Energy, but its sort of like a reserve payment; right . And i should just be clear that that capacity can come from any resource. It can come from hydro, and renewables. There are certain requirements about attributes. We have to have local capacity and we have to have a certain amount of it, but what we do we will report to the california iso, so that they know all of the different loadserving entities have secured a sufficient amount of capacity on the system in case and that well, to meet forecasted demands plus 15 , but also to manage variability on the grid. That is the only reason i mentioned the natural gas because the iso, is required to have these natural gas facilities today to help balance the Renewable Resources that are increasing on the system. So i have sort of started to get into this a little bit, but so the types of products that are available on the market california is equipped to supply a diverse need. And that includes Renewable Energy supplies to meet our expected cca demand, but also as i was just referring what we call conventional resource, those resources ineligible for the rps and that is required to meet system balancing requirements. The suppliers of this product include power marketers. And project developers and owners. So an exemplar of a power marketer would be a company like constellation or energy cal pine. Some of these entities overlap, some of them own power plants. Others are just contracting with power plants and they bring Energy Supplies to a retailer. And then project owners can be public utilities. So one thing that were hearing is that utilities are some utilities are currently long in their Renewable Energy purchases, meaning they have excess. So they may be in the Market Selling some of their excess energy and that could be at a competitive price. The good news sort of this is probably the message i want you to take home or take with you is that were receiving reports that Renewable Energy rfos are receiving ten times the bids than they are asking for in terms of energy volumes. So there is a lot of suppliers out there in the renewable space today. Would we call that a buyers market . We would call that a buyers market. Yes, its a favorable time to get into the market. Which wasnt the case four years ago, when we are first doing our rfp for suppliers. That is right. I think its a testament to californias program that it has worked. That utilities are out there in the market, buying Renewable Energy and they are asking for new capacity to be built. And its happening. And its really revved up the market. Where is shell on there . Shell, i would put in the category of a power marketer. So they are among that category. Do we expect it in terms of our rfo, they would be responding . Im really not sure. They would be free to get into it. So you also asked where would you supplies come from . I sort of addressed this aly little bit already, but were asking for bucket 1 resources. The resources by definition under state law have to deliver into a balancing authority. That is what this map here shows. The california iso is the biggest balancing authority in the state and the balancing authority that the cca will be part of. Under state law the energy could be delivered into any of these other balancing authoritis that are identified here. So ladwp is another example of a california balancing authority. Isthese are principally instate projects. A bit more on the issue of where the supplies might come from . To give you a couple of examples, this map here was produced by Marin Clean Energy. Now mce. Its a little data, its a couple years old, but identifis where their resources were located in 2013 and where they were developing additional resources. You will see that there is similar biomass, hydro, located in california, and there are also resources in the pacific northwest. So the bucket 1 resources here are the ones that are in california. The stuff in the northwest is either bucket 2 or bucket 3 type of resource. I do want to add, too, actually, because this is a little dated, that marin has really been ramping up its procurement of instate projects. I think since this was posted, they have signed contracts with the Cottonwood Solar projects located in kern and king countis to 24 megawatt solar project. A project called Recurrent Energy kansas, another 20 megawatt project. They have also contracted with cal pine for output from their geysers geothermal project and another Recurrent Energy project called the Mustang Solar project, where they are procuring 30 megawatts from fresno county. Recurrent is a project here in San Francisco . They are the developer of the Sunset Reservoir project in partnership with the city and they are one of the major Renewable Solar project developers in california. Just a question about that. I think might be apropros, even right now. The recurrent contract we set up, so we could look at it within i think it was seven years and i think were close to the seven years now, as to whether that could be taken up by the city . And we gave the city opportunity to be able to purchase the power, Purchase Agreement from them. Im not sure do we do we have the ability to have that explored through the offering . Its certainly on our radar. Were aware of that. I think the issue will be tradeoffs. About what we put our capital towards . And whether we want to use that