tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 4, 2019 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
sec. [roll call] >> thank you very much. can we please have the next item. [reading items] >> is there a motion to approve the minutes of june 11? >> moved to approve. >> is there any public comment on the minutes of june 11? all of those in favor? opposed? motion carries. next item please. [reading items] >> i do have some speaker cards here. good afternoon.
>> thank you. >> can we move the overhead please? >> thank you advice chair vietor and commissioners. i am executive director, welcome commissioner maxwell and commissioner paulson who is not here. it's an honor for you to be appointed commission and an important responsibility as you well know. the folks that sit on the commission and work for the sfpuc do important public work we should all expect - respect even if we disagree with some of the things they want to do. thank you. a few months ago, i came before this commission and talked about the history of the
damning in yosemite national park. to expand recreational opportunities once the dam went into place and how the access and recreation has not really been realized as was promised. we have done additional research on what is in the freeman report, the house committee report, the redirect itself in several decades of negotiations that took place after. we have come to the conclusion that the best way to provide the access and recreational opportunities that were promised 100 years ago by your predecessors are to provide environmentally appropriate boat access to hetch hetchy reservoir. we have written a letter to the
secretary inferior, and the mayor of san francisco with copies, of course, to the commission. that is what is on the screen here, a moment ago. i will be asking to meet with staff, and also with any commissioners that might be interested in discussing this opportunity. you very much. >> thank you. next i have a speaker card. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon commissioners. last time i was here, we were having a discussion about the first people. in all of our deliberations, when we are talking about the hetch hetchy reservoir, if you really have some decency, well mannered
[inaudible], you need to respect the elders. if you don't respect the elders, then you will fall flat on your face as you already are. so, much before the national park service, which was formed in 1916, and the water department playing a role with hetch hetchy, were the first people carbon dated to 15,000 years. somehow, they are left out of the equation. now, in the year 2019, we can monitor the amount of water which belongs to all of california's, believe me. people have to read the
legislations, and the laws that are in our books regarding water. it belongs to each and every californian. so, why is it in 2019 they are using pristine water from the hetch hetchy to flush our toilet? why is it that we are not paying attention to the state mandate that say you have to do inventory of the housing and see if you really have the ability to provide the water? you just ignore it. the last time i was here there was some deliberation, you know, were going to do something and send it to the planning department. no, no, no. we cannot go on building skyscrapers indefinitely. we cannot. if you pay attention to what is happening all over the
world, cape town and in other places there is no water. we are going to run out of water. so, as commissioners you have to think outside of the box. you have to have empirical data ready to provide to the planning department. from time to time, hundreds of millions of gallons of water in the forest area. you all know about it, but don't talk about it. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have another speaker card peter. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. at your last
meeting i requested sfpuc have a joint meeting with the planning commission to discuss water supply issues and i'm making that request again. since you have been approving these new water supplies, 2 projects have come to the planning commission both are teared off the central plans program eir. the planning commission document states, since the final eir was finalized there have been no substantial changes and no substantial changes to circumstances that would require major revisions to the final eir. due to the involvement of their significant by environmental effects or increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. there is no new information of substantial importance that would change the conclusion set forth in the final eir. the central summit plan state development under the plan, and proposed network changes would not require or
result in the construction of substantial new water treatment facilities on the city would have fish on water supply available from existing entitlements. the central summit plant pir relied on information from sfpuc's urban water management plan, availability study in 2015 urban water management plan. what the sfpuc reported in the water supply assessment is the state water resources control board on december 12, 2018, adopted amendment to the water quality control estimates. if the bay delta plan amendment were to be implemented it would result in water supply shortages during single dry and multiple dry years, greater than those rejected in 2015 urban water management plan. there is obviously a real disconnect between information here and what the planning commission's
