the advisory committee that was formed with the debt assistance and guidance of the power plant taskforce and to really look at how we can take that document and give some life in the near te to its recommendations. so with that, let me focus on some of the near term recommendations. this came from the green check advisory group as well as building on the rocky mountain institute report. the draft a lecture resource plan that we have provided shi'a focuses on the three-year time frame type of actions that will move us towards the greenhouse gas-free goals. we recognize that san francisco has limited control over energy systems that serve the city, especially the fact that 83% of the energy that is procured to serve san francisco is procured by pg&e or other direct access providers. we are a power provider for our own communities. we have a small fee -- a small piece of the energy procurement decision making. pg&e has the largest piece. they on the transmission system that served san francisco. as you know, they own the distribution system. these are the two areas that did not have pg&e as a distribution provider like the rest of san francisco. we're limited in the fact that state and federal regulations often preempt the city's authority in regulating or directing certain aspects of energy services but we do have some role in identifying some of the funding sources and taking the advantage of them for new programs. the recommendation of the draft release falls into two groupings. recommendations that in power a customer and leverage the existing capabilities of the city and within its boundaries to promote the greenhouse gas free technology and in the longer term, recommendations that increase and expand the amount of greenhouse gas-free energy that is purchased from the larger wholesale energy market. this is used to provide service to the rest of san francisco. focusing on the shorter term, near-term recommendations, and this came from the studies and this is shaped by the recommendations of the green tech council. maybe we need to be on the leading edge to get some of these technologies better understood and positioned it to be in the marketplace here in san francisco. maybe there is some effort to promote and test new energy technologies when legislation is needed or to utilize our own energy expertise to test the technologies. owe had a test the various streetlight technologies. we build upon that information and other test pilots to then bring to you a broader program. the same kind of concept applies to distributed energy resources in the city. also recommending improvements and expansion of the and you program that is in place today including alternative structures for administration of the statewide program which is funded through ratepayers and administered by the utilities. also promotion of the development of behind the meager resources. finally, developing a restructuring that reflects the cost of service and promotes the efficiencies and allows for the long term financing that is critical to expansion and improvement of the programs. we will talk more about structural issues. these are activities that we are able to promote because they are really customer choices. we can educate, inform, encourage customers to take some of these activities regardless of who their power provider is and that is reducing the demands for energy efficiency, reducing peak energy uses, on size george's -- on-site storage. also community scales and energy systems so that you can shrink the load at a tick of the property. you can take the advantage of the on-site facilities. you can make sure that the power is consumed on a community basis within the development area. we also have at improving building standards and also the energy programs that we're all responsible for. those of some of the quick activities that we could be implementing in the near term as recommended by the updated a lecture resource plan. let's take a minute to look at some of the recommendations to increase the city's control over the remaining 83% of the energy hon. developing our transmission project. we have a steady -- a steady to complete our existing transmission lines that comes from the -- area back into newark in the southern part of san francisco bay. we are developing some green pricing program or an effort that we take part with state policy-makers. this would really allow customers to voluntarily purchase customer. we'll continue in our participation before the release for commission to make sure that the policies are promoting greenhouse gas production strategies in the city. and we have already taken these ideas out into the public a little bit and met with our stakeholders in the form of a clean energy stored. we will be needing with the talent plan task force. we are also meeting with the citizens committee. we are educating new and taking the opportunity to discuss availability in the draft report. supervisor maxwell has indicated her interest in having some hearings in december. this is to have additional information hearings and comments on the plant. some of the comments you can see on the online -- online posting. this is under development. we are taking their input into consideration. we would like the draft to become the document that has a shared statement of what the city would like the power enterprise to pursue. that is what we're looking for. we are looking to bring this back to the board of supervisors in early 2011. i will put a notice that tells you how to submit public comment. for people who are watching the screen, will also take any questions you have. >> commissioners, questions