capital to build another new project, versus take over ownership of the sunset project. That is sort of a debate for another day, but its certainly an option. And the Sunset Reservoir has been a great project for the city and really a milestone, i think, sort of urban energy, Renewable Energy. I did want to show you this, too. This is a map that Pacific Gas Electric produceded that shows one of their recent solicitations for projects that are sized between 3 megawatt and 20 megawatt. This is from 2013, but they have conducted similar solicitations recently. This is the most recent map i could find. Really i want to show you sort of this, because it gives you an indication of where the bidders are locating projects in the state. And they have moved around over time, with these bids. But the other piece of it is that pg e has been getting 1020 times the number of bids than they have been looking for. So again, its a competitive market. And that has been reflected in pricing. You also have two of the other players in the market that we would be competing with, obviously pg e is one of them. They sort of range from utilities are the biggest segment, but it also includes private and nonprofit entities, businesses. So for example, the university of california is in the market. Kaiser permanente and safeway and marin, sonoma cca programs and the municipal utilities like alameda. And this graph here i included i wanted to sort of give you an idea of scale. And also the renewable content, the current renewable content of some of these portfolios that utilitis have. And so the way you read this is the bar underneath the entitys name, or the bar underneath the entitys name applies to that entity. The number the first number that is not in brackets is the amount of renewables that they have and the number in brackets is their total average sales. And these are in megawatts. So you have entities as small as alameda, and then of course, with the big investor utilities in the state, at the bottom there. And the green coloring represents the renewable portion of their portfolio. Just seems like kaiser and safeway are very different from all of the other ones. What are they actually providing . Seems like smaller amounts clearly. I dont have their data. Utility data tends to be public and Customer Data is confidential. So we do know the kind of transactions that they have entered and they have press releases, but i wouldnt know how to do that against their total usage. Yes, kaiser safeway is in the direct access market that. Is how they are engaging with the market. As is the uc system. The ucs have become their own service provider. Safeway i believe contracts out with another Energy Service provider. Kaiser is unique, because they are doing sort of new types of transactions, where they are entering into longterm agreements for Renewable Energy credits and these are within the state. But these their contract helps support the development of a new project. So that energy isnt necessarily delivered directly to kaiser, but their commitment to buy the Renewable Energy credits over a longterm from a given project, is helping build new projects in california. They also do cogen as well. Cogen . Absolutely an entity like kaiser is doing cogen within their facilities and that is sort of thing that is behind the meter; right . I know too that kaiser has done a lot of rooftop ppa for solar and how they got for comfortable with this. Okay, my last slide here excuse me. Through the chair, can i ask, i see Marin Clean Energy and la department of water and power and sonoma and at the top of the chart, looks like very new renewables and city of palo alto. Great question, i will apologize to the city because the way i lined this graph makes it hard to read. But i should say this data is based on the 2013 power content labels. So it doesnt reflect an incremental growth that happened in 6789 2014. Those constant labels havent been filed yet. I dont know specifically what their mix is. I know they have some small hydro, and they have some wind. I think they probably have some solar, but i cant speak really to all of what is in that. The city of palo alto here i think its just they are over 20 . But i have heard that just over the last year or so, they have really ramped up. So i think they have a number of projects that have come online. So i do apologize for the slight little stale data, but to give you an idea of the scale, too. And that a lot of these entities still have a long way to go to build the renewable content in their portfolios. But palo alto has issued rfps the last few years for new supplis, and we have been talking to them about their experiences and have learned a lot from that. And im going to take a bit more about that here with respect to the size of contracts in terms of production and capacity. So this past year, palo alto issued an rfp and they requested 30,000 to 80000 megawatt hours of energy. Starting in 2021. So they dont have a nearterm need for renewable and they are sort of asking the market to develop new stuff for them to come online down the road. To put that into perspective, its 1545 megawatt of solar is what that range encompasses. And nce has an annual open Season Program for procuring energy. Each year they sort of post what their forecasted need, and this year they posted forecasted need of 40,000 to 50,000 megawatt