tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 28, 2018 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
the barriers and maintenance and capital issues to running more service hours and sfmta is wrapping up their own white paper. moving forward, an as well as working with agencies on funding for implementing additional service recommendations. and our umbrella recommendation here is that moving forward this is really a regional efforts a a lot of late night travel is regional. we have been working with m.t.c. to hopefully hand over the leadership of the late night effort to that regional effort and had some great conversations in term of setting up the working group to cover both late night as well as other transit coordinating issues. so we can continue those conversations and they are interested in taking that on. so with that, happy to answer questions, ben and i, and thank
you. >> commissioner? >> yes, thank you very much. so this is an issue actually that i have been interested in because younger women than me, but even women my age have been telling me that do not safe riding on muni at night. when they do ride, they notice they are the only women on the bus many times and it is mainly males. when you are doing data collection, i didn't see anything addressing that and even those who are wholly dependent on public tapgs and transportation and this is a crucial data point to make women feel safer on public transportation after hours. >> thank you. that is a good yes. and we actually talked a lot with transit operators about whether there are ways to look at safety data and it's
challenging because it's a regional system and there are a lot of different agencies that are collecting that data. it is not always -- some could have incidents on the transit vehicle and some incidents on the street and not necessarily waiting for the bus, but not associated with the transit week vooek and limited numbers of incidents in quantity because there are relatively few rider, but it is an issue certainly that we can keep as part of the discussion. >> a lot of it is about perception and how you feel personally as a woman going into a dark parking lot, but when
asking other women now, they never take muni at night, so maybe not some regional transportation but about muni and what to do around muni so that people are not taking them and actually using the public transportation system. i will say that it is as a woman, you can have a sense of the environment and get the sixth sense of what is safe and not safe. i think that my email counterparts can agree that if you feel the situation waiting for a bus, too dark or too long and the only one at the bus stop and also on the bus and notice you are the only female on the bus. i feel like that is that you could be a target. i would love to see some data on
what women are really feeling overnight and met with ed ruskin and a preliminary, not by gender, but just overall, and the numbers with age groups and the data point on that to make women feel safer. >> commissioner safai? >> thank you, chairman. thank you for this report. one of the things that i wanted to recommend that i wasn't sure was reflected is there are a lot of folks in the service sector. i wanted to know if you had reached out and a lot of people in the industries that were asked the normal hours of
service. that something is that what we talked about with the janitors union and folks that live in my and supervisor ronen's district. bart cuts off time and late night service is an important thing. and we are talking about 4,000 workers in the downtown core and the vast majority is women, so it could be great to have someone represented an continuing from the service sector industry that would be helpful in informing the direction of the group itself. >> i greetly agree.
so as we continue to push forward on this that redefinitely need to do. >> i want to echo about not feeling safe on a bus. i just received a message yesterday from someone that they felt they just -- we feel helpless out there and a crazy man on a bus, drunk, and threatening a woman and the bus driver didn't or couldn't do anything. they couldn't stop the bus, couldn't call police. it is something i heard all the time so that will need to be considered. thank you, commissioner, if for bringing that up. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is no other questions or comments, are there members of the public who would like to testify? >> yes, i was in the working
group and i told the gentlemen to look into the schedules of 2002 and back to where the service got cut and look at how often and how regular the buses ran and that, therefore, the hotel and workers could get to and from work. at fisherman's wharf and fishermen's wharf was hurting because they were losing money
and didn't have that many people. they didn't have many worker there is. i suggest someone from the community talk to the union and talk to the veteran driver who has been on the street for many years and the service was cut because of what was going on in the city and talk to the bus drivers and the union because the people do want the jobs back. the new drivers don't want the mickey mouse runs at muni. they want muni and sfmta and something that can bring them
pleasure like taking people to and from work. >> thank you, ms. sacks. public comment is closed. thank you for that information item. mr. clerk. next item please. >> item 15, discussion of the san francisco county transportation authority board's meeting structure. this is information item. >> as i mentioned in the chair's remarks if there is no objection, colleagues, and you are welcome to weigh in, we will call this yearlong experiments concluded shortly and return to a finance committee and plans and programs committee as well did in the past and i was initially hopeful that having 11 of us bring about moments of robust discussion and there have been moments of that, but it is tough to get us here twice a month, but once a month committee of the whole and have
two committee meetings in the intervening weeks, and staff will bring that forward. is there anything you want to add? is there any public comment on this item? commissioner tang? >> it is me. hi. yes, chair. actually, i like the format and hear colleagues from my -- and i hear comments from the colleagues especially because many of the items don't concern my district. it is nice to hear about the opinions of supervisors of where the projects and money is being spent to weigh in on it. i personally like this and feel colleagues have a hard time getting here on time, getting quorum. you would love my colleagues to feel a sort of greater responsibility around the timeliness of this. , and so we're not waiting and
we have had an incident where we didn't have quorum, people left and lack of quorum. and if my colleagues are amenable to this format, i actually like it, but just want to say that i am new to this and probably the only format i am familiar with. but i think it's okay. thanks. >> commissioner tang. >> i also like this format and might be some days to shorten the agenda a bit. i know that when we had a committee structure, we had attendance issues there, too. so either way we will struggle with attendance in quorum and so forth. so i think maybe we could just continue monitoring if we go back to committee structure and whether we keep it here and structuring the agenda a little differently. >> i appreciate the comments. commissioner safai, are you nodding your head?
