it should be the puc to the board of supervisors. and then to the puc, would you be able to provide a report to the board? >> yes, we'll be able to provide that report to the board. >> is that the question you mean with the hearing? >> via hearing or just via report that we'll get a document. i just want to make sure that there is a real process * that we can verify is happening because we get reports all the time. they come across our desk. we might not see it for a month after it's actually provided. so, what is the mechanism for that reporting happening? was that the intent, it would just be a report here at the budget committee? >> sure -- [multiple voices] >> i think that would work for us. i think we have maybe thought about that mechanical point. the idea of having to come back each time we had one of these for $100,000 seemed like administratively it's hard to deal with. if we could bring it back as a group, here's the report on how we're spending the funds, that would make more sense to us. >> perhaps what we can do, i'm not

>> the puc is here and barbara hale could speak to that. but in terms of bringing us on as a customer, they are able to further utilize the amount -- to sell on the retail market additional energy that they would otherwise would be surplus and selling on the whole sale market. >> do they make the money back? >> they make the money back. >> thank you. that is all i need. >> director reiskin? >> just a comment, as the chair said, first of all, a very good and comprehensive report. so i appreciate that. and i also think as the transbay terminal itself is enabling a sustainability form of transportation and brings a very big environmental benefit to the region, i think it's very appropriate that we would be powering it with clean hetch hetchy power. so i commend the puc for an innovative and aggressive proposal and i think this is a win-win and good for the puc and it's good for the project and it's good for the city. so i think i'm happy to see the recommendation. thank you. >> i will just concur with director reiskin. and i think over the las

i am from the puc and here to talk about the proposed legislation. currently within the admin code 14b we have a program to certify small businesses. the admin code currently recognizes this is the informally the hrc program which is now under contract division. in 2006 that program was expanded to also include firms that are also outside of the city of san francisco to support the contractors working on the puc and water system improvements programs. as that program comes to an end, which we are in the latter phases of the water system improvement program, we have currently certified 200 plus firms over the last several years. if we don't expand that program, all of those firms that were certified over the last five years or so, those firms won't have any future opportunities to participate under the city's small business program. therefore, working with the puc, and with our partners that manage the lbe program, and developed the proposed legislation, which would expand the program to projects that aren't just funded by the bond dollars for the wat

i believe we have [speaker not understood] from the puc. if you introduce yourself. >> i'm steve ritchie from general water from the puc. on this item there are literally hundreds of proposed items trying to connect to the grid in california. a lot of these are renewable energy projects, but they all need to connect to the grid in a way that is safe for maintenance [speaker not understood] electricity to the citizens of california. some of these projects will potentially actually impact the city's transmission facilities from the central valley and if they're not mitigated can affect our ability to provide allowable electric service to our customers. this particular project is with north star solar. they're proposing to build the 60 megawatt solar generating facility. the cost of their piece of mitigating the potential effects of connections is currently estimated to be $2.9 million. that number may actually change because it is really an aggregate number for all the projects that may connect to the system and some of those projects may fal

if the puc owned that building and we could make that the icon i can sustainable building puc representsuldn't be a dramatic idea? >> so, one of the major decisions we made was we wanted to make a statement with this building. we wanted this building to be a lead platinum building which is very few buildings in san francisco that achieved this mark. >> leadership and energy environmental design, it takes a look at the way we think about the places where we live and work. i like to think of it as designed for human and environmental health. lead addresses five categories that enhances environment. indoor air quality, energy, water, materials and resources, and sustainable sites are the five categories for the lead. you can go for several gold or platinum certifications. >> the city wanted to be silver lead status. . maybe gold was a stretch. and people said, if we're going to be a sustainable organization that the pucs this has got to be the top of the line. it's got to be a lead platinum building. what does that mean to us? we run water, power, and sewer. so, those are some of the bigges

who is presenting on that from the puc? we will provide the general update of the cleanpower sf program. >> barbara hale will give an update. >> thank you mr. herring -- mr. kelly, sorry. thank you, i am barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. by way of updates item four i just wanted to remind you in your packets is a detailed timeline for implementation of our cca program. we also are in working constructively with lafco in their advisory role to the board in implementation our cca program we are operating under a memorandum of understanding with lafco that describes the roles and responsibilities of our respective staff and we expect that as we get to actual program launch we will come back to you with a new mou that describes our ongoing relationship at the time. the mou we're operating under this point is expired but i think we're both comfortable to serve those roles until the program takes better shape and we can then revisit roles and responds with that information in hand. then the other item i wanted to