hours, starting a little bit later as well in 2019. And that is equivalent to 2030 megawatts of solar. So put that into context, our upcoming cleanpowersf rfo will seek 150,000 megawatt of renewables beginning in 2016. To put that into something a little more concrete for you, that is about 85 megawatt of solar. I wrote out the math there, in case you were wondering why 85 megawatt is out of sync with 30 or so Megawatt Program . And the basic answer to that is that its related to solar, the solar sort of efficiency in production relative to its capacity. So that is the end. If you have any other questions im happy to answer them. Otherwise, ill turn it over to the executive officer for his portion of the report. Okay, mr. Lindo. Thank you, chair. Thank you so much for the report. And i know our director will touch on the legislation, and civil grand jury report and i was wondering perhaps if you are going to discuss it and we can reserve it for your time and the tone at the puc on those particular issues . I will let michael hyams. Thank you. For state legislative updates recently Assemblyman Phil Ting got an originally tax and revenue code bill and turned it into a bill about Greenhouse Gas reductions not reductions but how we report Greenhouse Gas. There are several different formulas used by different organizations. I believe that the theory he was going for we should have one set standard that everyone reports the exact same way and that should be reported out to the general public, so they aware of what Greenhouse Gas are . Unfortunately the way it was written it was created a lot of opposition from marin, sonoma and lancaster ccas have filed that we currently dont like what you doing, but we like the concept that you are going for. So they have also submitted and in your packets you will see the letters that they have submitted. One thing, once i became aware of it, i reviewed it and there are some similaritis to that bill that are in the ibew. And so i have had some very basic discussions already with the assemblymans staff to talk about what this means for cca and behind the meter generation, rooftop solar and they are taking comments right now on that. I dont believe that the sfpuc has come out with an official view. They also have the general utilities side of their Power Generation to worry about as well. So its going to take them a little longer than the other ccas to generate their position on it. So as of right now, i dont believe that they have a position that they have officially taken, but still working on that. What i would be recommending for us today to support the fellow ccas across average, and take an oppose unless amended on similar stances that they have in their letters, should and when the sfpuc come out if they have issues or concerns or changes that they would like to, very with incorporate that into our comments and finally, two things i would add in that arent necessarily in the letters that you see in front of you, one is the discussion of the behind the meter generation and how we should be making sure that whoever is doing whether its the cca or iou or public utility, whoever is doing gets credit for the generation as part of how they do the calculations, because i dont want to discredit the small, you know, rooftop solars hot being ghgfree for some reason and also add in there, since its an extremely technical area, normally bills are completed by the end of august, beginning of isnt that in next month we would get everything right, but to see this as a twoyear bill. Its brought up one year and worked on and not completed and everyone understands that. It becomes next year at the legislative session that they will bring it up and well have the chance to have the discussion. Since this didnt become a Greenhouse Gas bill related item until it went through the entire Assembly Process and got to the second chamber, we didnt have the firsthalf of the year to have the discussions about this, which i think would be have been needed. Those would be the two things i would add on top of being supportive of ccas and whatever sfpuc position ends up coming out, once they issue it. Would be what i would be recommending to lafco and staff could write the letter and work with the chair, because unfortunately by the time our next meeting is, the process will be over and done with. So we need to get a letter out within the next week or two to have any real influence on the process. So i would encourage you to let staff write and work with the chair and finalize and send that out accordingly. I can continue on to the civil grand jury. Mr. Lindo. A couple of questions and i had another question on the report. Sorry i didnt get to it. The bill sponsors staff, how open are they to the idea of a twoyear bill . I dont want to comment i told them what it was and they listened to what i had to say and they were not committal, but to check with the assembly member. Since its coming from San Francisco, it probably carries a little more weight than coming from somewhere else. Great. As far as beyond the letter, is there anything else we can do to support to make sure we are in line with the other ccas and knowing this could be an important bill for us, and the other ccas that are around the area . There will be but the letter is kind of opening part of it. There will be Committee Hearings in sacramento as it moves