potentially being one of these administrators of our cca. i guarantee, next november -- not guarantee -- but i would not be surprised if there was an attempt to obstruct us locally by some external threat from oz pursuing cca. so 2011 will be monumental. i would rather we do not exhaust the year to make that happen. we have been following the trail of documentation between puc and the bidders themselves, and when i look at the chronology of the information, i am surprised that that information had not been on the front end, but based on the back end, which is raising questions for us why that is the case. i apologize for any level of

their not being support in my comments and questions, but we are all feeling a little bit edgy at the fact that we are at the end of the year now and we are expecting things to be more packaged and processed that does not take time for granted. if you would like to speak to that. >> i may begin the response. barbara hale. we very much share your concerns that the marketplace's response to our second request for proposal was not as complete as we have asked. all the issues you delineated in your comments, mr. chair, that we came back to the bettors and asked again was just that, our second request for that information. so the initial rfp cover that

information and requested it from the bidders. we did not receive complete bids. rather than coming to you and saying, no complete bids, we are done with that round of rfp, we decided to sit down with each respondent and have a one-on-one with them where we could demonstrate our strong interest in having a perfected bid submitted to us. we were also cognizant of the fact that with the holidays, we might not have all bidders respond if we did not extend the period. so we extended it from december 6 to december 10. we had it staged so that we would be able to bring you the results of the process in a more wholesome way today, but could not because of that need to extend. on the issue of the puc's motivation and interest in evaluating, self-providing the

cca services, we have been about the wedding that at the staff level. we do have some information on the boundaries of risk, ideas on how we could shape a program. we are hearing your interest in being ready to talk about those issues soon after a january meeting, in the event of that january time frame shows that we do not have a viable third party to provide the services to us. i guess i just wanted to stand and say, we hear you, we are about the winning those self- provide opportunities and can bring opportunities to our commission. >supervisor mirkarimi: the scenario is we are working with a limited pot of money, both what has been to the puc for cca

purposes, and reserves that lafco coexist spy. so the scenario is real. this process, in essence, has cost us. if we come up to a place and nothing materializes before us, then what would we expect to do? i would rather not wait to answer that question, knowing down the line that is a possibility. i would rather hear now. thank you for recognizing the concern that we have a potential contingency in place right now. obviously, what we would like is to find a great company that will help actualize what we would like to see through our aggregation objectives, and we are on the way to that path, but

that is not the case. based on the first round of the rfp experience, and now this experience in process, i think we have no other toys. -- other choice. we havebased on communications i have seen exchanged between puc and those potential bidders, i was looking for something more robust by today. it has not happened, fine. we will return in january. but if it does not happen then, then all focus will be on the obvious question, then what? i do not think most people here will be prepared to walk away based on the fact that 2010 did not arrive at a place that we wanted to go. i do not think that is going to happen so we should be able to

anticipate what is going to happen next. puc is in the driver's seat commack and lafco and the board of supervisors is trying to figure out what kind of support we can provide so that we can figure out what we were all is directed to do. that is the nature of my points. mr. campbell? >> i am very encouraged in your remarks today, that you're interested in revisiting city policy. there have been various times when that was looked at. there was a rfi that looked at policies and suggested some tweaks. even following that, there were a couple of things that i wanted to clarify and remind folks about. there was an awful lot of out reach that miss miller and i had

done for the first rfp, and for the second, and at least in terms of expression measures, had done a lot. that is in large part of the cold call that i made to the origination from constellation, having conversations with potential suppliers, some who responded, some who did not to this rfp. in response to some of those, one reason i am encouraged by your remarks, i had some frank discussion with those suppliers. some had more or less misgivings with the ability to reach all the goals we were seeking. so out of that, our staff, following the issuance of the rfp, were working on the items that ms. hale described. how would the city do it on their own?