hearing. in your water supply conditions update today you will see water available to san francisco this year, so far, there's still a lot of snow pack is 1361,000 acre-feet. to put that in perspective, the demand pre-drought in 2013 was 2050,000. this year alone, san francisco has had more than five years worth of water and it could be substantially more. again we appeal to you to take another look at the design drought. it's necessary, it's causing problems with the planning department and obviously the bay delta plan which is desperately needed for the toile ami river. thank you very much. >> thank you. i think at the last meeting i guess it was when this came up, we recognize that
it was important that we did talk to the planning commission about the water supply situation in light of what is happening at the state board. we did have the manager schedule meeting with the planning director and hopefully go before the commission to educate the commissioners so that there is not a disconnect that you referenced. i think it is very important as plans are moving to the planning process, as developed and move forward, they are aware of the situation here at the puc for our water limitations. general manager, have you made any progress on scheduling those meetings? >> we have reached out, but have not been able to - because he and i have been on holiday. >> great. if you could please continue to do that and make sure that somehow the commission becomes aware of the challenges we are facing with our water supply. we would really
appreciate that. >> i would like to be more civic and say, you know, maybe before the summer, or the end of july, or august, i want to be a bit more specific. i thought we were going to have that as a discussion? i did not know that we already decided on that. in the discussion i think we talked about what we would like to hear, what we would like to discuss and talk about, or hear about what his plans were to discuss. >> my understanding is not like we've never had a conversation they are very familiar with our situation because we have been working with staff to characterize our wsa's that we actually sent to them. they are very knowledgeable about the
situation my understanding is to just really make sure they understand what the issues are, how we plan to address our situation as it relates to looking for rigorously at different water supplies, so that we can hopefully fill in the demand over time and then also give an update on where we are as it relates to the talks at the state. that is my understanding, is what we were, you know, going to update on. >> are you talking about the commission or the staff? >> we talked about talking to the director, and then, seeing if it would be valuable if we come before their commission to discuss, or give a presentation on it. >> i think it is important to go
before the commission. >> i think it is the director - i mean, - >> the public and go and - excuse me. the public and go in front of the commission any time. i am sure we can. i think it's important for us to make it different than it has been all of the other time. our situation has changed. i think it is important that we ask formulae. if we need to ask, we ask formulae, we don't ask, we say that we would like to go in front of the commission and talk to them about recent things that have happened in the state, regarding water. because there has been a change. i think it is important we take a formal stance to talk to them about this. that means something has changed and it is different. so, could you please request the other planning director, that your commission would like you to present to the planning
commission the situation, and as you outlined it sounds right on. what the issues are? how we will be addressing the situation with the puc and sed update as it relates to these issues coming before them? >> i will make the request. >> it also might be helpful, i would ask for a policy to come back to the commission that would reflect the analysis that was in the water supply assessed - - - assessments. specifically around the maximum level of curtailment that would be expected for residential property. i think, if we have that before us, and act on it that will make a more powerful statement to the planning commission when we get there. i would encourage that to come back to us as soon as possible. >> do you want us to go to the commission before we have a policy, or after the policy?
>> i would like to see us adopt a policy before we are formally in front of the planning commission. i think that strengthens - it clarifies our position. basically we acted on long-standing knowledge and understanding, it was not reflected in the policy. i think we do reflect that in policy, - i was just handed a copy of my request. i would just ask that, you know, if we could get that at the next meeting, it sounds like is moving at a deliberate enough pace that we should be able to get in front of it. >> just to respond to commissioner maxwell, i believe it should be agenda eyes, if it is not, they cannot comment on
it. the planning commission, if it is not agenda eyes, i have to work with them and make sure. >> that is what i thought we were going to do, put it on our agenda so we can have a discussion. i like the policy. we are not leaving july 9. the next meeting is when to be july 23. so, - >> i just wanted to know, we really need to not continue. >> i just want to make sure i understand your request, right? >> i would suggest a discussion for the next meeting. >> can we request that the july 23 meeting that we have a draft of the policy and we discussed this and any other thoughts that the commissioners have? >> thank you. that was the general public comment. any other comment? hearing none.
