authorization? all those in favor? opposed? motion carries. thank you very much. next item please. >> item 15, discussion and possible action to authorize the general managers of san francisco public utilities commission to enter negotiations for community choice aggregation services for clean power non responsiveness of all proposals received in response to the community choice abrogation solicitation. >> thank you. i think this is an exciting moment to be looking at this resolution before us. this has been rolling down the track for some time, and we are all, i think, very eager to take it to the next level, and we have a resolution before us, and i have a couple of amendments to it that i would like to introduce before we open up the floor for discussion.

the commissioners should have a copy of the amended resolution, but there are a couple of additional amendments to that amended version that i would like to put on the floor. i think there is probably copies available for the public as well. the first amendment is in red, and i would just like to add -- i will read it, i guess. commission secretary, maybe you could read it, and i will add the amendment. >> it stated that the city goal of developing 360 megawatts of new energy resources revise, and the city intends to conduct a process for development, construction operation of green energy resources, including a.g. efficiency and demand-type programs, located with the city -- within, i assume that means -- within the city as well as northern california. >> yes, within would be a

correction. i would also like to add the word "immediately," because i think there is a time factor here that we are all very cognizant of, and we can but some time elements into further amendments as well because i know there is a lot of eagerness from the stakeholders to keep us moving along. the second amendment that i would like to introduce that is not on the copy that you have has to do with the third whereas on the second page, and it would read -- whereas in light of the failure of two rfp processes to result in an acceptable contract for electricity supply and customer care in billing services, the general manager of the sfpuc has determined that the rfp could not be altered or revise in a manner likely to attract response of offers.

the third amendment, which is also down in the red, which has also been slightly modified, so i will go ahead and read that as well, would read, "further resolved that the general manager of the sfpuc shall direct staff to direct a process and scope of work with stakeholders and consultants to request bids for renewable generation and green resource commitments to further the adopted city calls for cca as described in ordinance 147-07, shall initiate timely action on the process and scope of work, and shall report on the status of these efforts to the commission by july." that would be the third amendment. i did just hear and learn that marin received 16 bids last friday on fridayrfp that date -- on their rfp that they issued on

bringing renewable generation online, i think that it is a very exciting opportunity to look at model and try to craft the rfp that we will be issuing based on that model because it seems like it was successful, and if we could do it in that way, it would really set us up for success. i also want to say that even with this modified resolution, that, you know, i feel that -- i just want to reiterate our commitment to the main goals of the ordinance, as outlined in 2007, around, you know, 51%, around the local generation, and that we would urge the puc and lafco staff to do whatever they can to achieve those goals as we move forward with the program, but this approach feels like a good way to get us started, and they are excited that we might

be able to do that after all this time. i know we have a meeting that is scheduled on the 28, and i imagine that this resolution will come before that body as well, to look at that, and if there's any modifications at that time, then we could do that as well. so maybe we should put the amendments on the table first. >> is there a motion to adopt the amendments? >> commissioners, are there comments on the amendments? >> no, in part because i would like to hear the presentation about what is going on generally. if we could just hold the vote. >> absolutely. holding public comment, too, before we vote. ms. hale, do you want to present where we are? >> yes, thank you very much. assistant general manager for power. we are at a milestone.

we are excited to be able to bring to you this resolution that will let us begin our negotiations with the counter party, the credit-worthy counter party. the marin model is the only model functioning here. it has proven to be commercially feasible, so we would like to, with your consent, move forward on that, on negotiating a contract, using the marin model and contract as a floor, if you will, for developing our program. we will -- with action on your part today, we will begin conversations shortly thereafter. on a parallel track, we will be pursuing a process and scope of work that will allow us to have the steps for building a local generation and making commitments in the market to develop local generation as that

is feasible on a parallel track with negotiation of the contract. >> some questions. as i read it, we are basically changing the basic concept of how we manage this thing. first place would have been to have something like marin establish some legal barrier, a risk barrier, if you will. that is not possible. so we had hoped to get that same or similar level of isolation by contacting with somebody who could carry that risk instead of us. basically indemnify us against that risk. what we are now saying is that we need to really bring this thing -- in order for this to work, we need to make it look like teh mar -- like the marin

deal as much as we can, but without the protection of a jpa, and the way we seek to manage risk is not by legal barriers, but by the sequencing of business activities so that at any given time, we are not overextended. you are nodding, so i assume that i read it correctly. that, i think, makes a great deal of sense. i also think it makes sense, the way these amendments have been awarded to generate some options. you know, that as cca has implemented and implemented successfully, as we are ready to take on increments of is, that there are options that we can elect to do. i think it is important, as far as managing expectations, to say that's if those studies show

that there are potentially feasible energy development projects, that does not mean that we will edition -- initially do all of them. the basic assumption here is that we will visit manage our expansion to meet our risk objectives. i think that is an important thing for everybody to keep in mind. that this positions us to move quickly, but it says we will choose our pace of progress as part of how we manage risk. that is the primary thing. i think -- the other thing is a question for you. that is that as we bring this more in house, it starts to look more like what we are doing at hunters point and what we are doing at treasure island.

