and their service connection would be subject to the same refunds as the pg&e service connection. so that we're at a very equitable basis, but realizing about a $650,000 initial savings on cost of service. it's worth noting also that the puc has additional energy-efficiency rebates that they have indicated that the transit center might be eligible for above and beyond those offered by pg&e. and that puc primarily, because they are primary hetchy and solar power that they are 100% greenhouse gas-free service to the tjpa. so in summary, the sfpuc is offering us an ongoing service rate that would be 10% lower than pg&e's. an initial cost of connection that is again roughly $650,000 less than pg&e's. and has a comparable level of reliability of service. and so the recommendation is that the board authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with puc. >> thank you. actually i did have a quick question. i wasn't clear from the summary, the $661,000 of the itcc, are we going to discount that amount to the puc? because in the summary it said a minus and i wasn't sure we would offer that credi

the pg&e connection, the recommended connection, they presented three alternatives, but the one recommended to us was the connection to the downtown network grid. which is the kind of standard arrangement in areas where that service is available. and they would serve the transit center with two different points of service, which would be fully redundant and neither would be able to support the operations of the transit center, if one point of service failed. the san francisco puc proposal, they are not able to service directly from the downtown grid, but what they have proposed is what is called a "do dual primary feeder." again connecting to the transit center at two different locations and either service being able to fully support the needs of the transit center. so if there was a problem with one point of service or the pg&e substation, we would be able to receive service from the other substation. in terms of the first cost to the tjpa, the first cost of the connection to the pg&e service was estimated by pg&e at roughly $4.5 million. those service connections are subject to a number o

&e has proposed has been authorized by the cupuc. pg&e would then as i understand it from their filings need to go through a solicitation process to hire a third party contractor to perform the program implementation and we're thinking it would probably be a tariffed and ready program by maybe around february of 2014. that's all very tentative at this point because as i say it sorts of makes assumptions how that process is going to go with the cupuc, but at this point they're anticipating settlement and proposed decision. >> ms. hale could you elaborate about the code of conduct? what are the elements of that? if you could summarize what is before the puc with that? >> i can and we have city attorney here who is also familiar with this and perhaps could fill in some of the gaps for me. the code of conduct largely came out of the -- the law that created the code of conduct requirement came out of the experience that pg&e and marin energy had when marin energy launched its program so the code of conduct puts certain restrictions on both p

and their service connection would be subject to the same refunds as the pg&e service connection. so that we're at a very equitable basis, but realizing about a $650,000 initial savings on cost of service. it's worth noting also that the puc has additional energy-efficiency rebates that they have indicated that the transit center might be eligible for above and beyond those offered by pg&e. and that puc primarily, because they are prim

the next activity, with the turn the calendar year, pg & e rates will change. that means when we talk about the premium that is represented over the pg & e rate will change. i want you to be aware that we will bring a revised estimate of the premium that a customer will pay in january. thank you. >> question. >> commissioner caen. >> is the pg & e going to be a mixed hybrid program? >> the pg & e tariff option, i assume that's what you are talking about. what they have proposed and put before the california puc for approval is alliance on their resources compliant with the renewal portfolio standard for about 22% i think by then. of their portfolio being california compliant renewables. and the balance will be renewable energy credits. so that distinguishes, it's a mix. in that some of the renewables they are proposing are california compliant and some of them are not. >> okay. i guess i will wait until january. >> well -- so i may have confused you with what i had said. in january what pg & e is going to be doing is implementing new rates for all of their custo