>> i agree. i prefer to have a group discussion about a lot of the issues. and it's true before when we had the committees it was harder and when issues came here to kind of grasp on to them. i agree with what commissioner tang says. sometimes the agenda is a little bit too long, but other than that, i would prefer to keep it the way it is. >> commissioner yee? >> i concur. i really don't. but i prefer this fort mat because we might discuss something in length at the committee, and then we have the same discussion from the full m.t.a. board, and this prefrnts duplication of -- this prevents duplication of discussion, so i prefer to keep this format. >> mr. ronen? commissioner ronen?
>> when i complained a few weeks ago and put this item on the agenda, it wasn't necessarily the full board meetings but the fact that we were arriving so late as a board, but 30 minutes into what should have been the meeting we didn't have quorum to start the meeting. and that it was just getting ridiculous. and i felt particularly bad for the public that was waiting to testify on items which we never got to because partially because we got to so late. and i am fine with either committee structure or the full board structure. i just feel like we have to make a commitment as commissioners to get here on time like we do every week for the board meeting. >> got my commitment. commissioner cohen? >> thank you. >> wondering if there is a way we can change the date. does it have to be on a tuesday? the structure i can live with. but tuesday.
>> there is nothing magical about tuesday. that is the way it's been, but we can easily with a vote of this body change that to another time. >> just wondering if there is an appetite. supervisor kim doesn't look like she has much of an appetite for it. >> supervisor kim likes to eat. >> it is not the appetite, but we have committee meetings on monday, wednesday, and thursday. so it's not -- i understand the challenge of having it on tuesday morning. i don't know what day we would switch it to. that is why i made a face. i think there is no perfect day. >> i agree. >> maybe we can start with suggestion that i will work with staff on making sure we don't have the lengthy meetings that run up against our board meeting. and then we will always take a solemn pledge that we will do everything in our power to arrive at 9:59 to if there is no objection, i will reverse what an i heard from you t a various meetings and let's continue the experiment, but let's let
members of the public weigh in. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? seeing none -- i don't want to discourage public testimony. going once, going twice, public comment is closed. thank you for that discussion, colleagues. i really preeshlt appreciate it. is there any introduction of new items? any general public comment? please come forward. >> good morning. i appeared here several months ago to sheet about one of the procurements that you were funding of diesel buses. last week myself and several
colleagues were at the sfmta making the same point. since then joe fitz reported that m.t.a. is moving forward on a modest pilot. i think we should applaud them for that. it's been a long time coming, especially in light of supervisors ongoing policy statements by the city. but the undersigned groups on this letter that i am going to submit to you believe that much more needs to be done. our procurement system remains oriented towards diesel for the non-trolley buses and no -- state deadlines are looming and are actually pushing us and driving and ought to be driving procurement decisions and operations planning decisions. and our system or there remains no real systemic effort to get m.t.a. ready to incorporate this as the new technology. and prepare our fleet and operations for electric buses.
