san francisco, saying that consumers spend the most amount of money if they walk. if we also add additional people to the corridor, that's an additional way we can help our small businesses across the city. thank you. >> chairman: i think that was a comment in support. i'm not sure. next speaker, please. all right. seeing no other members of the public for public comment, thank you for

telling us about your shopping behaviors. are there any comments from committee members. >> thank you, chair peskin. i want to take a moment to thank supervisor fewer. this is a vexing issue for our district, in particular. when i started my run for office and my goal to be a supervisor, this is one the issues i heard over and over again, the high rate of vacancies and empty storefronts in our district. so having the tool to be able to encourage and hopefully compel many of these business owners/property owners to do something with their space -- i mean, the goal is not really to collect money. this is just an encouragement tool to be able to rent these spaces and activate our commercial corridors. and if they don't, then we will collect the money and we will most likely put it back into something positive for the neighbourhood. i just wanted to thank supervisor fewer and her

staff for pushing this forward. and i am in strong support of this. >> chairman: supervisor haney? >> i also want to thank and really congratulate supervisor fewer for your leadership on this. i think it is extraordinary to have such broad support among all of the supervisors, but it is obviously because it is something that really directly affects all of our districts. i was on a walk with my staff down market street last week, and the thing that i think stands out the most, that is most glaring, even on our main thoroughfair in our city, are the number of vacant storefronts, and we were saying, there is one there, and there, and what are we going to do about this? so when this goes through and we're able to easily pull the exact locations, how long they've been vacant, what is happening with them, and have some tools at our disposable to

affect that, it is going to be a great benefit to -- certainly to my district, district 6, where there are also a lot of public safety impacts on when we have these vacant storefronts. so i'm excited to continue to support this work, both with the registry and then as we move forward to making sure that we're filling these vacant storefronts. so thank you for your leadership, and thank you to your legislative aide, who i know has worked a tremendous amount on this. hopefully this will be the last time we have to pass this to his committee, and we'll see it pass out of the board. thank you, and congratulations. >> thanks. >> chairman: colleagues, i call on the sponsor of this legislature, i want to add a couple of things. >> number one, as you all know, and supervisor fewer joined me at a press conference in north beach, where while there is still a re relatively healthy vacancies at 10%, it had

jumped from 5% to 10% in the last three years. and i will be bringing forward to this body a piece of legislation that if we all see fit will be submitted to the voters with regard to a vacancy tax. so i just wanted to put that on the record. the second thing i wanted to say is that while supervisor fewer thanked the small business commission for support of the legislation, i would like to respectfully differ just a little bit, which is that there are three recommendations that were actually recommendations to gut this legislation. and i completely disagree with the 7-0 vote of that body. and i just wanted to state that on the record because i can. with that, supervisor fewer. >> thank you, chairman peskin, and thank you, colleagues, for your support. i just wanted to mention a few things in response to some of the public comment that we just heard. one, that we did meet with

the merchant associations, and they're in support of this ordinance. and also, as they realize that these empty storefronts actually hinder those commercial corridors from reaching their full potential. another thing is that this is not a fine. this is rather a recovery fee. the recovery fee is what d.b.i. spends on actually doing the inspections of these vacant storefronts. and i also wanted to comment that an increase in market-rate housing can lead to identification, which can actually be detrimental to existing merchants as there is currently no rent control on retail space. and so what we're seeing is that when areas identify so quickly and massively around neighborhoods that many of these merchants that have been around for 20 and 30 years are now priced out because there is no retail rent control. so i just wanted to comment on those two

public comment issues, and i want to thank my colleagues for their support. >> chairman: thank you. any other comments. supervisor stefie? >> i want to add one more thing that i think is really wonderful about this but basic, is getting the idea of the exact number, right? i mean, you went out and counted in your district over 156 properties that were empty storefronts, and that's much of the genesis of this legislation. and d.b.i. at the time had zero. so, i mean, understanding the scale of the problem, first and foremost, then allows us as policy-makers to get an idea. i understand that it is complaint-driven, and that is what you are referring to, so this is not a criticism of d.b.i., but at the end of the day, this will now encourage us and allow us to have an exact number of how many empty storefronts there are, and we can then begin to understand the scale of the problem, which is an important part of the