through the process. You know, potentially meetings with staff and other key people, in coordination. I would assume there was agreement that we wanted to do something on it, i would be doing all of that coordination and if there was a hearing in sacramento, i would let all of you know in case any of you were available. Because a lot of hearings will be happening in august and you may be around and available or you may be out of town and cant get to sacramento. But i would make sure you with aware, if this body took a position, and if anyone wants to join me in sacramento to participate in the Committee Hearings and everything else. So we can definitely take that very active role depending on what the Commission Decides to do today. Thank you. Last question. Im going to bring you back to the report you gave, but you mentioned the size of the contracts. I noticed ours is requested much sooner than the other two you mentioned here. Mce is for 2019 and palo alto for 2020 and ours is 2016 and asking for nearly double what they are asking. I was wondering of an issue potentially of acquiring that amount of energy . A hope i hope not. In the perspective of the market, this is actually not a lot of energy and, in fact i think what the other entities are doing that i have identified there is sort of each year they are adding a little piece and that is also a riskmitigation strategy, you dont want to overcommit to a given period of time, because the market could move. And then you may be out of market. So there is sort of layering in a little piece into their portfolio and staggering it. And so this will be our first piece, but of course, there will be much more to come as we phase in the rest. It might be a lot of energy just strictly from a solar perspective, but well be looking at a number of different resources and trying to create a diverse portfolio of resources in the first phase. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner crews. Thank you, mr. Fried for your report. I would actually move that we take an opposeunlessamended stance, if you can incorporate any comments that you get from the puc, and also just keeping in mind that we want to credit the behind the meter efforts for ghgfree and to talk to Assembly Members ting office about becoming a twoyear bill and that you write the letter along with chair avalos. If you need my help and support on that throughout the break i dont know if you have vacation plans, but i will be around in august. I would make that motion to make sure that we keep an eye on this throughout the break. When is our next meeting . September 24th. So this could be something that could potentially move while were not watching it, so i want to make sure that we have our finger on the pulse here. Okay. Can we all concur on that . That sounds great. Okay, in that case i will go on to the final item, which is the civil grand jury report. Last week, the San Francisco civil grand jury issued a report on cleanpowersf called cleanpowersf at long last. Its actually for the most part an extremely wellwritten, welldocumented report, it gets into all of the issues and all of the questions that have ever arisen around cca and why it hasnt gotten launched yet and why were moving forward now . It goes into a good discussion of what renewable credits are and how they can be good and they are a positive thing for the environment as a whole. I encourage people to read it and really digest what is in there. Its written in a very simplified language on a very complex issue. There are three bodis that they requested comments back from, and lafco is not one of them, but to respond back to them on five specific topic matters in the document that are part of the pack, et cetera. We do not have to make any comments on this, but one of the things that we do have the ability to do is write a letter either to the board, mayor, puc, and or the civil grand jury. There were a couple of very technical issues that they didnt quite get right in the report. Particularly they referred to some of the stuff lafco did that i dont agree how it was stated. They also make reference to the commission on the environments stance, which they had a very heated and lengthy debate at their august 2013 meeting about what their position was . But they didnt actually change their position at that meeting and the way its written in the report makes it sound they may have taken a position other than their official position, which is something that they did back in 2012. So there might be some ability for us to write a letter, expressings they issues and maybe explaining them a bill better toes its on Public Record so people have a full answer to that. That would be, if the commission wanted to, i could write that, once again working with the chair or the commission to do that during august. Not a major rush as far as the legislation goes because the hearings at least on the board side wont be occurring until september. So we do have some time to put our thoughts down on paper, if we wanted to do so. That is my updates thank you. I can be available to help with the letter and my signature is only a few hours away during the month of august. Okay. Any other questions, colleagues . Okay. Thank you mr. Hyams and mr. Fried for your presentation. Well open up the item for public comment. Any member of the public wishing to comment . Good afternoon