barbara hale for power. i do want to acknowledge your participation at the public utilities commission meeting. it's great to keep that dialogue open with commissions opens and we do have a calendar in response to your specific request. i think that will help. i think the direction, the guidance and request we were given to our commission in how to get this moving is to provide further information on the local build out framework and plan that we had placed before the commission and we will spend time going over that same presentation with you today. we will also provide some updates on how things are going on the regulatory activities front at the california puc and both presentations i'm very please today tell you will be made by our new director kim malcolm. kim comes from a long career working on energy issues both at the california public utilities commission where among other things and relevant to this program she was the administrative law judge who developed rules for this state and also from the no

barbara hale assistant general manager for power. good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public. we have a pretty full agenda for you today. we are going to begin with a presentation from dave mets of sm # from our clean power results and we have some follow up items from our march 12, commission meeting that i will be responding to. we are going to review the proposed not to exceed rates, director of financial planning kristin hollings will make that presentation and we have our chair rate fairness board on the proposed not to exceed rate. so with that i would like if s f g tv could bring our powerpoint presentation and we'll hear from mr. mets. >> thank you very much. i'm david mets. i'm here to provide you with a brief summary of the results that have survey. it's already been presented to members of the public utilities commission and i will move through it fairly quickly and answer questions you may have. you will see here the methodology of the survey, it tracts the survey that we have conducted for p u c and prior ye

. >> so, werbach, barbara hale he assistant manager. we're back to talk about the items you identified for us at the joint puc/lafco meeting, meeting before last for you. ~ and that was two primary tasks. first, to develop a robust outline of the build out of our clean power s.f. program, including the mix of resources, the investment and funding levels, the sources of those funds, the greenhouse gas impacts, and the local jobs impacts. our new director that was introduced to you at our last meeting will make that presentation, kim malcolm. but before she launches into that, i want to advise you of two other issues. the second piece of -- to do from our prior meetings was a comparison of our proposed program with other programs operationally proposed in california and across the nation. we're still doing some more homework on the -- on that comparison and we'll provide it to you in written form so that we can discuss it at the next meeting at your [speaker not understood]. we're working with lafco staff to put that together. and we've h

barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. we can use hetch hetchy power. we need to provide it to the program in a manner consistent with the raker act and in a manner that provides us with revenue neutrality from the municipal side of our operations . ~ launch so, we can provide hetch hetchy power to the program, but we can't discount it in order to make the program look better to our cca customers. because that means our municipal customers are sort of foregoing some revenues they otherwise would have achieved. >> so, if we were to use hetch hetchy power, we would have to pay full market value for it? >> well, yes. what we would have received had we sold it on the market. >> which really is a subsidy by the taxpayers? >> that we're trying to avoid that subsidy of selling it below what we otherwise would have achieved. >> right. okay. >> and i just also wanted to emphasize since i have the microphone now, commissioner vitor, as you're looking at this buildout timeline, i want to make sure you're reading it the way we intend. you can see the rows describe

according to barbara hale presented that launch is 5 percent of the potential customer base in terms of gig watt hours used up. that means this is a launch that still has 80 percent of the whole usage of the city that has to be dealt w with. we are not going to have a program if it's only going to work with that power, we are not going to have a program if those people aren't there to purchase that power. if those 80 percent don't have competitive prices there is not going to be any build out to serve that base. even though we spend a lot of time talking about the initial 5 percent, the real concern is 80 percent is because that's where the real job, the real benefit is from the potential customers. that's why the focus around having a very clear plan. in the letter that i sent to you all, we advocates have put together a set of criteria that we feel that build out plan must meet if it's going to be a good basis for decision making and i want to focus on that because those are the kind of criteria, that build out plan has to be able to talk about the amount of investment that takes p

i think with -- if i may add, barbara hale, it also includes a rate stabilization fund which accumulates to 500,000 each year which is 2-and-a-half million over the program. what does that work on the in terms bond of is capacity? >> 2-and-a-half million is roughly $25 million. >> so the 14 cents rate has that capacity and we are talking about changes in the cost structure, the liever gives you more and we'll be looking for guidance from our commission on what the right mix should be, how you wish to, if you wish to make those changes , how you want us to apply the lower cost in rate savings and capacity >> what would be providing with us the different scenarios that shows the bonding capacity and increase in bonding capacity because it gives us a sense of how we want to adjust the rates in terms of how we want to accomplish that plan. >> mr. torres? >> i want to make sure that we understand that this issue has to be extended until our april 23rd meeting to make sure we have the scenarios of the chairman referencing this. this is the first time we have seen this data. >> yes. commissione

. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager. the report that the city's chief economist prepared, did not look at the prospects for local investment. so it looked at the shell contract and at the increase in pricing assumed that if you were paying more on your electric bill, you as a san francisco resident wouldn't have that money to spend in other ways here in san francisco and it would therefore decrease jobs in other sectors. but the report explicitly acknowledged that it did not look at the local investment, local build portion of the clean power sf program. so that's how it's distinguished. >> also in terms of the renewable as well >> correct, the contract is on renewable and the local investment component is not located in that chief economist report. >> california certified renewable, yes. >> thank you, we are getting into the territory about why -- we discussed this in the last meeting that there is misinformation put out about the loss of jobs and energy created. that's confused a lot of people in san francisco. althoug

. >> barbara hale, general assistant manager for power. i think in the early days of the program policy statements, that was the objective, meet or beat the rate that was otherwise being offered to san franciscans by pg&e. given the method of recovering costs that the state of california requires for cca programs where if a customer leaves the utility service to go to the cca, they take some of the utility's costs with them. that's an incredibly heavy lift. add to that the fact that -- >> we shouldn't have made the promise, bottom line. [speaker not understood]. the promise was made on the basis of pg&e rates at that time, correct? >> so respectfully, commissioner, i think it wasn't a promise. i think it was a policy statement of the goal of the program. when it was initially conceived and captured in city resolutions in like 2004 -- >> let's not parse words. the impression that the rate payers on the street believe that a commitment was made for this program to initiate, then we would either meet or beat the pg&e rates. all i'm saying is