supervisor mirkarimi: madame, clerk, and good afternoon. if you do not have any announcements, can you read roll call? commissioner campos: present. commissioner dufty: present. commissioner avalos: present. commissioner schmeltzer: absent. commissioner mirkarimi: present.

commissioner pimentel: present. commissioner mirkarimi: item number two. >> presentation of minutes. seeing none, any public comment? public comment is closed. without approval, some moved. -- so moved. >> an update of the process. commissioner mirkarimi: mr. campbell, welcome. >> before i get into the next

steps, i wanted to highlight those that were not aware that last tuesday, there was a hearing on issues related to cca. nancy miller was there as well as commissioner mirkarimi. the committee was interested in what legislation might be helpful to promote cca in california. the issues raised were related to some of the challenges you have all heard here, like putting some real teeth into the laws that would -- the law says

that pg&e should fully cooperate with cca. there should be some legislative changes to really compel them to cooperate, and what that would mean. we talked about some of the existing rules about benefit fees and the application for energy efficiency. participating customers are creating a subsidy where they are paying for benefits that accrue to the investor-owned portfolio and their energy supply portfolio. it was a well attended hearing, and the senators were very receptive to what they were hearing.

a ton of she wants to add to that now or later -- i do not know if she wants to add to that now or later. commissioner mirkarimi: please. maybe we'll pepper this in, but i of appreciated your comments. from the portion that i missed of your first panel discussion, i thought it was very useful to have san francisco and other jurisdictions together were able to illustrate the painful experience that we have gone through, sometimes we think we are alone, but pg&e has really blitzkrieged, attempted to

pursue similar objectives. i have to say that it was very validating. it was not an activist a ton, it was a very academic policy. and they were sort of able to share those. people who probably did not have any -- i think they would have had to have walked away knowing how reprehensible pg&e's actions have been. it enabled municipalities to

use cca. we're not an investor-owned utility or governement. when the private sector decides to rain down, we have no treasury to draw from. we can't return fire if that was what we needed to begin with. san joaquin, what san francisco has been experiencing, it was very helpful to modernize the approach. >> so the exciting part in terms

of what is next hot how we are going to move forward, we made some modifications to the rfp following the september meeting. on nobemb - -november -- on november 3, we received 04 responses. there were various elements of those responses and wanted to make sure that we could have the broadest number of firms to be considered and scored. we are holding meetings with all four respondents on monday. we will sit down and be able to

have a dialogue to have a frank dialogue and to make clear what needs to be included in the responses. and give them a bit more time to let them explain to us whether her or not that is what they want to do. and putting together their packages, it just wasn't included in what we saw. and give them some time to provide the follow up material and go through the scoring process. that is what we are thinking, and we should be able to be on the december timeframe for having selected primary responders. commissioner mirkarimi: commissioner campos would like

to ask you something, but can you tell us who they are? >> they were respondents to the last rfp that was ultimately unsuccessful. we got a response from a firm called noble america's. we got a response from consolation and a response from show energy -- shell energy. commissioner mirkarimi: these are not small companies, to say the least. >> three of them for sure. commissioner mirkarimi: interesting change from the

first effort until mal. >> we are excited to sit down with the firm's on monday. commissioner campos: just a quick question about the larger strategy before we go forward. i think it is great that we have made progress, but i wonder that going through this process, are we not thinking of another option that would be exploring the possibility of the city simply doing this on its own? it might very well be that we get to the right result in terms of the rfp process. but i think it may be other advantages.

>> the city policy is to try to work with other vendors and achieve all the goals. that is what we are pursuing. we have already begun internally to try to figure out what would be another option. we do buy and sell energy. and why don't we provide greenhouse gas free energy? it would not be starting something from scratch. we have started looking into that. it is something i agree has holes some interest. >> i don't know what my colleagues think about this, but at some point, there should be maybe a formal request to get that kind of analysis done by

puc. maybe there is no need for a formal request. i think it is something that should be done and we should explore what the option looks like fully. i think we should do that perspective of what happens with the -- irrespective of what happens with the rfp process. we might find ourselves in a position similar to one that we saw before. i think we have to explore those options on a parallel basis. and that means looking at issues are around liability. there are risks involved, the operational limitations. i think we should be looking at that at the same time and finalize the analysis as much as

possible. that would be my thinking at this point. commissioner pimentel: the first question is, what if they do not make upgrades and choose to send out [unintelligible] >> what happens if we don't get the responses or qualifications? if we don't receive the minimum qualifications as required, we would need to reject those responses. the next question is, what we seek to issue another - -would -- would we seek to issue another rfp? i think it would be ripte for policymakers to give guidance about what to do, or some other

approach. commissioner pimentel: this happened with the homeowner were the meter was not working. if someone became part of this program, how does it get reimbursed? >> if a customer had an issue with their meter where they weren't being charged? the way that the meter works for all utilities that i know of, if there are anomalies, it raises a flag. and there is sometimes an estimated bill that is based on historic usage. there are mechanisms for

figuring out how to handle that. those are some of the issues that we will be working with. that is the interaction for the data transfer, customer usage data so that we can properly billed customers. >> i want to come back to the point that the commissioner brought up. we touched upon this before, and i think there is a real emergency where they come to may be the conclusion that in the end, there may be real merit for the city to see the whole program driven by us in the city. what would that take in order to

instruct the puc to begin to calculate what that particular role would be? >> i think the guidance from my own commission, the priority -- i can tell you that during the time of issue in the r -- issuing the rfp, what is the process and what should we be doing to answer the question and provide the services internally? what might be the limitations that we take into consideration to up to buy as benefits for san francisco.

commissioner mirkarimi: one of the challenges ahead to be the question of liability. it is a pretty stiff bar. at least we are able to minimize that particular concern, at least to some extent in the consideration of why the sfpuc should step up and compete, for lack of a better phrase. >> one item to recall, we discussed this a bit when talking about the credit rating. one of the benefits of going with a party supplier is that it is a third party for providing credit to engage in