how would the sfpuc do it? we have done some analysis, looking at some past energy prices to see how we could differently shaped the program in advance of any changes in official policy. so i am glad that we are aligned there. supervisor mirkarimi: all i can do is paint one example that is contemporary, one that the puc will get. with a great amount of political will, forces were able to crowd together a solar project for recurrent energy, and they were able to move with unbelievable pace, installing 5-megawatt solar panels on reservoir. by the time it came back to the board of supervisors questioning the contract's long-term rate of cost, still, the puc endeavored

to implement what mayor newsom had asked for. you had demonstrated to us a level of wherewithal, ingenuity, and termination to get something done. absolutely impressive. it demonstrated to us, when you want something, you can actually do it, and it did not require legislation at the time in order to initiate the process in order to get to where you wanted to go. that, to me, qualifies you as a potential contender for this particular role of being a cca aggregate her. but what has happened in this past year, i would like to see the same level of determination,

and in essence, bravado, because of the way the contract was advanced despite concerns on cost. i do not mean to discount concerns of cost here. but for the puc to have that level of -- this is something that we what and we would do everything we can to put this behind. even come to us with an alternative that we are interested in joining with marin, having a real idea in mind from the puc perspective. sit down and turn out the possibilities of joining the marin energy board. i am looking for a level of detail, political artistry, that can help us chart what i am anticipating -- because we have been down this road before -- the kind of road blocks that we

are going to see. that is something that we should end the year on. good going for everyone here for navigating the insurmountable task of keeping the threat at bay, but now my concern is internal threats. the internal obstacles that, i think, need to be eliminated to make sure we are on -- illuminated to make sure we are on the same page. i do not want to have a hearing in january and say, i am sorry, it did not answer our questions on the rfp. it did not happen. i believe we are at that point in our lives where we have dedicated a lot of our life to, resources have been expended for this process, and we cannot afford to waste another dime or minute until we know we are going to get exactly what we are paying for.

i wanted to make sure that this city is indicted as there is transition in government, coming into a new year, new members of the collective family, we need to stay the course. i do not want to see any interruption to that. if at anytime the puc has questions or concerns because something is not in the ordinance, and you think by that interpretation it gives you the signal not to move on something, then knocked on my door, come to my house. i will answer your questions, we will step up to the plate, but there should be nothing because it is not written, that prevents or it precludes any ingenuity to say to us, this is how we are going to get it done. that is what i am looking for as we enter a new year.

so while we are contemplating resolutions, please put that on your list. sorry. my son woke up at 3:00, he went back to sleep, i did not. and i just want to say, thank you, for everything that you are doing. [laughter] any public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron ferc's. san francisco green party. first on the note that was just sent. i would strongly recommend something that some advocates have been pushing for a lot that might help avoid the kind of a road block we have right now,

and that is the two main firms. both are being hired by lafco, one by puc, that our experts in cca are navigant and local power. many of us have pushed hard to have those firms, who know this process, draft the rfp first. i can envision, had that advice been heeded by the sfpuc, we would probably have much more robust rfp's and rso's. that may get us into a situation in the future where we do not have to do follow-up with the bidders. and on that note, i recognize, as chairman for restated, that the budget is tight. -- kercher mirkarimi stated,

that the budget is tight. however, having a buildup of local nobles and efficiencies is one the best hedges against market risk, against the battling pg&e on market price. a couple years ago, some of us advocates pointed out, we need to do a few hundred thousands of work -- a few hundred thousand dollars of work, but we need to do some preparatory work first. i would strongly urge lafco to put that on the next agenda. we need to start that works so that we can get ahead of the game with pg&e, and not be in the situation that we were a couple meetings ago. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i do not believe we have any

action items before us. commissioner campos? supervisor campos: i am wondering with respect to item 2, if we could excuse commissioner avalos who had to be at an event in his district. i just wanted to make sure that we could make that happen. supervisor campos: not a problem. motion from supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor schmeltzer. any action on these particular items? i do not think there is. we will continue these items to the call of the chair. next item please. >> item 6. update on related issues from the san francisco department of the environment. >> i am actually going to call up a colleague from sf environment, who will update you on some of the program that they did this summer.

i will yield the floor to her and annie -- answer any question that you might have. >> i am with the san francisco department of the environment. we collaborated with lafco on some of the grassroots canvassing efforts to get the word out to the public on what clean power sf was, and really to put a face to the program. we run a job-training program called environment now with the department of environment. it grew out of the stimulus program and we have now staff of about 18 people who are basically the eyes and years, the mouthpiece of the department of environment, doing a lot of our grass-roots conversations. i think of the effort we participated in, combating the negative press that was going on

about clean power sf, bringing a real person to people's homes to answer questions, let them know that the program was coming down the pike, and being able to point them in the direction of more information. so over the summer, -- we started in march and went through the summer. we visited over 6000 homes giving out fliers. we had about 4000 conversations with residents. for the most part positive. we did have some concerns over prices and things like that. of course, we were not able to provide pricing information. we also visited many of the business corridors in that area and spoke to about 300 different businesses, explaining the benefits of a business owner participating.

