other cca 's have been meeting those goals. it doesn't do m uch to undo the bad reputation of high cost and high popularity and high opt out that will fact other cca's they have then roment and people opting out. it's a very entrusted mechanism and over 50 percent opt out will undermined and violate that trust. we have been work ing to get us there. it's critical to achieve this and setting sites and developing the financial model so we can get to a well designed plan and submitted criteria for what that plan needs to en compass. we are ego eager to support this plan. >> i'm karen babbitt. a resident and very excited about this program and thank you for all of your work. i know it's been a long road. because i'm so excited about this is i want it to succeed and want to focus on one main thing and that's the rate. in talking with people over this over the years, the cost issue comes up all the time probably because of the group of people i hang around with. i want you to keep that in mind, keep in mind the rates and opt out rate

and it's disadvantaging competitors like our cca program. so, we will be -- we intend to develop comments to the cpuc along those lines, raising our concerns about the details. but we are happy to see that pg&e's settlement proposal for the green tariff option does include the prospect, the possibility of local renewables being constructed. we're concerned that it doesn't make a strong enough commitment towards that. it doesn't give enough detail as to how they're going to accomplish that. but we are happy to see that they are making statements suggesting that they intend for that to be a part of the program at some point in the future. do you have any questions on those item that i've given you a quick run down on? so, then, let me turn it over to our new director kim malcolm to go over the build out framework. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> welcome, ms. malcolm. >> thank you. i thought i'd start by saying that i spent my last few weeks actually [speaker not understood] meeting with the puc staff and a lot of time with staf

cincinnati, there is an average savings in their cca of $133 per year. marine clear energy who we like to point to as a success story, they are 1 cents of kilowatt hour. we are talking more than 7 cents of kilowatt hour. this is a hundred percent green energy. this data is on the department of energy, us department of energy. it's very reliable on the web. the reason we believe for the san francisco's extra ordinarily high plan, it's very -- when we say the plan later, i bet when they did their planning first. we urge you to look at this more and get a rate that is not going to have a 50 percent opt out which is extraordinarily high. thank you very much. >> thank you . next speaker. >> hello. my name is -- ron boreno. as a student of environmental health -- i'm happy to see that we are continue to go strive as a cleaner city of the nation. only if we give a strong priority to local build out. we want the san francisco residents to stay with the program and benefit from the sustain able, jobs. let's give san francisco clean power and allowing the city to

we can work with our cca customers to get them enrolled in energy efficiency programs as we're developing new ones. and we can also issue an rfp early on to see apart of a survey that's out there and what kind of interest there is in building out some new, probably smaller projects at first. do you have any questions about this timeline? >> yes, i do. i don't know why everything is starting to late. >> late? >> why wouldn't we start a lot of this stuff, you know, today, that energy metering in a substantive way, feeding tariff programs, you know? there's even some of the c-e-q-a stuff if need be. >> the net metering and the feed-in tariff, we can't purchase power until we can sell it to the customer. so, it would have to be concurrent with the launch of the -- providing [speaker not understood] to the customers. >> i don't want to kind of get in the weeds of it. i guess what's behind all this is my sort of anxious us in to really get this rolling and -- >> i know. >> and whether this is a place we can leverage hetch hetchy power, for example, or i mean, i understand this is sort of a chic

cca employs more than 500 people in the united states. the majority of the workers in the u.s. on their work sites it's 100% union labor. cca successfully bids for state and municipal projects, the companies failed to garner any big federal projects. >> cca is a subsidiary of a firm that is still majority owned by the chinese government. the projects include the water cube of the beijing olympics. chinese state owned firms are off tin distrusted because many believe they get subsidies. >> we are in the 100% industry. >> denies that as well. he is forced to pay the same interest rates as anyone else. the banks also want to be profitable. >> i know from my heart that we don't have anything. >> he knows in his heart that he doesn't have advantage but he will struggle to convince people of that. the alliance for american manufacturing reached out and said the chinese state owned firms get lots of benefits and it's unfair. >> $6.5 billion of chinese investment last year. how much u.s. investment is going into china. >> 60 billion. that was just last year. you consider all of the chi