legislation. i just wanted to point that out and say that that was really important. thank you. >> chairman: so which one of you colleagues would like to make a motion. to send this item to the full board. >> i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. >> chairman: can we take that without recommendation -- i mean without objection with recommendation. congratulations, supervisor fewer, and thank you. ms. major, the next item please. >> item number two is an ordinance in ordering the summary street vacation, bragdon street and within the perimeter of the farmers' market, approving jurisdictional transfers of property from the site of market and public works, and agricultural commissioner to the g.s.a., and a affirming appropriate findings. >> chairman: mr. stores, our county surveyor, my notes say this presentation is coming from claudia gore from the

department of real estate. [inaudible] >> this is really a department of public works ordinance because they're the ones that come,. >> chairman: in that case, we should probably get mr. stores back up here. >> it doesn't matter. who would you like? >> chairman: whoever wants to present. >> okay. good afternoon, chair peskin and supervisors. today is an ordinance before you that would do a vacant the remaining portions of three streets that are still within the decades-old alini farmers' market. if you need a lot of information about the history, we have that. but just generally, this started about 20 or 30 years ago, in 1989 and went over to 1993. in 2010, a general plan referral was done to get rid of the remaining portions of the streets that are within the market itself. there are no utilities

within them. there is nothing -- they're not used for sidewalks or streets or anything. it is actually right in the middle of the market, where actually the stalls are located. this will continue that general plan referral to get rid of all of the streets and then transfer the jurisdiction from d.g.w., and transfer it over to real estate division, which took over the operation and the management of the market i think around 2007. >> chairman: so simply put, this is a street vacation and jurisdictional transfer? >> correct. >> chairman: all righty. to the county surveyor, mr. stores. the floor is yours. he said for the record he had nothing to add. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item number two of a very short land use committee agenda? seeing none, the public

comment is closed. this probably should have happened eight years ago, but it is good that it is happening now. it is but a paper transaction between various departments of the city and county of san francisco. is there a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation made by supervisor stefie. we will take that without objection, and we are adjourned.

>> the meeting will come to order. this is the february 22 special meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i am vice chair of the commission and i will be chairing today's meeting. i'm joined by commissioner

hilary ronan to my left, commission singh is on her way and commissioner gordon march to the left. i would like to thank the staff at sfgov tv for recording today's meeting. madam clerk, think announcements? >> make sure to silence all cell phones and documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> thank you. >> madam chair, first order of business if you would like to excuse chair furer for the meeting? >> yes, as she is away this week. >> first and second, please. >> so moved by hilary ronan and seconded by -- gordon marr, with no objections.

so first of all, i would just like to take a moment to welcome commissioners marr and hainey. we are thrilled to have them on this body. we look at the two major pieces of work that they were doing with clean power sf and also with our emerge be mobility's labour study. these are two areas i see your expertise and knowledge being a great asset to this body. so thank you for stepping up and joining lafco. i would like to take a moment to see if any new commissioners may say a few words? none here, ok. madam clerk, could you please call item number two. >> approval of the lafco minutes from the january 24 special meeting. >> do any commissioners have any changes from the january 18t

january 18th mee meeting? can i call both january 4 and january 18 together? any changes to the minutes? seeing no changes, i'll open this up for public comment. any members of the public who wish to comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is now closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes. >> so moved. >> moved by commissioner ronan and seconded by commissioner marr. without objections, these minutes are approved. madam clerk, could you please call item number 3. >> community choice aggregation activity's report, current enrollment and service status, communication's plan for april enrollment, state regulatory activities and state legislative activities. it. >> we have a presentation frommn

francisco public utility's commission. we'll talk about state regulatory and state activities. >> that's right. good morning. director of queen power sf and welcome commissioners haine and marr. we, they summarized what we'll e talking about. we give a standard update on our enrollment which i'm going to provide. we have a bit of a group presentation today from various puc staff that support our work. so i'll be joined up here to go over the community engagement plan for our upcoming enrollment, as well as state legislative activities. if i could get the slides, thank you.

