i believe mr. heims, i think it was you, brought it up at the last meeting that we need to acquire a bond or credit rating for the clean power sf program and is there a way to feed into the process of determining what is financially feasible and what is not some. >> so the two programs, municipal utility and a community-choice aggregation program are two offerings. the hedge program has a credit rating and using that credit rating to support its revenue bond financed capital program. so we're already doing that as a municipal utility. the voters in june of 2018 supported an expansion of that or additional authority or a change in the authority, i should say, on how we use revenue bonds that allows us to utilize our credit rating for acquisition and construction of distribution systems and other supply, new supply. so we have the financial tools, if you will to move forward. you're right, the clean power sf program does not. we're the citwere the city to gh an acquisition and service to all of san francis

. >> 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 eve

mr. waken heim who made his living doing that. and he said this ban implicate aed his dignitiary interests. in my article i don't take a position one aor another. >> i think your article has been interpreted that you were okay with a dwarf tossing. this is one of the reasons that an organizations that supports their -- their issues is very much against your nomination. after elina kagen was nominated to the supreme court you criticized the confirmation process and wrote that nominees are and quote to choose from certain stock answers process, nominees are confirmed based on platitudes. you argue the nominee should not be confirmed based on incantations of the right formulas without an examination of their actual believes. sitting here through all of the nominees that we have had hearings on that, that what we do get are platitudes and i believe that public discourse suffers. it's very difficult for us to ascertain what your actual believes are. since you believe that we should get to the actual believes, it must be because you bel