base. the maximum number of customers is in issue and because a lot to this program, if we are seeking to introduce this to thousands of households at a rate that is not competitive, we will see a significant amount of opt-out. we can't support anything that has a greater percentage of opt- out. we want less than 25%. we want them to be in the program later when we have the local buildout. i would like to see a movement that can capture these the ideas and maybe we can move forward on this. >> additional comments?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. american brokers representing the san francisco green party. -- eric brookes, representing the san francisco green party. the key here is that just based on the contract that you're looking at today, we're talking about a relatively small number of customers producing a relatively small revenue stream. they got off the ground, and the your just to be easy competing with pg&e to stay in the game. that is not completing a big revenue stream. what we're talking about with the scope of work that just got

under way last month is that a large body of work needs to be done to show opportunities for building out local efficiency and things like solar, wind, so that over time, the course of 15 to 30 years, you have a bigger revenue stream, not just a little one with some customers at the beginning paying higher rates. and you're not depending on a stream from a small number of customers, but building about a big, new system. building out hundreds of megawatts, it is the key to why we keep saying that this resolution and this contract have a program that goes along with the project has to talk

intrinsically about how the build out who works in the contract works and the overall program designed integrated closely together. that is not in this document. that is a concern. let's get back to the brass tacks of what this planet in this city needs right now, agree new deal that hires thousands of workers. i want to point out that the local solar contractor, the laborers have signed that letter because they note that the future of this city in the future of green jobs and producing from the report that we showed you a couple months back, we're talking about a potential for 4000 jobs a year for at least five years if not longer.

these things have to be closely integrated and move forward to gather so that we can achieve those goals and to get the level of hiring. that is what you need to be asking yourself. >> i am president of the boosters neighborhood association. they the last time i was here, some of you folks weren't here. it was during the closure of the power plant. on the one hand, i am happy that it has happened because it gave me a break from coming to you guys and messing up all of the afternoons. there is a point of conflict when we were working on that because we weren't thrilled about exporting our demand.

and exporting our need for fossil fuel plants to the east bay. the open goal of the closure of the power plant is also quick energy and renewable sources if of all possible so that we are not shifting the burden to somebody else. that is where it combines with the program here. i am in support of the resolution and i am happy to hear about the possible amendment. you won't region the goals that the city's residents really want with this program unless it really has a buildup program who baked into it. the study can move forward along with the resolutions of it is good here possible amendments to that.

and also what they said about the opportunity for jobs. i don't believe that the puc has been aggressive enough about policy during the recession. we work around the external forces of the credit freeze, we have our own credit markets with revenue bonds and other sources. we have ways to put our folks to work. we have to look at whatever policy we have to do that. i think it really should be a goal, trying to get it to work faster. if you need to move this forward, that is fine. >> my name is david gray. i'm the sierra energy chair, new

at that. i wanted to say thank you so much for going ahead and reading our letter expressing our concerns about the program. the sierra club is supportive, we really want to see this program woour main concern is tn by engineering background, i think of things very much in terms of black-and-white. if the terms are not accurately laid out, you're not guaranteed hogging the result you're actually wahoo wanting. -- you aractually want. generating revenues in the city itself, and also to address

global warming. lead to be generating our own power whenever possible. it is in your hands to be able to put that forward. we would like to see this done and a fixed your in the commission if at all possible before it goes to the board of supervisors. it would be an ideal situation for us. and with that, i think i will conclude early. happy holidays. >> i am from the local clean energy alliance. thank you, everybody, for the concerted efforts around the community choice program. i wanted to echo what others have said and what commissioner

torres introduced, having language that makes this particular contract contingent on the development of a plan that is in the works. they are investing a good deal of money around the research and formulation of a developmental effort that will result in the economic development of energy resources in san francisco and the jobs that will come from that. and from that work, the fashioning of a roll out plan that will be the most optimal for the citizens of the city. part of the construction of the total package has to do with how you leverage various resources, energy efficiency resources, creating a rule out that optimizes our ability to sell this program to the folks in san