is this -- does it make sense to rethink some of the functions that we do internally and those which we seek contract services for? >> yes. certainly, the -- part of the challenge with the program is that it has specific rules of play, if you will, set by the california public utilities commission. at hunters point and treasure island and our other redevelopment opportunities, we are the bundled utility provider, so we are doing everything from metering the load back to, you know, billing it, and the distribution and generation, all those functions were cca. as we mature in that role, some of the resourced procurement, the generation component that is

the key of cca -- there will be a growing ability on the part of our staff to take on more of those functions because we will be doing it even more as we serve in the bundled utility service provider role at hunters point. right now, we do power purchasing and scheduling, but the amount of power purchasing and scheduling we do is quite small relative to our load. when you take on the cca functionality, depending on the enrollment, we will have a much larger purchasing and scheduling functionality that will be performed by our third party. over time, will we be able to take that in house? i think yes. under the cca model, though, we will never be billing customers. that is a function that pg&e continues to perform, and we do not have the right to perform that function. >> i guess where that leads me

is there were some other things that were unclear in the prior division of labor, and one of those was rate setting and how does that take place. i think it is pretty clear now that rate setting will take place here, and that is quite different. as we develop the negotiated package, part of what i will be looking to is not just the contracts that will be negotiated, but also what our internal structure and procedures are going to need to be in order to make this thing work with less involvement from the contractors. it puts more burden on city staff and less on the contractor, so i think we need to come back to the commission with that full package. >> the boundaries between us and

the contractor -- we can work on that. the boundaries between us collectively with the contractor, as opposed to pg&e, e withcca, you are still only affecting one line of the bill. that is really a different model than hunters point. we are a full-service provider. the public power model we have in those instances is dramatically different and much more involved -- evolved than affecting one purchase of power generation line. if we had a choice, obviously, the larger role. now part of what i was thinking was part of the power scheduling is something that is common to both activities. the fact is, we look at taking on all of that, there is an

increasing amount we may get into, so that is something that as we negotiate a contract, we probably want to be thinking about how long that contract should last and how we use them to get us smarter so we can take it on ourselves. van at a key feature of the model we will be making here is the ability to substitute resources in to serve the cca load as we negotiate them, as we commit to them. whether we are in an ownership role or a power purchasing role for that resource, so we will be able to back down what our third-party provider procures in order to make room for what we are separately procuring, and that is that purchasing function you are talking about. >> i do think that the puc you are bringing up, we're just doing the first phase right now, and that the second phase, it might be time to make a decision on whether they are a

more appropriate customer. >> again, the only provide one line of the bill. it does not provide any of the directions to the customers. public for about -- public power makes us the complete power provider. much more complete role. >> but could we not supervise the one line and we provide the rest? >> we do not add cca to ourselves. we would be in competition. we would be charging the provider a utility charged to do that. it provided the power in the first place. we do not need to provide it. >> even through our ppa that we purchase, that could be used to power redevelopment, right? >> sure, it could be used to do that, but it does not have to be

done through the cca model. >> if we brought on additional generation that was not for some reason part of the negotiated package with whoever we negotiate with, and we decided that it makes sense, economic or otherwise, for the city to directly contract, like at sunset reservoir, and that would go to serve -- that could be won. >> actually, we could have won generating facility use sunset as an example -- there are 5 megawatts of silver there -- so we're there. we could a sign that power to any or all of the three sets of customers we provide service to. municipal load being one. public power being another. and cca being the third. that would be a wholesale transaction that we could then assigned to the three different retail portfolios that we have. >> great. thank you. >> there's an interesting circumstance where we will be setting rates whereby people who

live in different parts of the city will be impacted in different ways. so if you are a san francisco customer, you'll have one rate. if you are a redevelopment customer, you will have another, and we have a role in setting both of those, so at some point, we may feel the need to try to reconcile those. >> again, but the larger the load, the larger our responsibility, the more power we have over setting those rates. >> and remember, we only have responsibility for rate setting on a portion of the bill, so we may never be able to reconcile those rates because we do not have control over the other elements. >> if i may, it sounds like you are getting close to winding. >> we will take public comment. >> their work the two other items. i just want to make it clear

that is our intention for the reference and resolve clause for july to be july 2011. in the whereas clause, the city policy we are referring to is from oregon is 147-07, so as we perfect the amendments in the final resolution, we will want to make sure those are reflected there as well please. >> i do not want to know if we want to hear more from the general manager on this approach. >> i think again that we have been struggling with how you make this happen. there is one agency that is at least moving forward and has a half forward. we are suggesting why not use that as a base. hopefully do better, build on that, but that seems to be a more likely path forward. so having that have forward and

