other. if you go to pine lake day camp now, you will see 50 kids there. the r directors are wonder. >> the pine lake is natural. they take of the area around the lake. they plant natives that are drought tolerant. one that stands the dry summers here. the whole park is under going quite a bit of reconstruction. they will renovate the trails around the lake. and the big project is the capital project for pine lake meadow. they are going to returf the dog run and the meadow by the day camp. we are looking for a very busy fall. by the spring of next year

should have major renovations to the mark thal make it an outstanding park. i don't ever refer to it as my park. all the parks belong to all the people. this park belongs just as much to the families in the bay view sdrishth as it does to the gentlemen that lives across the street. i'm happy and proud to be the caretaker for them. i wake up every day and thank that i hav 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 the energy marketplace. with these types of contracts, whether it be us or a third- party with power suppliers, you have to be able to demonstrate that they will be able to buy the power. going with the third party supplier, the benefits is that it is putting up the collateral. we would need to be doing the

same. i do believe that that would require of those types of things are calculated. it might play into a effective program that we think is optimal as we get going. those types of questions we are looking into. commissioner mirkarimi: thinking on the threat of what -- thread of what commissioner campos is talking about, they will be participating about the process. maybe when we leave up to the next joint meeting that i believe is scheduled in december, there be some response how this might be addressed, looking at a

potential role and answering the question of what it would look like vying for the cca. >> i agree with what he said, but anybody that is going to take on risk will factor the cost of that. i think it is a really good idea to look at that because you can break out rescue. -- risk. you can figure out the best way to allocate risk. you will still need a power supplier contract. i would definitely do that. i think it would be a good idea to entertain the motion to direct staff to look at that auction -- option. as well as, we'll agendize that

for the joint meeting in december. commissioner campos: if i may, i would make a motion to direct staff to ask the puc to explore the possibility of the city essentially managing the program and operating income internally to explore the possibility of how much of that can help. commissioner mirkarimi: without objection? excellent. that was useful. regarding the report by mr. campbell, is there anything you would like to add to that? >> ha the date of december 6, i would like to move that up a little bit and it will depend on meeting with them.

i would like to try to give them a week to respond or whatever seems reasonable. i have not yet had a chance to talk with mike about the time that we are allowing them to respond. the point would be to make it as quick as possible. commissioner mirkarimi: our meeting on the tenth sounds like it is going forward. the joint meeting with sfpuc. whatever we can do to expedite a more thorough hearing would be helpful. >> we will be able to figure out if they need the weeks, and i know that we have a holiday coming up. whether or not we can compress that a bit. >> we will be working together on monday.

i suggested december 6 because i was thinking of a two-week time frame. we will be asking for something new, and we don't plan to work through the thanksgiving holiday. commissioner mirkarimi: if there are no further comments, why don't we ask for public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i've been coordinating of a lot of cca strategy here in town. the first thing i would say, regardless of who wins doing procurements, whether it is the contractors or sfpuc, we need to

keep in mind that the best way to defend ourselves against risk is to build a lot of stuff can do a lot of the installations. you have plenty of capacity very early on so that you have assets. it will be easier to fight when it plays the pricing games. we need to make sure that we are doing that. as we have said before, be one big package and we will get a master contract. that gets the 51% goal done. we had a clean energy stakeholders meeting, and something came up that was quite a concern. that was the san francisco electricity resources plan.

now we are getting ready for another one. the sfpuc -- we looked at rocky mountain institute supports, this was with no communication of any strong note. that was the main note that i personally sounded. put on the brakes, get everybody at the table. we should have meetings to flesh out the sfprp. one of the things was how important cca was. local power, the creator on the

green tech advisory committe? the answer was no. we need both local power to weigh in on it. instead of trying to russia this, we need to go for spring. -- instead of trying to russia this, we need to go for spring. [chime] thanks. commissioner mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> i just wanted to echo the statements of mr. brooks as to the importance of the response of this motion. i would reiterate focusing on

what a lot of the advocates are looking for. really make that a core part of the program. i think it would be really great. along with that, it is going to happen with the deployment and with that energy efficiency. as is outlined in the original plan, these huge for local job creation. especially the mandatory local hiring policy. we can really leverage a lot of new benefits in this program. the only other thing i wanted to add was, now that the puc is going to respond to this motion, it might really make sense to hold back on the san francisco

energy electricity resources plan. that is a road map for san francisco's of electricity future. you are going to look at how to represent this program, it should be put into the report. we should delay that until the findings or study or result of this motion can be incorporated. commissioner mirkarimi: good point. any other public comment? public comment is close. -- closed. there is no further approval necessary. please read the next item. >> item number 4, an update on the pole mounted solar from the september 17m