so as in your role as a funding agency and the overturned agency in the other role as the city's legislative body, hope that you can provide leadership and help and expedite the process on the pilot and do what you can to move the m.t.a. and to be the leader on this. and san francisco has been a leader on clean energy and clean transportation technology for a long time, but the problem with that is the that people close on you and people surpass you. and we need to constantly keep at it. we hope that you can do that. the other folks here will talk more to that point. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> somebody will come get that. >> i am jack fleck, a retired transportation engineer from sfmta. i do know some of you. i am now active in a group called 350 bay area and climate
activists trying to push as hard as we can to reduce greenhouse gases. and so i am just here to support muni's effort to electrify the system. office little chagrinned to see in 2007 there was a ballot measure passed that said we should move expeditiously to electrify and eliminate the greenhouse gases and here we are over 10 years later we haven't done it. i am thinking, hey, come on, let's get this thing moving. the technology is really here and many cities have the electric buses out there and let's support the pilot program. that would be great if the electric buses could replace the trolleys. that would be a big savings for the city, but in general we are here to support you and your efforts to get this done and do it as fast as possible. >> good to see you, mr. fleck. next speaker please. >> good morning. my name is brad mcmillan, and i have a company that designs and manufactures electronics
primarily for the electric power industry where it is used to automate the electric power grid. i am an electronics engineer and worked almost my entire career in this industry, and my family has lived in san francisco since 1854. i am here to address support for migrating to an all-electricity transit system. over the last few decades we have seen rapid advances in clean energy technology, solar panels, utility skill wind farms, electric cars, and ever higher capacity batteries are all undergoing advancements to make them more powerful, easier to use and cheaper. these technologies are being created in response to the problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels. in addition to global warming, the use of fossil fuel causes mountains of coal ash we don't know what to do with, inevitable spills that pollute the land and water, and the awful smog that we have to live with at any of the major cities. in contrast, clean engineer
technologies have much less waste and there is nothing to spill, and we can begin to make smog a thing of the past. these clean energy solutions don't need fuel once they are built. if you go to professional conferences or look at the papers being published in professional journals, steady progress is made in developing technology to generate energy more cleanly and efficiently. for san francisco a recent article published in a newsletter stated that the entire city could be completely powered by an offshore wind farm with only 363 turbines. the main point i would like to make today is that these cleaner technologies are clearly superior and so they are going to be implemented, and each of them operates by generating electricity. as a result, it is in the best interest of the citizens of san
francisco both present and future to migrate to the transit system to one that operates with electricity as soon as possible so it can be seamlessly integrated with the cleaner energy sources of the future. >> thank you, sir. next speaker please. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am emily and i am an outreach coordinator with the union of concerned scientists. thank you for the opportunity to comment today. on behalf of the union of concerned scientists and our nearly 8,000 supporters and members in san francisco, we are encouraged by your recent commitment to move forward with 0 emission bus project and urge you to take seriously the need to convert muni's fleet to 100% zero emission as soon as possible. we appreciate that the city is beginning to address the potential operational hurdles by deploying the fleet and launching the pilot project, and we are optimistic about the results.
as you look at the performance measures of the same model of transit buses across engine types, the performance is better if not better than combustion technologies including acceleration, gradability, and torque. as you likely know, cities across california are finding the solutions they need to transition fleet to to zero emission like los angeles and oakland. we believe it's well worth it for san francisco to start a zero transmission as battery electric buses on today's grid have 80% lower life sooik l greenhouse gas emissions than diesel and nearly 40% lower greenhouse from buses powered by renewable diesel. and including the ones in san francisco and not mention that they have no emissions because they have no tail pipe. we are excited to hear you moving forward with the project and are hopeful of the commitment that this critical step signals.