it seemed like a good opportunity to get residents some of -- information that they may not have been getting on the television or in the mail they were receiving at home. those are all of my comments. happy to take questions that you may have about our efforts. supervisor mirkarimi: any comments or questions? seeing none, thank you for all the good work that you have done at the department of environment. by far, our work is not done. anything further? >> one thing to add. it was a success of program -- successful program. when i was doing community meetings, i was getting good feedback. the one thing we have coming into next year, if we want to do under the program like this, the money has dried up and we would need to find money within our own budget to hire these people.

it is something that we are looking into to figure out how we can make it happen. it was a useful way to get the information out to the public. supervisor mirkarimi: and as everyone is doing, we are working with limited resources, having to conserve considerably what resources we have. what about a campaign on seeking volunteers, in turns, who might want to share the challenge -- interns, people who might want to share the challenge? >> we have had a couple people signed up already joining us at street fairs, doing some of reach in their community. that is a program that we are continuing to build. as a backup, depending on how the budget works out, if we do a small rollout, large -- that will determine how many

volunteers we need to put out there. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we will continue this to the call of the chair. please read the next item. >> item seven. public comment. supervisor mirkarimi: this is an opportunity to weigh-in where you may not otherwise have had a chance to. seeing none, public comment is closed. do i take it that we now have lafco business? we can get this done quickly, i presume. ms. miller? if you could, please read item eight. >> item 8. executive officer's report.

>> i was just looking at a possible date for a joint meeting. one of the dates could be in january for a report back on the direction and receipt of this. joint meeting with sfpuc. supervisor mirkarimi: what was the date and time? >> it would be the end of january. we typically need the fourth friday of each month. mr. campbell was looking for sfpuc direction on january 25. supervisor mirkarimi: is that a friday? >> it is a friday. the 27th is friday. so the 25th is wednesday. >> i have the 28th as friday. >> i am sorry, i'm looking at

the wrong side. in that week potentially. supervisor mirkarimi: we are already months away -- why could we not have a meeting on the second friday, 3rd friday? >> according to the schedule, the interviews would not be conducted until the middle of january. so we would not have much to report. we could report who we are interviewing, but the idea of seeking direction, recommendation from the sfpuc, -- we would not have that information by the second week. supervisor mirkarimi: we do not have to nail this down now. i would rather not can see six more weeks before information we thought was going to be shared with us today, should at least be shared with us before january

5. if we can split the difference and have a joint meeting -- we seem to like friday. either on the 14th or 21st, that would be fine. if we can work that out with p c, that would be better. and you are right, we want something substantive to discuss, but we are more concerned and why that has already happened. >> i might also remind commissioner that we already tentatively have five meetings in january scheduled as part of our budget process and regular meetings. two regular meetings and three budget meetings scheduled in january. supervisor mirkarimi: commissioner schmeltzer? supervisor schmeltzer: i wanted to point out that the 20 it would not work. supervisor mirkarimi: we will

take a look. thank you. appreciate that. anything else from the executive officer's report? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will continue that. quick approval of the minutes of lafco, a motion made by commissioner campos -- >> i need to read the item. item nine. approval of the minutes from the november 12, 2010 special meeting. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. seconded by commissioner dufty. without objection. any more public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. before we adjourn, we are at a significant milestone, that i am sad to see happen, but one that is important to recognize. this will be the last joint lafco meeting of hours.

supervisor bevan dufty, this is his last meeting. he has been a longtime member of our various government branches. i want to say, commissioner dufty, you have been steadfast in your position to pursue the goals that we have all endeavor toward. we really do appreciate everything you have contributed. your wonderful approach, how you are able to advance the conversation is something that i know has left a lasting imprint on us and we will be very sorry to see you not be a part of this, but we know you will be rooting for us on the outside. commissioner dufty? supervisor campos>> on behalf oc utilities commission, i want to 2nd those remarks.

supervisor campos: commissioner dufty asked me not to say anything, but i tend to be a troublemaker. thank you for your service, advocacy for ratepayers, pushing for community trawlers aggregation. we will miss you, but we know you will be around. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. if there is no other business, i want to wish everyone the happiest of holidays. see you in the new year. meeting adjourned.