and comments? >> i have one. on friday, number 6, the evaluation of the transmission projects. >> right now, we have a transmission lines that run down up to the station. we are looking at the feasibility of completing that line from newark into the city. for example, we talked about the trans bay cable line which runs from pittsburg under the water and into san francisco. that is bringing power in from that part of the day. we're saying that this is an opportunity for us to have the technology applied and we bring our power that we can bring to the newark substation in to san francisco. this is another pass into the city. >> i have a couple of questions. did decoupling come up as a recommendation? >> we have not heard this much yet. there has been a number of hearings and i don't know if it will come up in that they knew. >> i'm trying to figure out how to crack that nat around incentivizing our municipal buildings to become more energy- efficient. we have not quite got there. i don't know what the answer is. i don't even know -- the bigger question is the purview of this elector resource plan. i and stand at the goal. -- i understand the goal. i don't know about this question and whether that is a conundrum or whether it relates to rates. >> currently the advisory committee has taken a look at this issue and that is why they are recommending this rate structure issue you are talking about. notwithstanding the fact that our general fund customers played a highly subsidized rate, which is very low, as a city and through the power enterprise, we have invested in those facilities. not only do we tell them what they can do to lower their energy bills and to be a more efficient entity, we just do this. we pay for this. at the end of the day, there really is that anything other then our own financial resources keeping us from the general fund facility. >> if there's a way to save the energy, we can save some money. we can buy power on the open market or to invest in other areas. >> that is why we have gone ahead and performed the improvement. >> i have questions on the green tests. do we ever talked about a potential model project. it seems like that is what this is about. >> when the green tech group got together, we hoped that they would bring to us specific pilot projects and there is a lot of conversation about that and it is good to get some of those different ideas and proponents of technology into the same room. the group came to the conclusion that what we need is a state that endorses the concept said that we can go out through the request for office process or some way within the city's rules to open the door and let the different technologies, and nobody can make proposals to us and we will consider whether there is a good fit in san francisco either as a power provider or if they bring themselves and the customer in partnership to us and say this is what we would like to do, help us get this project started. >> this was a lead on the climate change plan for the city. has there been collaboration on that level? >> we have been in collaboration throughout the process, the department of the environment. they have been engaged with us on this and they were co-authors with us on the first plan that this plan builds off of. we have done a lot of collaboration. some of the programs that are recommending continue to be implemented are programs that the department of environment currently manages. >> i guess the city adopted a climate change plan with those goals and that is integrated. >> that is very consistent. some of the staff to work with the a department of impairment on the plans are actually the staff or on loan to the department of the environment to help put this together. there's a lot of iraq revelation between the two entities. >> i wanted to make sure that this was the same goal as the climate change part that you already had. >> that's it. >> we are discussing the behind the meter options that we have and one of the things is that we are pursuing those opportunities regardless of who provides the power. i'm wondering if that is the most intelligent thing that we can do. my concern and we had the example of this, where because it was not our power being provided, we had no way of recovering any of our investment in that technology as opposed to what we do in the city. we are offsetting power to get the money back. >> right. >> would it make sense or is it possible to focus behind on the meter activities to areas where we are the power provider. this comes out as an incentive was why people should take their power from the city. >> where we spend our net operating revenue is with our customers but with one exception. the other energy efficiency and behind the meager activity set a reference here for customers that are not ours, but we're talking about doing is making sure that the people of san francisco are educated and informed about the existing programs that are funded from other sources, not from our own net operating. if you would like to purchase a new washer and dryer, you can get rebates that only from the water department also through the appliance rebate program. there is an energy-savings component of that we want to take advantage of. they are not our customers but also -- we have spending our operating revenues and lower in the costs of customers >> i guess that there is my question, we could focus on customers of ours. >> that was established through the board of supervisors and that would be an issue that we need to take up with them if you want us to pursue that. >> we've talked in the past about how this program if it's nice