we look forward to working with you to provide clean buses and air to san francisco residents. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi. good morning. my name is paul court, an attorney with earth justice and also a san francisco resident. so we are all here together to ask for this board's oversight and leaderership to move the city forward. and there is activity going on across the state at the state resources board, public utilities commission, the energy commission, and we have been disappointed that muni has not been at these tables. because this committee is focused on overseeing funding, i want to just highlight a few quick figures with you this morning. first, the state resources board and for battery electric buss is now lower than the cost of
ownership for any combustion-type bus. second, california's hfit program now offers $150,000 voucher for each electric, battery electric bus purchased by a transit agency. this alone makes the cost, the purchase cost, the up front capital and lower than the cost for diesel hybrids. third, the city would not only save money on fuel costs by switching to electricity. it could actually make money because the state's low carbon fuel standards pays up to $9,000 per bus per year in incentive funding. and then finally and this is one of the bigger concerns, infrastructure costs are now at this moment being subsidized by the state and by local utilities, but that funding is not going to be available
indefinitely and so delays on the part of muni in making this transition have the risk, face the risk of foregoing available opportunities. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on general public comment? ms. sacks. >> i want ed to tell you people that i think that i have been up since my ten your and there was always a plans and programs committee meeting where they discussed things and there was a an and discussed these things and all those items came to the full board like you have today. i like the old -- i like the old
structure because you can do like the board of supervisors and committee reports and committee as a whole. you can sign up and tell what you want -- and find out what went on in the finance committee meeting. you can tell what went on at the plans and programs committee meeting and therefore, the meetings and the meeting would not too long that way either. thank you. >> thank you. so we will close general public comment. and just while we don't and can't engage in discussion, we will definitely -- i have our staff talked to m.t.a. staff about the issues raised. i know that m.t.a. has been diligently observing your comments and director chang will follow up with sfmta director so that we can achieve the promise of proposition a of 2007 which i think is the primary author of,
so very interested in seeing the electrifycation take place. with that, we are adjourned. . >> my name is jan an wong a regional paralyzing in the bureau i did not see might have as at management in the beginning which my career i have a master in civil engineering i thought i'll follow a technical career path i scombrie being able to create a comprehensive plan
implement and shape it into realty love the champs of working through cost quality schedule political and environmental structuring and finding the satisfaction of seeing the project come into fruition i've also take advantage of the sfpuc training program yunt my certification i see the flow from the pipeline into the tunnel one by one and i also had several opportunities to attend and make presentations at conferences also as a tape recording san francisco resident authenticity rewarding to know the work i do contribute to the quality of life my life and those around me
in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting
and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the tuesday september, i'm sorry, not september. april 24th meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission. so, madam secretary.
roll call please. >> president kwan. >> here. >> commissioner and we have a quorum. >> we have a full roster. unlike the giants, sad to say. >> what's up, bro? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> the cubs are healthy and that's all that matters. number three, approval of minutes from april 10th. is there any discussion? >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> any public comment before we take our vote? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. approved. item number 4 is general public comments. members of the public may address the commission on matters of the commission but not on today's agenda. do we have anyone for this item? >> seeing none. item 5, communications. any discussion, commissioners?
any public comments on communication? item 6 is other commission business. is there any public comment on other items? nothing. ok. item 7, it is our pleasure to call up someone. >> item 7 is a presentation of the ceremonial resolution for former citizens add vis recommittee chair wendy aragon for her dedicated service. >> is ms. aragon in the room. would she come up please? >> so someone has -- you have it, right. ok. so, i just wanted to express our appreciation for a job well done as being the chair of the c.a.c. you definitely set a new
standard, definitely by really working with the mayor's office and all the boards to actually get a full, i think every seat is full, right. pretty much. [laughter] >> so you know, we really appreciate you taking the efforts of making sure that the c.a.c. hears what our concerns are and then also express other concerns of the c.a.c. i just want to thank you for your leadership and with that i'll turn it over to ike. >> i too want to echo the praise of general manager kelly. you did a lot when you took over. you went from the frying pan to the fire. i would argue that all the issues you allowed to simmer and saute and you made something great out of it. along with the entire c.a.c. you know, a lot of the issues are unwielding, often times it's not just listening you want
folks it feel they're listened t we want to share our appreciation for your hard work and your care for the community. it expressed itself in all the work you showed up and it's a big deal. so thank you. at this time, we're going to ask you to sing a song. [laughter] >> and do a dance? >> and so, we'd like to present this to you. and i think we're going to do a group photo here. [laughter] >> i'll trade you. >> all right.