next item he please. [reading items] >> any comments on communications? any public comment on communication? hearing none. next item please. >> first item. [reading items] >> ralph was first hired in 1986 as associate electrical engineer for hetch hetchy water and power. he worked 12 years and in 1998 he took a four year hiatus to teach english in china, which, you know, it was 90%
reduction in pay but it was 100% satisfactory, right? then he returned back to the puc in 2002. he was a scheduler for the project and is mcgrew. and then he returned to the power enterprise as a utilities specialist where he would - was integral in customer load forecasting of our power and making sure the agency was compliant in its reporting. throughout his time, at the puc, ralph has been a champion of wellness amongst colleagues. i would watch people walk up and down the stairs led by ralph. and also promoting healthy eating programs, as well. a lot of people lost a lot of weight in the power enterprise. [laughter] i want to thank you ralph. i don't know what they are going to do when you actually leave. one of the things i heard that he actually
put a scale in the power enterprise. [laughter] a lotta people were fearful of the scales he had in there. he also really help to participate in holiday parties, and really made the backbone of the power enterprise. everyone when i came i give you your service pin everyone had gone to things to say about you. we are going to miss you. his next adventure is to return to china, with his wife, to teach english again. we just want to thank you for your years of service, and we wish you the best of luck. thank you very much. [applause] >> may i say a few words? thank you for the privilege of serving our beloved city all that these years. i am especially proud with serving with the department whose mission is this - delivering clean and safe water and power to the bay area. my charge to you is to continue
stewarding this wonderful god-given system for generations to come. i want to acknowledge the support of our team, both here and upcountry. without them, i would not be able to do what i did. i am especially grateful for friends who actually saved my life when i had my fainting incident about three years ago. they are all here, and i want to thank you. [applause] >> thank you. congratulations. if you wouldn't mind, we would like to take a photo and give you a certificate of honor.
retiring? he looks like a little baby, look at him. little baby face up here. josh is a cornerstone of what we do at the puc as a relates to upcountry. we look at him as a historian. we have many questions, or any concerns, everyone goes to josh, he has really been a thought partner, and it's just amazing that everyone reaches out to you, and really embraces how we can get things done in the water enterprise. you helped us negotiate, and renegotiate the host cell water agreements as we have worked collaboratively to work on that, most recently. you really helped with the water system improvement program which is something, when i first came on board, you know, we dealt a lot with you, or i have, at that
time, i really was amazed with your in-depth knowledge. one of the things that josh now does is that he has a two hour presentation that he actually put together to really talk about the history. he has collected a lot of old photos of the history of upcountry and our hetch hetchy system. he is just really an outstanding asset. we are going to be so sad to see you leave. now, i heard, i was unable to attend your celebration of your retirement with the city attorney. i heard a lot of distinguished folks came and gave you some accolades rated board of supervisor peskin, which is pretty amazing [laughter] and, just to show
that everyone respects you, and we are really going to miss you. i think we are probably still going to tap into that mind of yours as you retire, there is something that we call - [inaudible] where we will probably ask you to come back to help us on some specific issues. i just want to personally tell you thank you for all of the effort that you have done, although you have worked in the city attorney's office, we feel you are part of the puc family. i had the opportunity to grace you with the opportunity to stay up at the chalet so you could experience it firsthand. you really deserve it. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would also like to
personally extend thank you, appreciation and congratulations on your retirement. it's been so good to work with you these many years. you have done such a great service to this commission and to the city. it is hard to believe it's been 34 years that you have been here. we wish you the best in your next 34 years of retirement. before we hear from you, i do have a public comment card from nicole. so i thought we would take comments from her first and then hear from you. >> thank you very much. i cannot pass up an opportunity to thank you. i did not eat at your retirement party. we have been working together for almost 20 years, yeah. i have to say, the respect i have for you is amazing. thinking about the work, talking about the contract negotiations. one would think we would be on opposite sides of the table. we certainly sat on opposite sides of the table. i