. >> as part of our commission meeting we talked about decoupling the actual cca program in the local build out. so what we talked about is that we really have to work with lpi to look at see about a local build out and so at the last commission meeting which you are probably going to talk more about is what were some of the issues that the commission had on the lpi model and the major was a billion dollars of bonding for a bunch of projects behind the meter and what had to come online to fit the model. i think that was the concern. so we are really planning on trying to see what appetite we have as far as building a local build out because once you start planning on local build out, you are going to have to sequel. so the question is what do we have an appetite to really fund. meanwhile we know that everyone enjoys going solar and it a job creation so that was the money that was identified by the board of supervisors and the mayor asked me to increase solar for the go solar. to answer your question, we at the puc feel we have to do more and how much more do we have an appetite? >> i

i have heard their eagerness to get cca launched as quickly as possible. so i would support the motion if we can find the time to schedule that in all due haste, hopefully in the next one or two weeks, and hopefully everybody's prepared to vote one way of the other. >> president torres: i would like to do more diligence on sonoma, and finding answers that perplexes many. i was talking to commissioner moran, this issue has been around for decades and how to find the right approach on the right rate is important but also whoever is listening this is not an effort to destroy the program or stop it. i will continue church pg&e to come up with a maternity of. will not abandon our approach in this matter. >> i would ask in the interim it's that could put together an articulation of our offering that makes it is rich and appealing an alternative as possible. and i think that we have been kind of down in the weeds; this is why you need to put your money with us, why you invest in the city. the set of values that you want to incorporate as part of your power of pur

to thank you for bring thg -- bringing this up and it's important that these funds are allocated to cca customers. that is an exclusive we offer and that ought to be retained for people who put their faith in this center. >> so if there are no more questions on the part of the presentation we can move to the not to exceed rate portion of the presentation and kristin hollings will make that presentation to you. thank you. >> thus thank you for your presentation. >> good afternoon, my name is crisp in hollings, rates will require additional approval and maybe lower t the rates you have seen before today are what we have received -- reviewed and the key layers by miss hale. the rates we are presenting here today are new and unique and the customer base has a choice of whether or not to participate. starting with my first slide. i want to start with this slide which shows something of a 10 thousand foot view in terms of the charges. i want to point out 2 row, starting with rates, for basic tariffs there is a flat rate. with the exception of sewer rates with basic residential customers the r

there are a number of existing programs that we can facilitate with our new cca customers and we are hoping to get some additional cpuc funding for energy efficiency. we understand marine county got some recently. we plan larger projects and larger buildings in the city. we have $2 million to allocate to the program for lower efficiency low income households. the secretary -- second build out is renewable arrangement. we can construct new projects on city project -- or private property and part of the component of this part of the program would be behind the meter on investment which would save can -- customers on distribution cost. >> in terms of opportunities for small scale combined combustion, did we have a sense of what we have in the city for that? any opportunities we have in san francisco with our city municipal services? >> yes. i'm not aware of a survey. barbara? >> barbara hale for power. the department did a research project to identify the potential for combined heat and power opportunity for san francisco. i think it's about three years old now. that's one of the basis

recitizenship recipient has a build out program that is also benefiting the cca. there are numerous details around them to detail, but if you do something like that, not only will you attract customers to the cca, you will create more direct jobs and create a growing fund creating growing amounts of clean energy in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member who would like to comment? is the person coming quickly to the podium to be speaking? anyone else? >> good afternoon commissioners, a quick point on the last public speakers proposal, eedey with the by like defense. rejects that prior proposal, they are very clearly 2 different programs and sierra club as joined in this position as well. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? seen none we will close the comment. i would like to thank the public for being here as well. clearly we have a lot of agreement about what we want this program to do. we want it to create clean renewable energies, we want it to be robust and we want that to happ

exactly what that build looks like and how we plan to pay for it and how many jobs are gained by the cca and the roll out that we have been discussing for several months. >> thank you. commissioner victor? >> yes. i just want to respond to the comment that torres said about the the job question and this goes back to hearing the survey because there is a question about the roll out and there is an appetite for a local build out that would generate jobs. even how many jobs would be created and how it would be coupled with the renewable plan, it does say it in slide # 16 that what people would feel would that increase their interest. i'm eager to get the completion of the survey because that may reframe the conversation a bit. >> thank you. in a moment we'll get back to the survey. commissioner campos? >> i think it's important to provide some context to some of these results. i think one of the main things about the numbers in terms of where we are today compared to where we were in prior years, i mean, i think it's impressive the numbers have gotten better. if we look at the chart of apri