queen power sf service and the university enrollment effort continue to move along successfully. they are now actively serving 111,000 accounts, city-wide. the program continues to maintain a cumulative opt out rate of 3.25% since the program launched in may of 2016. our super green upgrade rate continues to exceed the opt-out rate at 3.8% of the active customers enrolled. that means that queen powers has more than 4,000 businesses and house holds in san francisco that have elected to receive 100% renewable electricity from queen power and, of course, our staff is very busy preparing for next major auto enrollment. we're preparing to welcome over 250,000 additional customer accounts in april. when the enrollment is complete,

we anticipate we'll be serving 360,000 customer accounts city-wide. this month, we began mailing the first of our four queen power enrollment notices as required under state law. we'll be sending these notices in batches each month of about 60 to 70,000 notices a week. that's about one million notices sent out through the enrollment period. we've brought some copies of these notices that customers will be receiving, and i'll distribute them through the executive officer in a moment so you can take a look. and we have some extra copies as well for the public and attendance if they would like to take a look. i'll pause and any questions on this introductory update?

so with that, then, i'll turn the presentation over to tyler gamble, our puu director for the upcoming enrollment. >> good morning. good to see you guys. i'll talk you through what we've done previously, what we're looking at right now and happy to answer any questions along the way that you may have about the work that we're doing. as mike mentioned this month kicks off the last planned and largest enrollment of our sf customers in the history of the program. over the past three years, i think we've learned a lot about our customers, their behaviours, preferences, a new thing for us at the puc. of course we have water and sewer customers but this type of product and program we've

partnered with clean energy advocates, our city family on two previous enrollments and ongoing marketing and outreach on the power programs. we have the knowledge across the state. as mike mentioned with a 97% retention rate in our service and 4% upgrade rate, i'd say we've done a good job. moving forward, there's a comprehensive plan to welcome our newest customers. starting with community presentations and events, weave built a speaker's bureau of team members to deliver sport presentations about the program to residential audiences across the city. we plan to call nearly 140 organizations across the city to provide them with information they can share with their members or to have us come and do face to face presentations, as well. you are all looking at the enrollment notices. those are going out in the mail today. in it, we explain who we are,

what we're offering, how to upgrade, how to opt out if you're not interest and where to find terms and conditions in your preferred language. in all, we will send out one million notices to customers. so they'll be well aware of the program and what's happening and actually, i think in a pretty informative and educational way here for these notices. on advertising, we're placing fun upbeat paid advertisement with inside and outside buses and west portal and forest hill stations, in neighborhood newspapers city-wide and in-language publications such as world journal. print ads will run primarily in march and outdoor ads through may and planning an upgrade to the digital ad campaign that will go out likely later this spring. on social media, we're excited about it and we've seen

engagement on clean power sf twitter and we leverage the twitter page which has the most following of all of the puc platforms to talk about the program, as well. i'm happy to report we've merged with the see year ya club san francisco page which was created several years ago where there was likely a void of communication on clean energy. but we've been able to merge pages together and we'll actively use the work they've done and doing to communicate during this enrollment to reach all of our customers and community organizations. a lot of the neighborhood organizations that we work with in san francisco communicate via facebook group so that's really important there. of course we'll partner with our city family. we've created a digital press kit we'll share with our city family, including your offices. next week you should be receiving those and you can cut, copy and paste those into the newsletters. we have examples of posts,

photos and things like that, as well. another really cool pieces around our super green customers and so we're trying to develop this community. they've been some of our best ambassadors and we've had great partnerships with large companies like linked-in and rainbow grocery and heath ceramics. we'll partner to offer challenges and incentives to get their own customers and employee to opt to super green. businesses like the new wheel, business gear have confirmed this for residential customer. 15% off of a new item at last-minute gear and super green cocktails drink at true laurel. so really excited about that. a great opportunity to get out there where residents are and engage with them where they're at. we're expanding outreach to limited-english communities, doing everything we can to target residents whose first language is not english.

philippino, mandarin and spanish websites are live on our website. as i mentioned already we're doing specific ads in publications that reach those audiences, doing editorial board meetings. this week we sat down to talk about our initiatives across the puc including clean power sf to try to get a better understandings of what readers are hearing from the program. our ivr, the system you call to speak with customer service is available in philippino, spanish and mandarin on the way soon and a journal working group looking at equity in our program and language outreach is a part of that. finally, looking at a strong media strategy will leverage media outlets to tell our story is ongoing and i was excited about the bay area last friday that had a shinning about clean

power triple, households in san francisco. couldn't have asked for a better headline there. the biggest goal we have right now is awareness. we're going to continue do everything to tell our clean energy story, educate residences and businesses that there is another option and that it comes from their city. we're generating cleaner, greener electricity. the secondary goal is to increase the upgrades and we'll do that well beyond the spring enrollment. if i can answer my questions, always happy to take suggestions from you guys of things you might hear from your constituents, as well, to help us amplify our reach. >> i'm just wondering if you're using all of the attention to

pg & e and bankruptcy and the bad acts as a way of sort of highlighting that there is at least a partial alternative here in san francisco? just out of curiosity. >> yes, i think we're doing that in a way that is tasteful, if that makes sense. but definitely making sure that folks understand that there is that other option and there are definitely a lot of positives to the programming that we offer and that there is certainly a difference in the way that we operate. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, tyler. so shifting gears here, we are going to dive into our state regulatory update.

