you're saying what happens if there's no buildout. there's no commitment from the city to shell to conduct a buildout. only to buy a certain amount of -- >> no, what i'm saying is a lot of advocates for the program and allies and colleagues and a lot of us have put their faith in you to deliver something to deliver that is not what anyone wanted to, to turn it into what folks want after rates are set. and if it doesn't happen, does everyone, does the puc say, hey, it never happened? and sierra club say, yeah, it never turned into what we want it to be. do we say hey, do over, and shell says, hey, no hard feelings, what is the consequence? >> no, there's no consequence with shell as long as we purchase power for customers for 4-1/2 years at a given rate. >> so, we'd be locked in for 4-1/2 years whatever those terms are. if it didn't become what we want it to become after rates are set? >> yes. >> we'll stop at yes because my point is now is the time to get this right because once we have that, we're going for 4-1/2 years and we lose th

when you get into phase ii and we do the buildout. and as commissioner wald rightly points out, that buildout is not going to happen unless we -- you as a commission, you as a department, we as advocates, make sure that the sfpuc and the board of supervisors does it. and under ab 117, the 2002 law passed for community insurance aggregation, i want to reassure you, and this can be done, if the sfpuc ends up not doing the program we want, the board of supervisors is empowered by that law, ab 117, to get advice from the local agency formation commission on how to build out that buildout program regardless whether the sfpuc wants to do or not. and you the department of environment because you have been involved in a lot of energy efficiency buildout would be the natural vehicle for that. so, the reality is we all need to make this happen. and if we find that the sfpuc is not getting it together, we can make it happen ourselves. is that a risk? yes. will stopping the not to exceed rate vote next week change much? the answer is no. and as m

are those incorporated in your local buildout? those seem to be things we could -- we talk about how it's all delayed. >> yes, in my local buildout planning, there is consideration of projects that the city has been studying and would like to construct if it had load to serve. and we would get into more serious conversations about development of those projects if we had customers to serve. >> because they wouldn't be profitable just on a stand alone basis? >> no. >> just selling power to the -- >> pg&e? >> -- to pg&e? >> no, pg&e doesn't need bucket 1 renewable resources right now. >> i get it. >> but i didn't do that analysis. i'm telling you what my understanding. >> i have our director would like to say something. i know we have jason freed from lafco. we've got a public that's wait tog comment. because we're coming right up on the limit of our ten-minute estimated time on this item. [laughter] >> thank you for all of the time you're spending on this. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i did just want to mention that we do have da

i've given them a 20-page draft of an outline of a bunch of buildout strategies. >> what's the number from the draft of the outline? maybe for everybody to know, what's the number of in-city solar, in-city cogeneration -- >> there's no numbers in it. first of all, my constraint is that in the first two years i'm only going to have about $8 million to dedicate to buildout of energy efficiency projects. and we haven't gotten to that level of detail in our own planning. although we do have a report coming in from some consultants that will identify >> lot of solar -- a lot of solar sites in the city and on city properties, and that will help us with our planning ~. >> that's coming to the sfpuc before tuesday? >> i don't know if i can form a final document by tuesday, no. no. >> so, we don't have a number on the in-city renewables -- >> no. >> is that because of the challenges around the rates and looking at the renewable energy credits around options as rates? is that kind of driving that function? >> yes. so, for example, if the city were to purchase a portfolio from shell that was 25%

i wasn't asked to come tonight to give a presentation on our plan for buildout and i'd like to at least get you a copy of what i provided to the advocate who supports the direction we're going in. [speaker not understood]. i just want you to know what we've been collaborating about and the analysis we've done so far. >> okay, thanks. >> okay. so, can i read what we have so far? >> yes. >> that we, the san francisco commission on the environment, encourage the san francisco public utilities commission to, one, adopt a rate structure for clean power sf that has rates competitive with pg&e. two, make it clear that the city and the sfpuc do not want a future that is dependent on recs. three -- i'm making it separate, melanie. four, is commit today achieving the city's -- using the program to achieve the city's greenhouse gas goals. or clean power. to achieve the city's greenhouse gas goals. and four, commit to a program that maximizes local unionized jobs. our commission has concerns about the current design of the program and the progress being made towards realizing the city's local renew