think with your leadership and some other leadership we have been able to respect our constituents. who we represent, and really force something that works for both of them in a better way than we would be. for that i cannot thank you enough. and, i am glad you are coming back. tran21 last person before we hear from you, our attorney. >> it is hard to think of the puc without you. speaking of someone who has been here and gone a couple of times, you are one of the constant. you been studying your guidance, and dedicated to the mission of the public utilities commission. at the retirement party made some comments about one of the things you liked about working in the
city attorney's office is that it was a group of intelligent people who were dedicated to the idea of figuring out how you can legally do the right thing. which i thought was an interesting definition of the city attorney's role and one that i think you certainly exemplified. i appreciate your service, i look forward to continuing to work with you and various levels. >> are you okay? now would you like to make a few remarks? >> i would. it's been an honor and a privilege to serve the puc. when i started here in 1985, there were certain aspects of the water department that were almost a hold over from the spring valley water company. i
really seen the organization grow into the great entity that it is today, getting it approved without a single legal challenge was really impressive. i started not knowing much about water and telling engineers what to do, they love that. after 34 years i finally learned that i probably should shut up most of the time we say things occasionally, and follow your lead was of the time. i am part of your family, that is the highest compliment that you could give me. it's been an honor serving you. thank you. >> if you wouldn't mind coming up. [crying] we have a resolution here that we would like to present to you. come on up.
last meetings, or the last meeting in this fiscal year to do a review on how we have been doing with clean power sf over the years. we are going to start to conduct these updates for you on a quarterly basis, instead of at every commission meeting. i thought it would be good wrap up before we get onto the new cycle. first up, the number of customers enrolled. we started this fiscal year with just over 87,000 customer accounts. now we stand at just over 400,000. 357% increase over the course of a year. it's been quite a year. we've managed to hold a pretty steady opt out rate. 3.2% at the beginning of the year just went up 1%, 3.3%. our super green statistics also look pretty strong. we started the year with a little over 3400, now here we
are with a little over 6100, super green account. a nice growth rate there. we have been out in the community with our communications team support, extensively over this past year. over a million enrollment notices, 180 separate organizations were contacted, over 35 neighborhood organizations presentations, we've got a lot going on with multilingual, out door and news ad campaign, community events, really a very active engagement with the community over the course of the past year. our energy sales went from 560,000 mwh to over 2 million mwh of clean energy sold in san francisco. our revenues from 40 million, at the start of the year, to one 66 million. really a substantial growth in this
program. we've had some serious work folio and peer care meant activity as well. we have energy portfolio that was 48% california verified renewables was one 2018. we are expecting to deliver a portfolio that is 50% california certified renewable in 2019. an increase there. with our procurement efforts we have produced san francisco's electric sector greenhouse emissions from 80% from 1990 levels. that is 435,000 metric tons of co2. our focus now given all of those accomplishments is going to be programs. we did significantly expand our net energy metering of our program with more than
8400, excuse me, 8400 customer account i we launched our pink day pricing program. that was our new pilot program for large commercial customers this year. and now we are as a staff group keep that operation record going and turn our focus towards programs. i look forward to continuing our updates, but on a less frequent basis you will hear from you next august. i want to thank you and the clean power sf team for the work that got us to this point. enke. >> congratulations, that is a great report. i would love to hear in august about some of the thinking on the programs, a little deeper dive on what that actually means and some of the jobs. i don't want to lose sight of that goal for this program, some of the job creation goals, and i know there has been quite a bit of job creation within the puc but what is happening out in
the field, and even if you can put that out around energy efficiency or go solar, or different programs, if you will, that are projected to generate and create jobs. >> thank you. >> are there any more programs? can you give an example of what you mean by programs? >> sure. we have talked about clean power sf being an opportunity for us to increase the energy efficiency and distributed energy generation that san francisco developed. we talked about additional long-term contracting that will help us on the job front as well as in achieving our clean energy goals. really the programs are intended to be responsive to customer needs. like the peak day pricing program where commercial customers came to us and said, you know we have experience with this kind of a