&e is allowed to charge to make sure the customers that stay for pg&e pay for cost it incurred on behalf of customers that left. >> commissioner olague. >> yeah, i guess -- it reminded me of pass throughs and tenants get charged sometimes for the increases and fees that the landlords have and i wonder how that worked ultimately but you kind of answered. >> okay. >> -- what i was thinking, but i guess i am concerned a little bit -- of course we want to definitely inform customers about these increases and rates that would result as part of this clean power shift, but i think -- i guess at some point i would be interested in understanding how that is going to be marketed or what language or what script would be used, because ultimately the goal isn't so much related to, you know, -- well, i have to be careful how i say this i guess, but i guess the goal the city is reach 100% renewable electric supply within 10 years so we have these -- i think very lofty values in a good place so i want to make sure when we're approaching and informing customers about t

with the code of kukd and the script and how we talk about the cleanpower sf and the pg&e offering and i don't know if that is sort of -- you talked about that internally i imagine but i think that would be a very important part of the roll out plan and the outreach plan is when that pg&e offering does come online how it will be talked about to the tar communities and the other groups that we will bring in down the road and i wanted to highlight that. i think that's important piece of the outreach program is how -- while staying within the bounds of the code of conduct -- >> right. >> how do we that and the 100% renewable and the 20% offering and really shows this is about a clean energy future. >> right and we will have the challenge of holding a potential customer's attention long enough to explain the differences as well and to educate on those nuances of renewable energy credit versus bundleeled kilowatt hours and it's complex and i don't know how long they will colerate -- tolerate us on the porch talking but that is a key part and the education component in order to survey them a

subpoena and it was through extraordinary measures, letters, phone calls that we were able to get the pgromúÑ1k,oóm. >> when did you receive them? >> i got them twot4 >> thank you. >> any other questions? thank ("ç you. >> president hwang: mr. sanchez. >> thankxh scott sanchez, planning department. just to note, the hearing that we had on this item was on november 7. the rehearing request was filed on our response would have been due on november 26, which is the same day that8& appellant received information from pg&e, at least that's what the records are dated so we did not receive the -- m0jpd until earlyb'( o0 1"ujttjt 4, after we had our ability to submit a response. first pg&e records are not evidence of a legality -- or of a legal unit. the appellantm.nív÷ has stated they bought the property in 1997. at the time they bought it, it was a four unit building. however i would note according to records they provided the4( -< fourth electric meter wasn't added untilu0 for each electric unit, would they argue they have four units on the property? i think that's an open question. again it'

&e on the task force? >> yes pg&e was a member of the task force and they did ask at the -- when we had the final draft to be taken off of it because they didn't agree with all of the recommendations but they were a valuable part of the task force and had insights and their policies, but in terms of the inclusion for example of the green option, if forever reason cca didn't pass and the board -- the task force wanted to acknowledge that is a possibility and there are other options with the iou such as the green option and we talked about the relative merits of that and what kind of program it would be and the local economic impacts would be of that, and of course we don't have control over the utility. we have control over cca so this was discussed but we didn't want to leave out the other options and that would be a program through pg&e. >> great. thank you very much. colleagues unless you have any other questions why don't we open it up to public comment, and again we appreciate the work, and we know that a lot of

the economic terms of two proposals. so we did receive proposals from both pg&e and puc to provide power source to the tjpa and based on the schedule for finalizing construction documents this may we really need to commit to the space program that would be associated with one service or the other. that is why we're bringing this issue to you today. under the cpuc as a regulated utility it's pretty straightforward that tjpa would fall underneath the cpuc rate e20 classification and in the proposal that the puc has submitted to us, they would provide us a rate that would be 10% lower than the published cpuc rate that pg&e would be required to meet. the pg&e connection, the recommended connection, they presented three alternatives, but the one recommended to us was the connection to the downtown network grid. which is the kind of standard arrangement in areas where that service is available. and they would serve the transit center with two different points of service, which would be fully redundant and neither would be able to support the operations of the transit center, if one point of service failed. the san francisco puc

so, the first item, pg&e electric rate change, you may have seen in the newspaper that pg&e's electric rates as well as their gas rates changed with the first of the year. those knewly approved rates went into effect and they do have -- because we're proposing the clean power effect program, they do have a bearing on that program. we can expect that prospective customers would see a smaller electric bill premium than we had projected because of the increased pg&e electric generation rates that went into effect on january 1st. pg&e's generation rate was 7.1 cents a kilowatt hour. that increased to 7.9 cents a kilowatt hour on january 1. pg&e explained that rate increase as being driven by high cost for acquiring clean renewable energy to meet their state mandates and as well as spending that had been previously approved by the cpuc for operating maintaining and upgrading their electric generation and distribution systems. so, those were the drivers behind the rate increase that san franciscans are feeling on the electric side. pg&e also stated that they foresee customers, electric custo

