financing. for each of these strategies, there is more detailed recommendation. we have the necessary actions, potential funding opportunities, and to lay out a potential fine -- the time lines for these goals. we have met with the citizen's advisory committee. the san francisco public utilities commission -- we have posted the latest version of electricity resources plan. supervisor campos: questions?

the treatment that community choice aggregation has under the plan, i am wondering if you can speak to that. >> many of the goals are consistent with the cca goals and vice versa. there is a reference at page 79 of the report is something we

have discussed that is not part of the clean energy program other than -- it is one that we are looking at a prodt that might cost more. it would be having a significant greener products than what currently be provided. there are a lot of good things to say about the energy resource plan and that is consistent with our goals. >> are you satisfied this plan suffices in terms of what it would mean a long term for the city and county of san francisco?

>> i believe so. supervisor campos: thank you. any other questions? why don't we open it up to public comment? >> good afternoon again, commissioners. as you know, it was called for a couple years ago by supervisor maxwell and others because we needed a new one. i would respectfully disagree a little with counsel miller. the sf electricity resources plan before this current iteration, it did not have sufficient engagement. a lot of advocates at the clean

energy storage meeting definitely pointed that out and asked for changes. to their credit, they had changes that were positive development and made cca more intrinsic to the process. even though it is better, a lot of us feel a could be stronger and more explicit. it is only about a page and a half. there are other aspects of the electric research plan that cca could be more iterative about. the key problem that we noted was that when they put together the advisory committee, there were no consultants on that committee. that is why it is not as robust as we feel it needs to be.

what we respectfully ask the staff to do, after today, there will be two consultants. and i would ask lafco to have those consultants do that work. we make sure we are covering all the bases. those of you that remember the power plant battle might remember the previous 2002 electric resources plan was a problem because it promoted that power plants. staff and other officials with constantly bring up the electric resources plan as an excuse to say that we should build a power plant. that is why it is crucial that

it does in due diligence to make sure that this is really robust on cca. that way we got, the hearings later that says it does not specify. we need that to happen so that we can be confident [chime] -supervisor campos: is there any other member of the public that like to speak on this item? >> i just wanted to point out that in the letter that i sent to the commissioners, i did mention that our interests in making sure that community choice was really a bedrock strategy, suggesting that it would be a good idea, consistent with what mr. brooks said. we take a good look at the plan

before it is adopted to make sure if becomes a basis for advocacy. i just wanted to second that notion. that we sort of independently taking good luck. supervisor campos: next speaker? -- take a good look. supervisor campos: next speaker? >> we work closely with supervisor maxwell and were able to get the first electric resource plan accomplished in 2002. it is a very ambitious plan, but it laid out some direction

because we have no resource plan up until that time. it called for the construction that i could argue would be a very good thing for san francisco to have. they would not have ever run except in emergencies. i am not here to discuss that one. i am here to ask that lafco look at this report that has been massaged. it always had an element of cca. rocky mountain institute identified that as an option. language has been strengthened. we could continue to work on this thing for another four or five years. you might end up muddying the water of cca. there is room for tweaks.

generally speaking, this is a very well thought out document. and the clean energy stewards. we appreciate the vote of confidence in this report. supervisor campos: public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. chair. i have a question for the puc, please. i would like to get a better understanding of what i have been reading and hearing in the press. that the outgoing administration is talking about how the city is going to convert to 100% renewable in the next 5-10

years. nowhere in that statement do i hear cca. can someone explain the strategy of how we are going to get to 100% grenoble -- renewable? >> the former mayor made a statement in november, and interest of pursuing a 100% renewable san francisco. they have formed a task force. members of the staff set as advisers to the task force. they have been invited to set as advisers to the task force. i think the work is just getting under way as to how to accomplish that lofty goal. supervisor mirkarimi: the

operative word is lofty. i wonder if there are city departments interfacing for the specific goal. does this imply that they are ready to undertake a public power campaign? something that wholesale converts? we are talking about a drop in the ocean compared to a goal that mayor newsom put out before he left. >> there was one taskforce meeting. i don't think there were any discussions about public power. >> i have also heard merely -- mayor lee mention this. in fact, this intention of doing

that is something that we will all celebrate. the implementation of the is -- i hope we come back to the core strategy. >> [unintelligible] >> and just so you are aware, commissioner mirkarimi, i will be benching and i mention that the first meeting making sure that cca is part of the discussion. the third meeting is going to be by the puc. it will be on the agenda.