program we would like clean power sf to have one as well. to see if we can save money on these peak hot days. we stood the program up. we know there are low income customer needs that can be addressed through different kinds of programs we are planning to conduct a community engagement process on equity in particular. so that we can have a strong equity component and the programs that we develop. >> when you say equity, give me an example of what you mean? >> you now, i think a more traditional form is low income rate subsidies for low income customers. it can also be how we address electrification of the transportation sector hear in san francisco. you know, it's not just about buying electric vehicles, if you can afford them. it is about closing out last mile with electrically charged vehicles, scooters,
bikes, you know, any form that will help folks take them to their ultimate destination, supported by a clean energy chart opportunity. >> might it also include something like a generation project in the southeast area that could create - generate jobs, but also take smaller polluting aspects of power production and generation off-line? >> it could. we have such a claim portfolio, d carbonized in a building sector through energy, how we do energy efficiency and maybe fuel switching programs might be a more impactful program to implement. as i say, part of what we want to do is hear more from the community on what sort of programs they want, so we are targeting the right efforts. >> when you say you're going to talk to the community, you are assuming they know what kind of
programs that are out there? is there an education component along with that so they can say "oh, okay, i understand now. " just saying you're going to the community, to me, they don't know anything about what you're talking about, how can they come up with anything. is there an educational component to that so that you are educating the public what is out there and what they can do? >> i think it is twofold. it's both engagement with community groups and stakeholders who may have more of a perspective, just coming at the energy question in the first place. but also, in a more direct, you know, customer, or agency to customer perspective. in not setting we absolutely need to do more education. >> i think if you are going to expand the groups you can talk to. you're talking about energy groups, that is a very select, small group.
>> i agree. >> the ymca, the ywca, those people can learn about energy and then when people come in they can be more helpful. i think there needs to be an educational component to this so that all of us know a little bit more about - especially since the possibility of this going into public power. the more we talk to people about it, the more they know. >> excellent. we are working with a community benefits team and putting together an engagement strategy. you know, i come at this with my subject matter expertise which is not community engagement. eileen on folks who have that expertise area we do have some consulting services helping us shape this in, in a culturally beneficial way to get good engagement. like you are describing. >> thank you so much. >> i just want to add, with
engagement, when we did the environmental justice education, we did the education and talked about with the issues are, or possibilities. talk about each one of the options so you have a dialogue. >> thank you. >> you will hear more about this as we develop the program. >> thank you so much. now we will take public comment and i have one card from elaina dupree. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i always enjoy these clean power reports. while i am going to miss them at frequent intervals, i would say, let us work on our communications and have some website dash boards, so we can always be in the know. and that those that hunger and thirst for knowledge will be able to get it
at any time, because these reports are very, very helpful and educational to me. a lot of good ideas in this report. now, moving into a program, we are now piloting the ship along the water. i spoke at this group is six years ago when we were just trying to get this off the ground. so, i am very excited about the idea of the electrification and fuel switching. we have a big problem in the state with curtailment, during the day, because we produce lots of renewable energy. but unfortunately we have other generation we cannot turn down. if we can take some of those kilowatt hours, such as the heating hot water with it - big electric boilers, we can use those kilowatt hours. i am a user of the shared scooters, and bikes. i only wish that we had
more of them and i'm continuing to advocate in those spaces. that way they will be everywhere, a library of electric vehicles i can use. i am not taking an automobile onto the road. i am doing my part here, so we are 50%, which is great, let's move that up to 60%. eventually to the date when all of san francisco, regardless of customer level will be operating on renewable power. i am in support of this work, but the work must not end. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other public comments on this item? next item please. >> that concludes my report. >> thank you. next item.