so we're highlighting some select activities. there's a lot going on. a lot of details. so we're going to try to cover this as thoroughly as we can. of course, if you have any questions, please let us know and we're happy to get back to you through the executive officer with more information on any of these things. so to start with, on the pg & e bankruptcy, i think it's been covered quite widely in the press, almost on a daily basis that since january 29 or on january 29, pg & e filed for bankruptcy due to pending liabilities from state wildfires in 2017 and '18. prior to its actual bankruptcy filing, pg & e filed with the pupublic utility commission to

enter to $6 billion of debt, to provide with cash needed to support operations. further under state law a regulated utility must seek approval to issue debt and the commission can find the regulated utility exempt from certain provisions of the law on exemption, specifically for debtor financing. on that same day, pg & e filed ford an expedited procedural schedule requesting that the california commission issue a ruling by january 28th. debtor and possession financing essentially means the company is offering assets as collateral to lenders who may possess assets if pg &est defaults o & e defauf

the loans. they argued that the debt financing would provide the cash that the company needs to operate through the expected bankruptcy process. so this is prior to actually filing for bankruptcy. the california puc ended up calling an emergency meeting on the 28th and didn't approve the request. in that decision, the california puc found that it had to ensure that the pg & e and state were prepared for contingencies in the case of a bankruptcy filing to ensure that the company was able to continue operating during the bankruptcy proceedings. we indicated, i believe, at the last meeting that a possible impact to clean power of a bankruptcy was a delay in the remittance from pg & e of customer payments. a delay of remittance did, in fact, occur, starting wit occure

day of the filing. as indicated to us prior to the bankruptcy filing, they asked to remit payments and other third party providers to customers as part of the ongoing normal business. ijust a couple of days later on january 31, the court issued an order to continue the payment remittance. in terms of when money started flowing again, that occurred on february 4, so as i said, it has stopped on february 4, the city started again receiving normal payments from pg & e including the remittance of payments that had not been submitted to the city for the four or five days after the filing. to date, clean power sf has not experienced any other impacts related to the bankruptcy. pg & e continues to do all of

the meters, billing, credit collection to accounts in the ordinary course of business consistent to the city as a cca. of course, we're going to continue to monitor very closely payments and the performance of pg & e in meeting places to clean power sf and provide reliable service to customers going forward and we'll continue to provide the body with updates, as billion. as well the next item i wanted to discuss is generation rates for 2019, which we've spoken about in previous meetings. normally pg & e electricity rates are set every year on january 1. before this occurs, they typically issue a decision in december in a proceeding called the energy resource recovery account. we call that era.

that decision was delayed this year and as a result that has delayed pg & e's implementation of the electricity rates. the delay is affecting the implementation of pg & e's generation rates and exit fee, the power charge and difference adjustment that cca participating customers must pay pay. they issued a decision yesterday. so as a result, we're now anticipating that the new pg & e exit fees and generation rates will take effect on either apri. pg & e is expected to file rates with the california puc towards the end of march. they have 30 days from the day of the decision, indicating the specific effective date of the rates and we've heard april or may and that's what we're

looking at. at that time, the sf puc will finalize clean power rates per the rate action taken on december 11 and approved by the board of supervisors following the rate hearing of february 15. until the rates are implemented, clean power existing rates will remain in effect and will continue to be below pg & e's generation rates. clean power assessed rates are currently to provide customers with a 2% savings against pg & e's generation costs after accounting for the exit fee. and more on the pcia. the california puc also has a proceeding open to address reforms to the exit fee methodology. there was a decision issued for

phase one of that proceeding in october. and phase two was just initiated earlier this month. so the california puc issued a scoping memo laying out its agenda for this next phase. key issues in this upcoming phase include implementation of an annual true-up in the exit fee and that's a new mechanism in place by the last decision. previously this was based on forecasts, almost exclusively and now they're looking back at actual costs and revenues associated with pg & e's portfolio and making a fee to the following year and that in theory can go either direction. it can cause it to go up or down

