Melts, we do some tuning up and make sure were in good stead on all the up country generating units. Its pretty typical in every year we do some purchasing, some selling. Are we not taking any additional purchases because of the drought . We probably will have some additional purchases in the spring. The spring. Yeah, towards the end of this fiscal year, early summer we at the rate of storm right now, what were looking at, we are expecting to purchase a little bit more than we typically would. But all still within budget. We dont expect to have any needs that were unanticipated given how we budget for power. And have you made any contracts for the spring already . New york city we havent done any forward purchasing for the spring. We can, we can some time we find the published prices for power are pretty low and if you strike a forward deal, they just charge you more for it. So, when were in that situation, we stick with purchasing on the spot market and not making a forward commitment
~ i know in the program ms. Hale had up about hetch hetchy power, showed basically a net zero gain to San Francisco. There are potentially other gains to the city and county of San Francisco and thats one of the issues of the rfp is to look at both in terms of jobs and impacts to the economy. And i will also say that even within our own cleanpowersf program right now, some of those costs are discretionary in terms of local buildout. So, what we were looking for if our consultant is to talk to us a little about given the new financing projections from sfpuc, what kinds of rate structure could we look at in terms of dealing with hetch hetchy purchases that might provide zero or potentially some positive numbers. So, the important dates of the rfp was posted on february 20th. We will have a preproposal conference on march 12th. And the due date is march 27th. On term of the tasks, we dont yet have dates about when tasks are due because that will be a result of the proposals that we receiv
Cost of some of these things. We do know that street lights continue to be a big challenge for our city. So, im hoping we can come up with a solution to address the capital issues as well as, you know, the energy costs associated with them. So, one of the frustrations that we have is the hetchy provides opportunities to a lot of great program. And i believe street lights is definitely one of them. And, so, you know, in solving our problem with hetchy, we met with supervisors and kind of came up with some of the plans that were working on. And, so, but we havent had a chance to actually talk and negotiate what the deal was. And, so, with the mayors office, we have been having conversations about raising general fund rates. Weve been talking about putting street lights in the next bond. Weve been working with pg e and weve actually reduced the costs. We are looking at alternative projects for mountain tunnel. So, on all fronts were on this. So, i would love to come back when we have more
Again, because it will bring future revenue possibilities to the sfpuc. On the rfp itself, we want to make sure that we want to again thank staff for being very good about working with the community and really changing that rfp a lot so we reflected more what the community was looking for and the robustness for the kind of program were working for. However, i would still say that the advocate Community Still wants something that pushes the envelope a little more than the rfp suggest, especially on selecting sites. We kind of got word from staff that we would downgrade the necessity of selecting sites beyond those that have already been identified by their sfpuc and sf environment. That wasnt what we were asking for. We were asking for a Site Selection for a Site Selection citywide to be completed. Thats going to need to be done if were going to be able to do a proper program. So, lets, as we roll this rfp process forward, lets make sure that were pushing the envelope on getting Somethi
Reflected more what the community was looking for and the robustness for the kind of program were working for. However, i would still say that the advocate Community Still wants something that pushes the envelope a little more than the rfp suggest, especially on selecting sites. We kind of got word from staff that we would downgrade the necessity of selecting sites beyond those that have already been identified by their sfpuc and sf environment. That wasnt what we were asking for. We were asking for a Site Selection for a Site Selection citywide to be completed. Thats going to need to be done if were going to be able to do a proper program. So, lets, as we roll this rfp process forward, lets make sure that were pushing the envelope on getting Something Big enough that will get us 50 clean energy ~. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, i will start where mr. Brooks left off, which is 50 clean energy, 50 of our energy load within 10 years. That was what was originally envisioned in the w