[reading items] >> thank you. >> barbara hale assistant generation - - thank you for letting us some of this report today. we publish this in may. our first opportunity to give you a deep dive on its findings. we will also present at the board of supervisors in july. i am going to give a brief review of the history of city power services, and describe the context in which the report was called for and prepared. then i will spend a little more time reviewing the options of the report present and the recommended next steps. first up we are going to talk a little of the history here. as you know,
the traveler is a department of the city and county of san francisco. we operate two programs, i just talked about our tran11 program serving electric supply to businesses and residents. we also have our hetch hetchy program, a public power utility serving functions like muni, general hospital, the airport, police and fire stations, public schools, our water and wastewater facilities in the new developments like the shipyard at hunters point, ocean rock, treasure island. historically, the city has paid pg&e for distribution services associated with these programs. together, that is about 300 million a year, in distribution fees that are played - paid by san franciscans. 300 million per year for use of pg&e distribution wires and
facilities. over time, san francisco has been reducing its reliance on pg&e. increasing our energy independence. it began in 1918 when we first started generating our own power. carbon free hydro electricity on the hetch hetchy system. an associated trance ocean. the system has expanded over time, since 1997, san francisco has assumed more responsibility for operating distribution services first at treasure island and then at the shipyard at hunters point, and the salesforce transit center. as we build transmission and distribution to serve the improved southeast wastewater treatment facility and new development along the southern waterfront. then in 2016, we further reduced our reliance to serve more clean energy to residents and businesses. as a result of these
activities, san francisco is now the dominant supplier of electricity and sentences go. ceqa is the provider of the grid services. san francisco is very dependent on pg&e for that. that brings us to the context here. these difficulties arean franci on pg&e for that. that brings us to the context here. these difficulties are reported to the board quarterly at a hearing public safety and neighborhood services committee. it made it really clear that the pg and e role is really delaying and obstructing distribution services to important facilities. increasing cost, for city projects like our senior affordable housing, swimming pool renovations, health and community centers and electrical vehicle charging installations.
meanwhile pg&e faces ongoing reliability, safety and financial challenges. they have an alarming history of safety violations and they have filed for bankruptcy protection. mayor breed on the board requested this report to explore electric service options. city staff prepared this report, it is based on publicly available information. it is preliminary. the options are discussed in the pre-luminary report. we have identified three limited independent, more independence, and full independence. limited independence is where we continue to pay pg&e for distribution service and argue before the regulators for fair access, unsafe affordable service. with more independence, we achieve that through targeted, strategic investment and distribution that the city
would own and operate. and pay pg&e to provide service where we do not own and operate distribution. under the full independence option, we pay pg&e a fair market value, and become the owner and operator of the system serving san francisco. here is a snapshot of those options to give you a sense of size, and capitalist managers. the size ranges from 3,500-400,000 by accounts served, and hundred 50 mw under these different options. distribution revenues of 100 million per year up to 700 in a year and a capital outlay of between 25 million annually to a few billion. looking then at each a little bit deeper. just
keeping up the good fight, you have been briefed six times on the various complaints we have, trying to ensure fair and reasonable service area it shows we have 51 city projects currently delayed, about 9.5 million in extra cost since the fall of 2018. the limited independence option has us continuing to beat that drum, and try to achieve what we can for the city in service to those projects. >> before we leave that limited - that's basically maintaining data, if you will. we have been fighting for fair treatment for a long time. is there now limited independent scenario where we are not fighting for fair treatment but we do have
limited independence? >> so, - >> with more collaborative, as i think we initially envisioned. >> i think there could be. i have been working for the city now for almost 15 years, we haven't gotten there. i understand that it wasn't collaborative in years higher. it's just a challenging situation where we are put in a position of both competing with pg&e to provide service, and relying on pg&e. i think it is a tough dynamic. there may be opportunities to find more agreement and disagreement. that road is very reliant on pg&e.