depending on market conditions. another item is, they'll be considering prepayment of the pcia. so the idea is that a community could pay sort of in a lump sum advance the community's pcia's obligations as a way to fix and create certainty going forward for customers and for program planning. the california commission will also be examining the pg & e and other investor-owned utility's management practices to see if there are opportunities to reduce costs and to manage that portfolio in a more efficient manner for all rate repairs. not just to affect the pcie and exit fee but any customers in the territory. and then finally, the commission will be examining potential allocation of pg & e contracts

and resources to ccas and new sales mechanisms, like an auction, to sell off any excess offers that they may have to third-party purchasers like ccas. so i think the key thing is that pg & e is a result of ccas forming in california are long. they have excess power resources and in this next phase the california puc will address new ways to address liquidating those excess resources. resources. >> i have a quick question and i don't see a good place to ask this question except here. i saw last week they submitted saying the pg & e should get out of the retail electricity business and become a wire's only utility.

is there a reason why clean power sf didn't sign on to this letter with the other seven ccas? >> hi, i'm the assistant general manager for power and i just wanted to help out on the answer on that one. cal cca, as an association did not make a filing, so just to be clear, there was a filing that was made by a collection of ccas and then there were filings separately made by ccas. san francisco submitted its own filing. >> separate from those? >> correct. so san jose filed its on, san francisco filed its on and then there were, i think, five or seven ccas that jointly work together with an attorney that they had hired to prepare their filings. and that was this the commission

safety oii. >> can you suc summarize what sanfrancisco's position was. >> mr. heims was about to do that. >> thank you so much. >> thanks, barbara. so good segway because this final slide here, which includes a number of proceedings that werwe're active in -- >> excuse me. >> please go ahead. >> i just had a few questions about the pcia. since i'm new to this commission, maybe you've covered this in the past. so i just want to make sure i understand this because this has been -- this is really important and contentious. so the pcia or exit fee that was already -- from was already initial decision by the

california puc about the amount that would be charged to clean power sf in phase one? >> yes. to be a little more specific, what the phase one decision did is adopted changes to a methodology that the california puc adopted to calculate the pcia on an annual basis and assign what are intended to be the above-market costs of commitments that pg & e and other utilities made forming. so the decision itself doesn't set any values. it sets a methodology and framework and the utilities at the staff puc calculate that in a proceeding every year that then gets adopted. >> thank you. and then based on that new

methodology, what was the amount that pg & e charged in the exit fees to clean power sf? >> are you looking for an aggregate dollar amount? >> yes, so this is added to the rate payer's bill. >> that's exactly right. the pcia is a charge that shows up on the pg & e side of the electricity bill. so this is an pg & e fee shows up when a expert is participating in a program like this. it's a per kilowatt rate. so it in perspective, so the pcia is paid by all pg & e customers. it's embedded in the generation rate. so if you're a customer that

doesn't live or do business in a community that has the program, you're paying the same costs but it's embedded in the pg & e generation rate. when a community forms a cca and you move to participate in that cca, a new charge shows up to recover a portion of pg & es costs, which have been deemed to be above market and that's where the pcia comes into play. to put into perspective for a residential customer, the pcia in pg & e's service territory is on the order of 30 to 40% of the generation supply cost. >> that's the amount that customers continue to pay even as a cca. >> thank you. do you have an aggregate amount? i'm just wanting to understand

what we're talking about here. >> i think probably what would be best would be for me to direct a number through the executive officer. it's on the order of $80 million, i would say, per year, somewhere in there. but we'll bring those numbers back. >> great. my final question is around the phase two process that's happening right now for these rates. what is your expectation or do you have any expectation of what is going to happen? will that be additional costs added? or will it be a reduction, possibly? >> well, i'm hopeful that what we'll see are improvements that not just benefit the pcia but that can benefit all rate payers of pg & e.