>> congratulations. >> wonderful job. >> you can say a few words? >> yeah, i guess i just want to say -- >> you can go up there. >> before you start, i did -- i thought that we missed an opportunity last meeting. i did want to say, i've only known you for a long time and i don't think it's just about your role at the c.a.c., and the p.c. but it's your role city wide that is impressed me. it's hard to find leadership in this town sometimes because
there's a lot of competing interests. i think you've shown yourself to be someone who is independent, somebody who is committed and somebody who is going to be a leader that we can all count on moving into the future. i wanted to make sure we took this time to recognize your work for the p.u.c. and we know that we know you will be successful in whatever endeavors and you can count on our support. >> thank you so much. ace said last time when i was here giving my final report, i think that people underestimate c.a.c.s. it's volunteer work. it's after work, after people's jobs most of the time and they're putting extra hours in and not getting paid for it and sitting in these meetings. i think the people who are on c.a.c. really care about the issues and that's why they're there because they want to be there and they're passionate. i really want every citizen to know they can make a difference sitting on an advisory committee
and have real input and help make changes in an agency. i really admire the culture of the p. u.c. as a whole. i think it's a wonderful dynamic organization that really engages a community. i think that other agencies can look up to that and these are the example. thank you so much for the last four years. it's been really great and i'm sure i'll see you when you are at the c.a.c. and i'm in a regular member chair. thank you, i really love working with all of you guys. >> thank you. thank you for the c.a.c. as well as a whole. we are open to public comment as we command ms. aragon. >> hi, commissioners. jennifer clearly is one of our c.a.c. members who represents
district 11 and works at clean water action. as a member of the sfp.u.c. citizen advisory committee i would like to thank you for welcoming wendy aragon. as served with wendy on the c.a.c. for nearly five years and found her to be an excellent representative of her direct and our city. she transformed a largely white-male committee into a diverse body that represents and advocates for all san franciscans. she promoted issues including clean power s.u. and improved communications with a southeast facility commission. she also established an annual retreat for our officers and subcommittee chairs to discuss the committee and identify priorities. a practice i hope will continue. she showed respect and courtesy towards her fellow committee members while still returning an effective meet. they will advise commission, staff and city officials about s.f. p.u.c. plans and priorities but the c.a.c. served another
important function as a training ground for citizens leaders. this is a role in which she most ex sells and for which i have the greatest respect. sincerely, jennifer clearly, water program manager at clean water action. >> thank you. >> are there any other public comments? a couple more folks. >> my name is jordan davis. i am a friend of wendy araagon's. i want to thank you for honoring her. she's the conscience of the city and has a great equity lens. she went through the board commission institute last year, which i am on now, she's just really a great at calling out what it is and talking about like you know, these issues that are affecting our most vulnerable citizens. even in in something as cut and dry like nothing is as cut and dry so thank you wendy, you deserve this honor.
>> thank you. yes, good afternoon commissioners. i'm matthew steen, i'm the new vice-chair of the p.u.c. c.a.c. i would like to second the comments that jennifer clearly gave and thank you for recognizing went' aragon for her long service, her complex issues because p.u.c. does span wide number of areas of our infrastructure in san francisco and so i would just want to express my appreciation for your recognition of wendy. >> thank you, very much. >> yes, hi. >> i'm mira coley. i work with wendy on the board of the richmond district democratic club. she's our president and our
leader and we are so proud of her and just wanted to say publicly that we wouldn't be who we are without you, wendy. thank you. thank you. >> do we have any other public comments? ok. terrific. we'll move on to item number 8, report of the general manager. >> the first item is update for clean power s.f. barbara hill. >> good afternoon, commissioners. bobra hale. today's clean power s.f. update will cover regulatory activities. a little more on the regulatories this time. with vee respect to enrollment we're serving 81,000 accounts. our opt out percentage and upgrade rate to super green have not changed.
3.2% for opt out and 4.2% of our customers are upgrading to 100% renewable in our super green program. everything is moving along successfully. we are preparing our power source disclosure report for 2017. this report is required to be filed with the california energy commission. after your review and approval. the report will be a again diesed for the next commission meeting. i want to give you a preview. i'm happy to report our base product, which we committed to be 40% renewable it's renewable product and with our hydro production year in 2017, 100% carbon free. so customers who participated last year in our green product,
got little more for their money than we told them they would get with that better renewable ngh3 product. looking ahead, our nexe next enrollment is july of 2018. it will increase the customer account to 105,000 with the addition of mostly commercial accounts. the average mega watt served is projected to be about 235. we've brought to the general manager some master agreements and confirmations which builds the power supply portfolio. i thought we would share more of that information with you today but it's taking us a little bit longer to ink some of those last few contracts. so i expect we will share a picture of the contracts, supply, supplying our programs and the perform and results at our next meeting. on the regulatory front, the
commission, the california public utilities commission efforts to reform the pcia charge on customers, that pg&e place is called the pcia continues. working with city attorney and the california community choice trade association we serve testimony which i summarized at the last meeting and questioned we served our rebuttle testimony. it focused on a disconnect between the value as described to the contact by the california p.u.c. when they entered the contracts and the i.o.u.'s proposed valuations of those contracts for purposes of calculating the pcia. the next steps will be hearings that are set to take place during the week of may seventh. believes will bbriefs will be sa
proposed decision by the administrative law judge in late august and early of this year. the next proceedings is the bond proposed decision. the bond proceedings. a proposed decision in that case was issued on april 6th. the proposed decision updates the california p.u.c. implementation of law that requires c.a.s to satisfy some financial security requirements. by posting a bond or cash sufficient to cover the cost of returning customers from the cca to the utility supply portfolio. in compliance of that law since we started operating, we've posted a $100,000 cash deposit with the california p.u.c., we did that in 2012.
