in your packet, you had received the presentation that i and my colleagues at the puc had given at the san francisco public utilities commission meeting on tuesday. i am going to provide a high level overview, and i'm happy to take questions throughout the presentation as you see fit. one thing to start out, just to highlight is, we have been working together very collaborative lee -- very collaboratively. the chair of my commissioned it highlights how she would like to have feedback from this body. where we are -- i can just sort of go through a bit. first, as you know, the program, given the market research we have done in terms of where we think our likely participation would be and the ease of marketing 100% clean program, and that costs for the 100 percent premium will not be a driver of additional opt outs. we are looking at 100% renewable product. we are having the program be set so that our rate format is similar to pg&e's that will be going into effect in july 2012. that is a flat generation rate where rates do not increase with usage. pg&e will be rolling out a similar type o

what would be the total appropriation necessary, and what might be coming down the pike from the puc. based upon those items, the puc did not vote on the resolution before them and wanted to hear the -- some more information before approving the term sheet. the chair and others at the commission on tuesday expressed an interest in having a special meeting in august, so i think there'll be some work in trying to pull that together. on a parallel path, and i know this body is looking at the term sheet. quickly, in 2012, just going forward for launch, after getting a contract approved and have the terms taken care of, we would be finalizing rates for shell, executing a contract in the first quarter of 2012. we would be going through a public process around the same time, establishing the rates, and getting geared up for our marketing outreach plan, making sure everyone is aware of the program. such sending up the pre- enrollment opt-outs. again, we will be targeting 70% of overall residential customers, so it will be peppered brown the vast majority of the city. in 2012, july, flat gener

the puc staff to begin up and say, "that is not possible to do." they got up and did a report at the time saying it was not possible, so you had the puc staff and the city comptroller's office singing you cannot buy more expensive power and deliver it cheaper. they would say, "yes, you can." so every month, there was this, which did not make much sense to me, so the market would prove which way it would go, so in 2009, we petitioned a supplier, and we did go to the market and said we wanted to meet the goals that have been established. we did select a provider. they were not able to meet those goals even though they said they could when they responded, so those negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful. we went back to the board with the revised plan in march 2010. that changed those goals to talk about the rates, and green power and things that were important to us in that program, and then the puc issued an additional rfp last year, and no better actually met the reduced qualifications. we still have a program that the market wanted to be involve

. -- the puc for its leadership. they have a tremendous amount of jobs on the street right now keeping the city alive, moving forward with labor unions. i want to thank webcor, dpw, department of the environment, working together under the puc commission to make this building come together. i just signed my name on that last iron been going up. i wanted to make sure that i was recognized at this moment because it was one of the few times that a former public works director can actually have permission to do graffiti. but it is for a good cause. i know it represents so much of a great energy that has been poured in. it is lede platinum. that is a standard for the future. it is one of the few buildings we will see in our immediate lifetime -- but to get it started on this -- and to have it contribute to a sustainable area called the civic center, to have this corner of our civic center be an example and model, i want to congratulate everyone who has been associated with making this happen. i know public works people ha

the only investors would be the puc. if we don't have any program, we have no customers. thinking that there is a program that you could build out local generations without a source of funding does not really work. i think that some of the stakeholders have understood which took us several years to explain that they're not free. if you issue bonds, someone must pay them back. if you're going to issue bonds, you have to of customers to pay them back or have some revenue stream to pay them back. that is not a clear concept that is in this scope. this scope says that you should be building. that is not something that works for me. there is a lot problems to try to go out and see how you might do a pro forma so that you could build something, be happy to work on that. if you would do solar, how you would afford to pay for it, all the regulations that you deal with, that would be a great scope of work. you have to go out and change the permits or two different things to be able to do these build ounce, happy to work on that. if you want to pick out the sites and figure out whe

product of ourselves, the advocates for local power, and the staff of the puc working together to come up with the tasks under the current contract that would be played out under this contract extension. this does not change any terms at all, all it does it specify that the puc staff is planning for this contract to do under the current contract. this is just a description of the work tasks. maybe there are some things with the legal thing, if that is a problem, we would just call this a set of tasks words. at any rate, to get to the substance of what was brought up in the previous item, so what this two page is from advocates asking you to attach that scope of work to your resolution, not as an amendment but just as indicating the expected work that local power will do under its current contract and we have advocates. the stuff of talking about, we have come up over many months, worked diligently with the staff to come up with all of these work tasks. we have gone to a bit of an impasse in that we want them in the scope of work that you have all seen. the puc said they would prefer a

president vietor: i think this is a bigger question on puc land policy stuff. we have these various parcels that we own, and this question of recreation has come up. the liberal on the parcel -- laguna honda parcel. they are habitat corridor related, whatever, and i do not think there is a way to encapsulate his policies so as we move forward, we can say about the terms of the relationship with other city departments or community groups because this really is our mission and our charge, in this is what we should be doing, but it is complicated. particularly in a situation. i do think it is part of the conversation around p.c.s. sets and how we either contract with other agencies or with stakeholder groups -- it is part of the conversation around puc assets. >> clearly, as we work with the trailheads, there is an organizational aspect but also a safety aspect, but inside the city, the charter gives the recreation and parks department authority, so if you really are talking about boating on the lake and fishing on the lake, where does that fit into their charge v

the increase to pg&e, if the california puc hasd estimated -- if they estimate incorrectly, the world would be responsible for making up the difference. >> i am not comfortable relying on the puc to take care of my ratepayers. i just do not. >> but ioff [unintelligible] that is the process we have. >> than you would have a class action. why should we have to pay? >> i am not an attorney soil will not speak to class action. >> we have an attorney here. >> the payers could a class action. i could check and get back to on that. >> one of the difficulties here is we do not know how much this is. it is hard to make decisions on a program when you have something that is undetermined. if that is under litigation, the methodology that cpuc is under litigation. are we involved in that litigation? >> yes. >> are we making the case that they pg&e should be obligated to assume whatever energy contracts are freed up by virtue of our default? >> that is one of the points we made. >> one of the points you made or one of the points that was negotiated? >> one of the points we made in litigation that