. >> and, so, if san francisco were to do a lot of local buildout of solar power plants, they would not be able to count those -- that power as bundled or -- how -- >> that's an interesting question that i can't answer. as i said, that's not a california public utilities commission rule. that would be a clear issue for pg&e since we directly regulate them. our regulatory relationship with a community choice aggreoror is very regulatory like. i don't know how our rules on who owns the recs under cfi would apply to something like clean energy san francisco. but it is possible if that is the scenario. >> commissioner king has a question. let me just ask a quick question. i'm going to ask a quick technical. we're going to lose anybody that's following this question. i would like to ask one technical and one kind of more from a community perspective kind of question. if i may, commissioner king. >> just briefly. >> one, everyone agrees solar in terms of the renewable word, great. no controversy with respect to a solar rec, say. biomass, a little bit more controversial. in what you're talking

regime that's according to the free syrian army political coordinator earlier told my colleague buildout that they against any is with us side who has agreed to comply with the chemical disarmament plan actually we think that bashar lesson here understands only one logic that the force they don't understand anything about chemical all the other stuff it's about but never misses a major symbolic gesture isn't it by the assad regime to say yes we agree with this initiative proposed by the russians now and would that not then pave the way to a more diplomatic proma see a more talks with the f.s.a. engage in dialogue the regime has by the regime is lying about that you just want to buy time we don't trust but we don't always like to on. all the time for us we will not go in. if we will sold our people have blood for sure we want a solution to support solution in syria we are not fighting just for a fight we are not fighting because we love to hold guns and shooting at us we need a solution in syria but the solution is start with bashar assad to step away and he lives this people to the syria

these elements that we hopefully with success will have filled and can be incorporated into the 2014 buildout of both phase ii of the terminal as well as the northeast wharf plaza. with that, ends the presentation. >> thank you. is there a motion to approve this item? >> i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> and we have public comment. alex walker. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. executive director. my name is alex walker with san francisco beautiful. was here last month because we had seen the news of the donor's program. we were worried about naming rights because at san francisco beautiful we have had a policy of -- it whatant sure we have a specific [speaker not understood] in our places, making sure we're not doing naming rights for corporations and plastering those on places. but this programming coming today to say for the most part we're happy to see that it's said here there are not naming rights for pier parks or buildings. even though i haven't seen the specific mention in here, i haven't seen corporate mentioned. i'm assuming it can be individual and foundational gifts. i h

and we are planning to initiate work on our local buildout at launch. we're doing planning and work on that right now which i can explain a little more in a few minutes. as i mentioned, we have a contract with shell energy of north america for 20 to 30 megawatts of power. and something that i've been working on very hard in the last month or so is an investigation of whether we can be buying power in-house with expertise we already have. san francisco puc already scheduled and delivers about 240 megawatts of power to municipal and other customers every year, adding -- adding 10 or 20 megawatts would not be a big change in what they're doing. it's a matter of conducting some risk assessment and figuring out the best way to do that on behalf of the city. i also think i should tell you that we believe we could serve the program with hetch hetchy power at least four months out of most years and we're doing some analysis of that internally as well. and finally because the shell contract has been quite controversial for some, we've asked shell to investigate

. >> we said in our brief that the rules actually distance and -- disincent broadband buildout. >> that is sort of a projection all methodology very.-- on economic theory. i do not see any real dispute. >> our amicus pointed out evidence that we think shows that these rules will deter broadband deployment. >> but these are not historical facts. those are projections, right? i'm not sure there is really a dispute between the two of you at all. >> when the agency regulates by its own admission in order to shut down an entire side of a potentially two-sided market and differentially -- essentially freeze the development of commercial arrangement, yes, i think we are necessarily -- >> is it not -- it's about [inaudible] one side said if these rules are in fact or were in fact -- these rules would limit investment, right? by broadband providers. on the other side, you have experts and witnesses who say perhaps it will, but the overall internet will be benefited overall by the positive changes that will flow, that the investment that will come from that will turn around and produce a better s

the sprint buildout, the t-mobile bill out.ll of these guys need more optical and next generation optical coming and these guys have the next generation optical. we need optical to watch all the gizmos. are you watching "house of cards". >> on my ipad mini, yeah. >> okay. >> jdsu. >> take capital expenditures by the big carriers and influx, t-mobile trying to compete. at&t still trying to catch. and verizon got to keep spending. >> isn't it something how much they've got to spend. great article on how the young people, they do not want landlines, okay? again, you need this. >> they don't want landlines. they don't want cable, either. >> well, i can't speak to that. i'm a cable -- i'm a cable guru. >> you're also a cable god. >> yes. >> yes. i'll come to your house. >> your network rely on that. you may want to get out there and talk to each one of those viewers. that's a story for another day. >> and i'm going to throw one at you. alcatel/lucent. >> not a chance. >> back from the dead. "walking dead," "true blood." watch it on