&e the customer is going to pick pg&e and that comes to what i wanted to highlight in this the information that local power has been develop to link the build out with the price points and the marketing and the outreach we're going to be doing just has been put on the table and in lpi has shown that we can actually roll this program out even in phase one with competitive prices to pg&e, and that would profoundly change this entire outreach model. the rate fairness board when realized this information was coming forward postponed their decision to the sfpuc and we have to analyze that information and see if it will change the way we market the program before we okay the outreach plan. that is crucial. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is francisco costa and envir -- environmental justice advocacy and many residents in the bay view participated in community choice aggregation and perhaps one person here in the auditorium that knows what i am talking about. michael [inaudible] lynn brown, jerad bloomfield and others. we make trips

the scene. >>> a south bay man is taking on pg&e, hoping to save his backyard. the battle is over a gas pipeline that runs through his property and 16 others in mountain view. and what happens with his fight could term what happens to other homeowners as pg&e works to improve safety following the deadly san bruno explosion. jean elle is live in mountain view to explain. >> reporter: part of pg&e's pipeline safety plan involves clearing most of the land above the pipeline. trouble is, that land hasn't been clear in years. and here in mountain view, pg&e wants homeowners to clear beloved back yards. >> the pipe is right in the middle. right about here. >> reporter: dennis goldwater learned last summer pg&e's pipeline runs under his yard. it's part of the same pipeline that exploded in san bruno. now, he's fighting pg&e over his back yard. >> what i've got is a yard and a imagination. they're taking that away from me. >> reporter: pg&e is telling goldwater and 16 of his neighbors the land above the pipe must be cleared for safety. >> we're clearing the area where th

during the last program cycle from january 2010 through december 2012, pg&e increased its funding to the energy watch program from an original 11.5 million to just under 20 million. of that amount, 11.3 million went directly to 3200 businesses and multi-family units throughout the city to pay for energy improvements. just to give you a sense of what the savings have meant for customers, we have reduced the city's carbon emissions by over 52,000 tons and that's equivalent to taking 83 cars off the road and powering almost 24,000 san francisco residents for a year. let me now touch on the new contract that's before you. it's 13.1 million. it's for the next two-year cycle from january 2013 through december 2014. the cpuc has labeled this new cycle of funding a transition period and has ordered investor owned utilities to continue to fund successful programs such as san francisco's as well as look at new and innovative pilot projects. for san francisco, we received our full funding request for energy watch as well as an additional 1.4 million for innovative initiatives with a goal of

streets in the area were closed as crews responded. pg&e was able to restore service to all but 100 people. >> it was alarming. it was a loud noise. >> went outside and saw the large sign on the electrical wiring, and then a powerline itself exploded and split, so was hanging on the ground, and the pg&e guys said to stay away. >> the fallen banner caused traffic tieups no one was hurt. there's no word o. what caused the banner to fall from the plane but there were strong wind gusts in the area at the time and that banner was advertising haircuts for 8.99. >>> several people were hurt after police chased a stolen suv in the east bay. starting at 2:00 a.m. in el cerrito, but ended with a crash in the oakland hills. police say the suv jumped a curb, rolled over, slammed into a tree, and then rolled back upright. one person was seriously injured. a neighbor awoken by police sirens, watched the crash from his window. >> dark so -- it's a dark car so you really just see it go into the bushes and just see the debris and things going up in the ai