now that they're looking at revising the numbers, the proposed decision has broken the financial security requirement out into two components, two catagories of cost. they're proposing to assess an administrative cost as well as a cost that would cover incremental procurement for that set of customers for a six-month period. so on the administrative cost front, pg&e proposed and the proposed decision would authorize them to charge a reentry fee per customer of $4.24. that contrast with southern california edson proposal of an administrative cost of 50 cents per customer. so we're not quite sure why pg&e's cost is so much more than edsons but that is what was proposed and that's the proposed decision is recommending the
california p.u.c. adopt. on the incremental procurement cost front the proposed decision would require -- let me back up a little bit and put this in context. right now, the market prices for power are below pg&e's average cost of supply. so as the commission looks to implement a cost to recover the utilities cost of returning customers, the financial security requirement there would actually be negative for us in today's market. and so, we understand then that the proposed decision, if adopted, would decrease our payment to pg&e of returning customers to zero.
it's not allowed to go negative. and that is because as i said, the market price of power that pg&e would procure to cover these customers that are unexpected, would actually be cheaper than pg&e's current portfolio's cost. if the world were different, and that's how these rules work, and let's say five years from now, procurement, 10 years from now procurement costs are higher, then pg&e's portfolio we estimate that our bond requirement would increase to approximately $500,000. if we were serving the july enrollment, that i just described, and it would be $1.6 million once city widen rollment is complete. that is at the 300 some odd
customer accounts. the proposed clean power sf budget that we put before you and is going through the review process here at city hall, includes funding for a bond price at this $1.6 million level. what we consider the outside dollar amount. and the city is working to prepare comments on this proposed decisions and those are due on april 26th. so together with cal c.c.a. we hope to have a strong voice in influencing the proposed decision. so with that i'm happy to take any questions you might have. thank you. >> commissioners. >> i didn't quite follow. by returning customers, do you mean the people that are notten rolling, they're opting out? >> not exactly. this is the scenario where the
expectation would be there wouldn't be a planned transition of customers saying no thank you, to our program. i want to go back to the investors utility that orderly transition is already covered by other rules. this is a situation where the commission is trying, the california p.u.c. is trying address the scenario where something dramatic happens and a c.c.a. collapses in a disorderly way and all the customers are sort of unceremoniously thrown back to service from the investors and utility. that scenario, they're considering there will be administrative costs, the utility hadn't planned for and power supply costs the utility hadn't planned for. these two catagories of the financial security requirements would be intended to cover those
costs so that customers of the investors utility who had been receiving service all along wouldn't be disadvantaged by their costs going up by this disruptive customers from a cca to the investors and utility. >> so you are talking about our specific situation where if our c.c.a. collapsed for whatever reason, we would be ensured if you will, by the bond measure? >> right. the other rate payers would be insured by the bond, not us. >> right. >> so barbara, how does the exit fee tie into this? the exit fee is sort of where they purchase contracts and people are leaving, and now you are paying a fee and now they are coming back and they want to charge you again so. >> or we get reimbursed. >> there's no proposal before.