being able to start going out, negotiating, see how far we can go, how fast we can go, and bring that back to you. >> great. other questions from commissioners? comments? if not, we will take public comment at this time. >> we have a few speakers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. representing sanford cisco green party and the local grassroots organization. i will start out by saying that, as most of you probably know, we have, since the last lafco meeting, which was very recent, been engaged in some heated back room debates with staff about how to move forward. at the presentation, the idea was to just move forward, and not commit to anything else. for us as environmental organizers, environment just as

organizers and jobs organizers, we felt the best just did not fit with the vision of what we have been fighting for for so many years. but i think that what we have come up with through these last few days is really like going head-to-head and working together with at any given time staff. we have come up with something that can move forward that we are comfortable with. i just want to get us back to the big picture of why we are pushing so hard for there to be a strong bill doubt attract while the purchasing track is going forward. those are the tracks we finally are starting to get to harmony on. originally, -- we have been pushing for years to do the whole enchilada all awards, so now, we have said that we see why they want to do the procurements start up right now, but we also want to make sure that the bill that is going to happen along a concurrent track

with that. the main reasons, just to get back to some very basic things that you all know but i want to repeat because they're so important. that is because every week, we get new news about the global climate crisis that just makes it clear that if cities like san francisco and cities all over the planet do not radically restructure our energy use in 30 years -- 30 years is about all we got at the most -- so that by the end of that 30 years, we are in 100% clean energy, and our transit is also running on 100% clean energy, which is something we are not even talking about today, we are never going to get there if we just pursue an incremental approach to doing projects. we need a big build out. the other reason is the economic crisis. people are hurting. even though the stock market is doing a little better, i think most of you know that the job

market is not any better. in some cases, it is getting a little worse. especially in california, it is challenged. we have to go with the buildup in vision in the ordinance we've hast for community choice, which gets us to 360 megawatts and 51% renewal by the end of the decade. and we need to start doing that right away because people need jobs right now. to have this exciting green jobs program roll out is really great, and the fact that we are finally meeting with staff and we are going to move those tracks together right now is very promising, and we think this is a great day, so we thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to echo the statements that mr. brooks had made about what a positive outcome we have arrived at here today. i think with these amendments

that we are on our way not only to moving forward with the clean energy program, but we are now on the path to developing a jobs program, and i think that has been key to all of us. we commit to elements of the 2007 ordinance that was offered because when you couple that with the new local hiring ordinance, you've really got the seeds of greatness. you have 360 megawatts of local and global generation and efficiency, and with these amendments, while we move forward with a proven track for getting the program in place, we will forward with what will become a local jobs program, so i really want to thank the commission for reviewing and receiving and proposing these amendments. i wholeheartedly endorse as an individual and as an organization these amendments and support the resolution as amended going forward. it is very exciting. i just wanted to also make sure

that we thank the general manager for the time he has been with the advocates here in furtherance of this and getting us to year. as we said, keeping the good times rolling in 2011 with a dialogue that has been struck moving forwardalso the assistanl managers really work hard to get us to a place until of probably about five minutes ago. thank you for supporting this movement. >> other public comments? >> i am the director of the clean energy alliance, which brings together 70 businesses in the bay area.

many advocates have been involved in the process, and we are glad to see the department come to agreement with the staff. i am also here speaking in support of the letter sent by the clean energy alliance. we have spent a long time looking at berkeley, and i have come to the conclusion is a powerful tool, and you have a golden opportunity to use cca towards economic development by doing these projects and generating jobs in san francisco. it is a powerful relationship. thank you very much.

>> i work on the advocate side for the past four years behind the clean energy launch. each is an exciting day for all of us watching you here today. they mention the 16 kids that came in on friday -- 16 bains that came in on fridays. the aggregate property is eighth to 10 times more than ask for, so it will been interesting to see how that comes in. i think it is exciting to see them fighting to be the best.

i had a great time at the thursday night board meeting. there was good news on the financial front. economic viability -- viability has been improved stereo -- improved. they are projecting a budget next year based on how much under they have come in this year, 25% lower in the budget. i cannot wait to see all of the ways you do this in marin. i hope san francisco as jobless in itself with the efficiency

first, as models in texas, new england, and the empire state building retrofit. thank you so much, and good luck. >> thank you. >> we are a member of the local clean energy alliance. we really do see this as a tool for not only dealing with client issues and cleaner energy but also to create local jobs, and we are really happy the amendments were brought forward, and we are very encouraged to hear about the support of their is keeping the priorities to getting renewable

end of efficiency and jobs with that being done locally, and i wanted to thank you for your time and support and ask you to continue to work on really pushing forward on prioritizing the renewable efficiency and network that can come along with those. thank you. >> thank you. >> if we look at the climate change issues, that is where we need to be going forward. any other comments on the