there are reforms considered in the next phase that can really be beneficial state-wide regardless of whether your community has elected to run a cca or not. and, for example, the portfolio management work that i was mentioning earlier has the potential to reduce costs for all rate payers and that would affect the pcia as well. i think the other thing that's really important that i'm cautiously optimistic about is that the california puc will do more to recognize that we have a new landscape in california, a much more competitive market and because the investor and utilities like pg & e have been for the main buyer in the market, they now have more resources than they need and those resources should be made available to all rate payers. they were commitments entered

into and they should be made available to the market in an efficient way. so i think reforms potentially like a new auction process that makes those access resources available on a regular basis could result in cost savings for all market participants. so i'm hopeful that those things will be considered. in terms of timing, we're probably looking at something that's about a year out in terms of a decision. given these are fairly complex issues. >> thank you so much. >> so we were going to talk about the safety investigation. so the california puc opened this proceeding which is

addressing pg & e's current corporate governance structure and operations to determine in the utility is positioned to provide safe and electrical gas service in california. as miss hail mentioned earlier, the city and county of san franciscole filed comments, the puc worked with the city attorney's office and those were filed last week on the 13th of february. and those comments included that voicing a concern that pg & e has not organized its business in a manner to provide safe service to its rate payers with observation that corporate culture promoting the company's image and financial performance over substantive focus on safety matters. the comments highlighted pg & e's increasingly poor record when it comes to

providing safe and reliable service here in san francisco. but of course throughout the entire service area. the comments made clear the city's view that public ownership of some or all of pg & e's system is a viable alternative to the status quo. and the comments also encouraged the commission to recognize that public ownership and local control of utility service has traditionally offered safe and reliable service with greater transparency, accountability and fiscal and social responsibility. oftentimes, typically, at lower costs than service from the investor and utilities and we see examples in california with other public utilities. >> will the puc's thoughts on this be included in the report that you provide to the mayor?

>> on the general question of public service, yes, absolutely. i think that's at the heart of that study, definitely. so we're pretty early in the process of this proceeding. these comments filed were comments on the order instituting the rule-making so that's really the very first step. so this is something that's just kicking off. the california puc laid out a large number of questions for parties to address and i think one thing that's positive is the sort of breadth issues they're considering, including public ownership. so we will be very involved in that and that's probably part of the reason, too, we filed our own comments in this case. i think we have significant interest in the issues being addressed here. >> does the puc see clean power

sf as an entity that can request the bankruptcy proceedings be moved to another judge? has that been a part of the discussion at all? >> so i'm assistant general manager for power and the city's participation in the bankruptcy court is really directed through the city attorney's office and so i don't believe we're in a position to respond to that question. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> any other questions on that first item? so the next three items here can be grouped together because they address issues related to managing and mitigating the impacts of wildfires and dangerous conditions that may lead to wildfires in the future as required by senate bill 901.

the first, the deenergyization of power lines addresses the issue of utilities pro actively deenergizing the powerlines to limit the potential impact of powerline related fire. of course, this has impacts on the community as being served. so this is focused on guidelines for utilities to follow. the proceeding has impacts on our head chief facilities and, of course, to the county of san francisco to the extent that large pieces of the system are deinedeeng erb rized and they wl prepare and submit wildfire litigation plans that describe the plans to prevent combat and respond to wildfires affecting their service territories. that requirement is being taken

up in the wildfire mitigation's plan proceeding. and the city afinally the califs opened up wildfire cost recovery to consider and adopt criteria for use by the puc in future applications from the utilities for cost recovery of wildfire costs. on this one, we've filed comments in this proceeding and consistent with the board of supervisor's resolution, 4419, the city attorney's office argued that to the california puc that state legislators and regulators should not charge utility rate payers for the costs of wildfire damage caused by pg & e. and that successfully confronting this challenge will require a comprehensive policy and operational changes and

engagement of all sectors including public entities, insurancers,ensurers and develo. we filed comments on the general scope of the proceeding. i think the issues here are complex and in our comments, we argue that this will require expert testimony hearing. so this will probably be a six to eight-month type of timeline. the next two proceedings, disconnections and access to affordability, i also grouped together here. the first would set rules for disconnections of rate payers, including san francisco pg & e customers and provides a good forum for the sf puc in the city to participate and discuss dis-agency andisconnection and y

issues that seek to balance equity, public health and safety and the need to operate a financially sound business. and to be clear, typically these disconnectses are for lacdisconf payment. the second proceeding here, the afford abilitability is focusinn developing methods and processes to assess the impact of affor affordability on individual puc and decisions. the california puc is developing methods to assess and determine the impacts its decisions will have on the important goal of affordability for rate payers. and as i indicated