there's no -- the proposed decision doesn't have law for reimbursement for a cca for the cost they insured. it's just trying to cover the cost that rate payers would be on the hook for. so customers who would return under the scenario like this, would then pay assigned to them as a pcia in their regular pg&e bill. all customers are paying the costs of the utility supply portfolio when they leave they take it with them. even though it's not listed separately on your bill as a pg&e customer, you are paying those costs. when they leave and join a c.c.a. program, it gets a new name, pcia and it's charged separately. listed separately on the bill. so customers would continue to pay their share existing supply
costs and the bond would cover any additional costs above that that might need to be covered. >> doesn't mean the other rate payers are paying for that cost? >> let me try that again. clearly it's not clear. all customers pay the cost, the utilities incurring for supply. some of that supply is contracted out for the future, right. and so if you say i'm going to leave the utility supply and join a c.c.a., the utility with the commission and state law endorsement says you need to take your share of those future costs with you. that is what the pcia is. if you are a customer who decided to stay with the utility, you continue to pay those forward costs but it doesn't show up on your bill
separately like it does when you are a cca customer. >> can i ask about the reentry fee, the $4.24. if approved, will there be a itemized list as to what goes into that cost or is this something that will remain vague? >> the california public utilities commission will need to dig in more i think to understand why pg&e's costs are so much higher than edsons and how to improve the profile for pg&e. i haven't dug into the elements. it's things like the staff time to reestablish the account as a bundled utility account. >> ok. it's a dodging, complicated issue. thank you for that.
any other comments, commissioners? >> thank you. >> thank you, very much. any public comments on this item? >> thank you, president kwan, commissioners, senior policy analyst. been watching the last several on sf gov tv. thank you very much, sf gov tv. nice to see you all. really just want to thank this staff. i think finding out that clean power was providing ghp free energy for 2017 is something we should get out in the major way. i know that i saw a presentation recently from the communications folks about kind of their outreach about this upcoming enrollment and without
cannibalizing the impotence for folks who care to sign up for super green, i think it's pretty cool that we were able to kind of trounce pg&e in this environmental respect even with our base program and we should let people know about that. i would say that we need to keep it up. there's a weird paradox that as more customer load departs pg&e for ccas their perjury knew able increased without them needing to do anything. for us to beat them we need to always be upping our game on procurement and i know that the staff is planning to do that but i hope we can beat the 50% by 2020 goal and then just want to thank ultimately ace stated many times, the regulatory situation is a total moras and call c.c.a. has changed the entire ball
games in terms of anyone but the i.o.u. is having a choice so i want to thank the sfp.u.c. staff that is for that purpose. as far as the bonding is concerned, i mean, getting this program off the ground was hairy and i think if there had been a million plus of additional costs, you know, i'm not saying this would have prevented the program from launching but for smaller programs and new programs, i think having a big hunking bond that is required is something that will make city or county staff be more reticent to launch these programs. i guess this would be in the purview of the commission but i would say if as c.c.a.s work together more, which is something that i think will be a trend going forward, the idea of a joint fund among c.c.a.s for this bonding or insurance would
kind of be a good use of collective action to protect energy choice. >> thank you. >> i had a similar thought and i don't know if i need a response right now but the idea if c.c.a. collapsed or would have you as you put it, if there's possibility for those customers to then join an additional c.c.a. and so this idea of c.c.a.s collaborating whether it's for funding or bonding purposes or as a safety net so that they don't need to go back to the i.o.u. is an interesting one to consider. i don't know if it's come up in the regulatory environment but it seems like with the way things are going, with i don't know, what those projections were, 80% of the state going c.c.a. in the next 10 years that might be posed that that could
be a possibility. >> barbar barbara hale. the safety net hasn't come up as a safety net. it's more described as a who is responsible to perform as the provider of last resort. the expectation understate law and practice today is that the investors-owned utilities serve that function. they don't get to say no, i'm not going to provide electric service within their territories. so state law assumes that if a cca were to disassemble, it would naturally be the underlying investors utility who is responsible for providing them on going service. there has been discussions in the regulatory environment about
here in california. if they would then assume that responsibility instead of the investors-owned utility. that the balance would sort of be shifting from the investors-owned utility being the dominant provider from and does it make sense in that scenario for the c.c.a. to take on the obligation of provider of last resort. that's been the way it's been described. mr. holtsman's suggestion that perhaps the c.c.a. communities could all characterize it as co found the bonding responsibility, is one of the things that kind of goes hand and hand of the shift of provider of last resort going to the c.c.a. community as opposed to the investors-owned utility. those conversations are happening and moreor