with our c ca program. if this is a complaint program for hunters point and treasure island, this is not make business sense for us as a power provider in our municipal service provision but this is a policy called. >> it is that a legislative change? >> if we wanted to reduce this, we would have to go back to the board of supervisors? >> yes. >> the target is relief for homeowners. >> until we have hunters point, we don't have homeowners who are the customers. >> i guess there are businesses? >> yes, but we will reduce the whole thing. >> there needs to be a change in the need to talk to people. to the extent that it takes legislation, i think we would be pretty compatible. >> once this is in place, the whole world changes. we have to tell customers that there are better options. absolutely. >> i would like to follow-up on what the opportunities are for channeling that program. >> any other comments? public comment on this item. >> in the knowledge in the ton of work that has gone into this plan which i was reminded of, i do want to highlight that on friday, but it was discussed some ideas around 20 choice and it might be good to catch up on this and see how it impacts the plan, if at all. it might be looking at the -- was looking at on friday. there are some resources we're not using in san francisco right now and it would be great if the plants to figure out how we can do solar power again. you are probably aware that san francisco is a leader in solar power but did you know that we're five months delayed and doing any new solar projects in san francisco? any plans to expand our portfolio all are on hold. we're supposed to put them on city hall, on the symphony. there's no end in sight. i would like to see an update. can the planned come up with how san francisco starts doing solar projects again? it has been suggested that the pyrene project could be a solution. there was a type of labor dispute that led to a situation at one of the markey solar projects. this is amazing that but there is stuff that has to get worked out and a lot of us all fully understand and are waiting to get unraveled. the city's electricity plants have suffered and the community has suffered because there was a really strong labor partnership between the city and the community groups to get to work. did you know that over 30% of the workers were from the most economically disadvantaged community and they are so excited to get up on the roof. i don't know how we get it going again but let's find a way to a least talk about it and get it into the plan. this can be a brief solution that we are all waiting for. but the -- to align >> i'm with the alliance for community empowerment. i cannot speak on this but i did notice one slide which focused on a schedule for community outreach. my concern was that most of that was done with the traditional gatekeepers and my question is, whether of being -- and the open forms to have comments on rather than the website order. most of would go to work and we come home and we don't know most of the stuff that has happened. i don't know of there are any open forms will reach out across the city and we will speak about what is happening. >> i think that is an excellent suggestion. >> this means and this is a form for citizens. >> this it reverses to the clean meet in the afternoon. this is an open forum and we can investigate other opportunities. >> the should be on the web site to notify in advance when and where those meetings take place. >> you don't know what you don't know. no one has reached out to tell them this is happening. how will they know when this is happening? >> right, we understand. i agree with you and i think that we should make an effort with something of this magnitude to reach out. she is so good, she can reach out with this plan and get in some feedback and comments in relatively short order. we will to what have you to get the word out. that would be very helpful. i don't know if you want to respond? >> we want to give you a written update and see if you want to have a discussion. . there are differences of opinion about who does work. we did not want to get into the situation of picking up things around city hall. we have a variety of ideas. we are hoping that the mayor's office can broker some deal. >> that would be great, if we can have an update on that. >> the power rate steady of state, when we have hunters point up and running, we will have the rates for those people some of them will be talking about how that might work and how we are having some other meetings on december 3rd and it will be coming back in the next month or so so we can talk about what the structure and process should be and the rates for our new customers. on the interim supply allocation, when you recall that we have this discussion, we had two options that we are giving you. one is an option for our customers which relies on the individual supply guarantees. another one focuses more heavily on what they had rejected as their water use between now and 2018 and we were trying to come in and talk about what was right in terms of what they would be. in the meantime, we have some other things we're working on and we are happy to bring them to you before the next meeting. >> thank you. at the last meeting, i think said it was helpful for me in the process but i cannot do my part of the job which is to get any feedback and i have thought about this a good deal and now i am prepared to. >> ok. >> i would like to make comments in four areas. it is importance to keep our eyes on the decisions that we need to make. of the agreement says that we would have had to make two u