and continue to remember that cca is a viable option. supervisor mirkarimi: mathematically, i have no idea how the city makes a major conversion when the outgoing mayor references 100% conversion unless pg&e decides to be the partner at the table to make it happen. if that is being said, that should be known. there are profound statements being put out, and i think they need to be substantiated. >> and the confusion is that there is a load being serviced, the municipal load. i believe that load is part of

what is being talked about. supervisor mirkarimi: we have legislated that treasure island and bayview is our territory. you can carve that out as a win for us. i am hearing is a citywide public-private -- it is citywide public-private load. the press has been not very wise in not questioning how you will do that. it is not going to matter. >> if it is part of the cca, i am not aware of that. supervisor campos: 1 thought that comes to mind is that we have the ability to get information, and maybe we can

inquire to get more specifics of what the actual objective is and what the plan is for getting to that objective. supervisor mirkarimi: i would rely on the puc to be that feeder of information. i just want to make sure that when you put out statements like that, that garners the attention. this is what the new lieutenant governor has put out there, and i see no program that stipulate how we will deliver on that particular goal. ok, that is nothing unfamiliar. if it is about us affiliating with a particular strategy, then i like to know what that strategy is.

good people from businesses that are looking to do business with us, as far as i know, the only pathway is through cca or public power. unless those of the first words spoken about, it is an incredible strategy. we were hoping that we would in this down in the near future. that would be supported by some real data. supervisor campos: any other questions or actions on item 4? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to continue. supervisor campos: seconded by commissioner mar. without objection.

sorry. ok. why don't we move to item number six? >> authorization to enter into the management consulting. >> it has, because one of our consultants that we have been using has had one of the staff members believe it is a critical part of what the program is. they started up a new consulting firm. after consultation, the staff believes it would be good for us to have services for our program. they continue to work on it. he was actually part of the authority when they were negotiating.

we want to keep those services involved. just some quick numbers, we are asking for what will be a $25,000 reserve fund to be spent. this is a reference. we have approved about 145,000 over the years for the services and spend just under 100,000. should we continue to use them, we would still have more than that amount. we were paying for his services at $344 an hour. we have negotiated that down to $250. we think we can come at a much lower budget and a much lower price range. staff is asking for your approval to open up a contract so we can continue to use his

services as we have done in the past. >> any questions on this item? a quick question if i may. everything is essentially pretty comparable perio. >> we bapay $250 for his services. it is a lower rate. supervisor campos: is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this item? public comment is closed. colleagues, if we can have a motion on item #6. to enter into agreement is with the management consultant. seconded by commissioner avalos. without objection.

thank you. can you please call item no. 5? this is an item that i asked the executive officer to prepare. it is essentially a study that would be conducted through the lafco for purposes of ascertaining the collection, hauling, and disposal of the refuse of trash. this is collected -- connected to one item that has come before the supervisors which is an

attempt to enter into an agreement changing where the trash that san francisco disposes. we have begun discussions of a 1932 ordinance that essentially has trash collection being done since 1932 through a structure that does not have a competitive bid process. we have every reason to be happy the company that is involved. the question here, for purposes of making sure that we are following best practices, and this is something that these jurisdictions do.

this item would essentially give staff have the approval to issue an rfp. so a quick survey could be done. with that, i turn it over to commissioner pimentel. commissioner pimentel: with this, doesn't address illegal dumping -- does it address illegal dumping? >> the current scope does not do that. commissioner pimentel: like an area on the corner, or an area with the city. that there is someone that will

selectively,. -- come up. >> it looks the other jurisdictions and how they conducted the selection of their garbage provider. that type of consultant might be somebody of bit different. supervisor campos: the purpose of the study would be to help the city and county of san francisco know what other jurisdictions in the area are doing with respect to the collection, transportation, and disposal of refuse. it will be done in an expedited manner. commissioner avalos. commissioner avalos will wait. miss miller? >> this item is before you

pursuant to our policy 2.6 which allows you to conduct as you deem appropriate. i developed an rfp similar in format to what we have done in the past. typically, we have done and utility issues, but this is still a public service. the idea would be to do a fairly quick study of other agency's practices. this would be both collections, hauling, and disposal. i gave you a list of greater bay area joint powers authorities that provide this

type of service with the idea being that we would pick not everyone on this list, but we would narrow it down to the larger jpa's. and more if possible given our time frame. supervisor campos: i know that i get a little confused about this. >> the original patent only had a few of the providers. we call this the greater bay area. there are quite a few. in our selection of the consultant, we are looking for a consultant that has some experience in dealing with studies of this nature that is an assessment of public services being provided by jpa or

district. we are looking for someone with potential familiarity. we have budget constraints, so we're looking for someone to provide a competitive bid. the list of jpa's that provide service are at the top of the list of potential providers. the five that i think you look at are alameda, central contracost at county and west valley solid waste management jpa. if you look at the list, it tells you which cities the jpa's provide. it will pay cut most of the bay area cities. -- pick up most of the bay area

cities. there, we have about seven daily city palo alto, santa clara county, pacificca. -- pacifica. i listed the providers so we could pick a couple of cities from that list. for the purposes of the study, i don't have any preference there. palo alto operates its own the land fill.

>> they would provide a potential that are being charged by each of the jurisdictions if applicable. supervisor campos: commissioner avalos. commissioner avalos: a couple comments and questions.