francisco. folks in the city are very concerned about pricing. they're very concerned about the question of jobs. big leg which -- including language in the resolution upon an explicit plan for framework, who within the 4.5 years, it is reasonable to explain how the local build up will unfold to make it explicit upon that kind of a plan. and upon the types of jobs and economic development that the plan expresses, and the price points that would influence a rollout strategy for that plan. putting this plan forward as it is, it is absent the work that

is going on and a little bit like the card before the horse. we are definitely in favor of moving the process forward, but with the express written assurance that the final contract is dependent upon the work that is being funded right out with the investigative stuff. i don't know if someone has written down specific language, but we would like to see something more explicit in the resolution. >> any other additional public comment? it is in the hands of the commission. >> would you mind coming up again? i think i have an amendment here, but i want to make sure that there is a piece that you said -- i just want to hear it

one more time. >> for the record, i am not a lawyer. what i thought of after hearing that the commissioners because final approval of the contract conditional on an express plan for local build up with a rate plan that will reflect that plan and a rollout that launches the maximum number of customers in the rate base possible. >> thank you so much. president moran: i am wondering if there is a path through this item.

oen is but this -- not one is put this on hold for nine months vs was presented to us which is to proceed with the contract that meets the term she requirements that we agreed to at the prior meetings. i guess i am hearing an attempt to try to do both, and my first question is, can both be done? she points out that if we seek to amend the contract, that would have ceqa implications that we would have to deal with. if we have a resolution that includes a whereas, committing ourselves to the lumber program, it reaffirms our long- term intent but does nothing to alter the specific build up that has been -- roll out that has

been proposed to us. where would we like to go? >> i would like to introduce an amendment to the resolution which would read as follows. >> i second that motion. >> of the puc reaffirms its commitment to the local home builders out components-- local buildout program to the cca program. whereas the puc anticipates the immediate commencement of b the localuildout -- of the local buildout. generation revenues identified and the sfpuc approves a budget and timeline for the local bill the -- buildout. >> can that be accommodated with c in the existeqa stand --

within the existing ceqa standards. >> if you are saying that when you enter into this contract that you are unequivocal making discretionary decision now that a local buildout that is not defined as something to you are obligated to do, then you should add language that makes it clear that there will be some subsequent decision by the commission and the board that you are exercising that your sole discretion to decide if, where, and how you will make physical changes of you can have appropriate mitigation measures. it might be part of the study

that you have commissioned that is supposed to be under way for the next nine months to frame the physical build up so you can consider the environmental impact. we can draft language that will reserve your discretion to review all of that, but i can't do it yet. it is impossible that we can take a break while we do some other things and i can get some people to write that? it might be helpful especially because this is a contract, at least the preliminary contract approval going to the board, you have partners. it might be nice to show them how we are going to amend the approval of the resolution. >> i don't think we are amending the contract. that is not the intent of this

apparel. and the way i heard her read that, i thought was expressions of intent, not commitments to do. if you read it one more time, it might assuage your concerns. >> i was thinking a short break might be in order now in any event. why don't we do that, and to give the city attorney a chance to look at the language. my hearing of it was the same as yours and hopefully it will get us where we need to go. without objection, we'll take a short break and reconvene at 2:00.

president moran: we are back in session. we have a draft and that the city attorney has been able to review. if i could have somebody read it. >> i will read it. whereas -- and i am not exactly sure, i guess it should be inserted after the fourth

whereas on page 8. does that make sense? >> it is shirley page to, but it is really page 8. -- is really page two, but it is really page 8. >> after achieving this city because the goals -- city's goals. the puc reaffirms its commitment to pursue the local who billed out component of -- local buildout component of the cca. and whereas the puc anticipates the immediate commencement of the local buildout. once the have completed their scope of work, sufficient revenues are identified, the

sfpuc considers the environmental analysis of any physical impact of the local bellout -- buildout program, and approves the budget and timeline for the local buildout. president moran: any questions from the commission on that language? >> second. president moran: procedurally, we don't have anything to make an amendment to yet. let's just do this and a simple way and tell me if it doesn't stand up. let's vote on the language, we can move the replacement resolution that includes that language. >>-secon