terms of time and staff to be able to lead and deal with all these major issues we have going on with cca. just today i would like for to you authorize staff to present a protest letter to the chair to the same puc proceeding and just setting forth, we'll piggy back on what the puc has said and use some stronger language where appropriate to make our concerns known about the pg and e request. secondly just a couple updates. or m o u. memorandum of understanding was approved by the sf puc. so that was taken care of and the peer review, the update is smud what i talked about before is willing to do for free a report on the deliverables and how they approach that kind of program similarities and providing a little bit of guidance there and i have been in contact with just recently with the advocates to make sure that we coordinate in terms of the work that's being done on the peer review. we talked last month with the contract with lafco and they have some people they would like us to consider as well. the report i was planning on having when we come back on the next meeting. i'm not sure wh

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 that promise was made at a time but pg&e had no intention of coming up with a green product. is that correct? >> correct. and from that perspective, it's been a successful program. threatening to have it. now we have better options for san franciscans and better, bett

>> we referenced the communication received from the san francisco labor council, item cca hearing on the agenda. i wanted to make a reference because i am an elected member of the san francisco labor council. i was not in attendance at the executive meeting nor at the meetin glast night where the item was authorized by the elected body. there have been a lot of changes, i've myself clear about the changes. there has been a lot of support form the advocates, the kids here today, evaporating. it would go a long way to gettting us to where we need to be by staffing picking up these 3 short items. >> president torres: without objection that should be the oder. >> i have a quesiton. it doesn't say here, they are asking us to reject the contract with shell. i don't know the origin of that. i don't know if the staff could uncover what some of the reasons are for the labor council taking that position. is there some issue they have with shell? >> that should be the order. >> i intentionally avoided asking any conversation because we have the obligation to continue these negotiations in good

. >> one more presentation i would like to offer an opportunity for david megel from the cca and talk about the college's planned expansion. >> thank you supervisors. david megel director of planning for california college of the arts. we are a school that was founded -- in the aftermath of the earthquake and fire of 1906 and 1907 were nonprofit. just over 1900 students which makes us 700 smaller than lowl high school. 45% are from california. 35% from the rest of the u.s. and 20% international students. we have been in the neighborhood since 1985 and have carefully assembled contiguous parcels to make a urban campus and as supervisor cohen noted in 2011 we bought a large adjoining parcel, two and a half acres. as you know the eastern neighborhoods rezoning introduced the pdr1d zoning in our area because of the design district which we feel we're consistent with but we need the use meanted to allow us to move forward. there were letters in the packet to the planning commission supporting this. we did about a three month outreach working with supervisor cohen's staff to talk to all the

report on our m o u, there are funds providing puerto rico unit pursuant to an agreement to cover our cca cost and consultant cost. you have already approved that action. >> just want to remind the commission that your form 700 and sunshine are due by the end of next week. if they don't get it they are going to be assessing fines. please get your forms in or you will be paying fines. >> the deadline? >> friday. object form on that will fill out. >> we can open up for public comment. seeing none we'll go forward to next item. >> item no. 6, for public comment. seeing none come forward we'll close public comment. >> our next item? >> item no. 7, future agenda item. >> an opportunity to discuss any items that you would like to see this body work object on? okay. we will -- >> if i could, just in our last joint meetings i heard the issue of peer review and what i heard i want to confirm at our meeting is we can go ahead and have john who is under contract with us and has still money left under this contract to pursue that in looking at the l p i. contract and we'll put that under future agend

they're the second largest private prison company in the united states to cca, and they spent $6 million to rename the football stadium geo group stadium at florida atlantic university. this is horrible for so many reasons, you don't even know where to begin. it's horrible, first of all, because private prisons are these inherently immoral structures that actually spend tens of millions of dollars to lobby for things like three strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing because if there are less prisoners, they make less money. it's a very basic thing. they want to make sure that the incarceration rate is as high as possible because they're the people in cash-of strapped times who get these state contracts to build these private prisons. but geo group, even by the standards of private prisons, is particularly bad. i mean, a judge in mississippi -- and keep in mind, mississippi -- called geo group a cesspool of inhumanity based on how they treated their prisoners and based on issues like sanitation, withholding medication, lack of clean beds, not doing laundry for the sheets. and once