>> i mean, i was just curious, this option has presented such a competitive option competitive option, it seems like there is no other limited independence option because we have not experienced it. >> as you know, we have tried numerous times to sit at a table and negotiate with pg&e and resolve these conflicts. we have not succeeded. i beg your pardon? and litigated, as a result, yes. the next targeted investment as the city shifts towards more - this scenario of reducing costs, there is prospects that are greater for rate modernization. we still have hardships that remain where the city has not made such
investments. the third option, acquiring assets for full independence would have us expanding the cities existing publicly owned utility, our hedging program. it would cost us a few billion dollars, we estimate to acquire the facilities that pg&e currently operates to serve san francisco. that few billion places it in the realm of other capital investment that the puc and the city have undertaken. other conflicts undertaking that the city has pursued our water system improvement programs, the airports expansion and redevelopment, i am showing here, that is just my way of saying we think it is doable for the city. but it is complex. it is not without risks and challenges. here you can see, we have compared how these
different options address how public funds are used. who oversees the programs that ensures operational accountability? the effectiveness under these options of achieving, san francisco's climate goals, and how the option and cleanpowersf sort of fit, right? we conclude here is that full independence is the option that forms the best, on each. public funds are used for public ownership and investment and inferences go investments in san francisco's - as san francisco is controlling the grid in making decisions. ensuring accountability, and driving climate goals we are integrating the cleanpowersf program. >> oversight accountability and
rate setting. is that inadvertent or? >> that was really an issue of space. i am sorry we glossed over you there. my assumption and put in this together, any of these scenarios the public utilities commission has a role. >> you mentioned earlier, targeted investments and more independent. hardships remain where the city has not made about. can you give me an example of that? >> sure. we are making investments along the southern waterfront, right? but, san francisco serves load throughout san francisco. when the voters agreed to support a bond to improve all of the swimming pools, almost every swimming pool is being improved area every single one of those
situations is a situation where we end up in an argument with pg&e. the pool was the most recent one. >> where the city has not made investments? >> right. what i am referring to their is not making investments and owning our own distribution system. even if we do targeted investment, there will be parts that we own, and parts that we do not. where we don't own, we are going to probably still have challenges with connecting to the system that pg&e owns. >> i just want to clarify, i mean, we were in a scenario where we had omitted independent - - - limited independence, and we would argue about everything. what we did was we looked at, given our financial ability, what can we actually pursue
>> so that's why we are very intrigued and the option of looking at full, you know, acquiring the distribution system. >> the other point i want to make on that is the opportunities for those targeted investments is somewhat limited. it would be incredibly wasteful to build a duplicate distribution system. there are cases where there is a significant new load such as the
shipyard that we can make a good financial case for building distribution for that. other cases, you know, it is a lot harder to make that case. >> so you mentioned that in a year, we give them a $300 million? >> right, that is a combination of what the city pays to support the program, and what -- and what customers pay pg & e directly under the clean power s.f. program. >> so that money would no longer go to pg & e but we would have that to use ourselves? >> correct. >> we would pay $300 million a year, then we calculate that in ten years, 15 years, we will have paid our self, and then there would be more as well, i'm sure more revenue coming in besides that. >> right. >> on top of that we have other revenue. >> correct. >> and that is part of the study
work that we need to continue to pursue and understand. >> that is great, you know, that point that you bring up. that is a way we are looking at it. right now it is like leasing a car versus buying a car and making the payment yourself, and at the end, he owned the car. versus renting the car and you never -- >> and a car, you know, that is not a very good -- >> i'm just saying. [laughter] >> also, you know, a car depreciates even more quickly if you don't maintain it, and that is a significant piece as well to factor in those costs, and you condition you get the car, as well. you don't want a eat out car, you want it to be in pretty good shape or you at least have to factor this costs in. >> we have to look at the impact on remaining customers, we have to look at the impact of costs and right -- and rates into the
future, we have to integrate pg & e's operational systems into the city and we have to address the popout -- possible disproportionate impacts to communities and residents of the city. it is complex, it is challenging , as i say, it is not risk-free, but our preliminary work shows that there is likely long-term benefits. >> i don't see on here the workforce integration question which i keep hearing out in the world, and that seems like it's going to be pretty challenging as well, is how those workers theoretically would come over and become city employees. >> right. they certainly have -- the pg & e workforce that has been working on the system in san francisco certainly has skills and knowledge and abilities that we value. we have different union workforce