engineers and managers put infrastructure in the field. those are managers from the street lights division. and on their side, one of the engineers was able to answer some of the technical questions. it was related to ways and devices that would communicate with one another, what those protocols were getting a truck and putting them on a pole. insuring that some of our poll

es would be capable of holding the way. -- weight. some important meetininformatios at that meeting. commissioner schmeltzer: you think there will be some sort of follow up? you will be continuing to potentially talk to them? >> we continue to talk to them to identify the right place to put in a few test units as well as what protocol you might have them place -- in place. commissioner schmeltzer: i am glad to hear that there was a meeting and that it was productive.

we don't know anything about the company except what we have heard in this chamber. but we can use the existing real estate that we have and the existing infrastructure to support more renewable energy seems like a good opportunity that is worth investigating. supervisor campos: any other questions? i had one follow-up, if i may. i see that there is a letter to the lafco commissioners. with respect to a local renewable build-out which is what was provided in the original ordinance. can you speak to how that is going, when the time line involved is, and what, if any

involvement we can have to make sure that it is progressing. >> that was part of the rfp for the build-up i was mentioning. we are working to ensure that we have an rfp ready to go with the power supply contract we are negotiating. we have had some good conversations about that. and potential resources are locations in the city where one of the things we want to do is include a detailed the appendix that will detail city owned and identify locations that would be ideal bowl for renewals. -- ideal for renewables.

in terms of timing, we have a commitment, but i expect it will move in tanedem with negotiations with a potential supplier. supervisor campos: basically it directs lafco to provide some oversight in terms of the reports provided to lafco. perhaps that can be incorporated. >> that makes sense. supervisor campos: miss miller?

>> we can certainly do that. we can have a report on the status of the negotiations. we have been working on phase ii. it would be renewable portion. supervisor campos: seeing no other questions, why don't we open it up? >> it is a cca bill. out of the pg&e bill. it is a limitation with respect to the energy service provider that can be providing the service.

it was just introduced. i don't even have a language for you yet. it is by assemblymean hall. we will get the language to you as soon as possible. this is not a huge surprise to us since we figured with our legislation to do what we want, it is not as supportive of the activities. supervisor campos: is there a specific action you are asking from lafco? >> we don't have support for the bill that the senator is carrying. supervisor campos: thank you.

why don't we open it up for public comment? if anyone would like to speak, please come forward. >> i am from the local clean energy alliance. thank you for pointing to the letter that i wrote. it is basically a knowledge in the -- acknowledging the sfpuc. we hope to work with the sfpuc as advocates to make sure the scope of work involved is strong. just a note of thank you and appreciation.

supervisor campos: next speaker. >> i am going to continue on the same note that he started with, it is very good that over the course of the last few weeks, sfpuc and lafco staff were able to get on the same page and come up with a strategy for all of us to move forward. lafco staff and sfpuc staff wanted to make sure that we got started with the cca rapidly. and definitely hot, advocates over the past couple of years have been concerned that the

local build out would become second fiddle to the program. it is possible that they have agreed to go forward with that at the same time they are working out the contract for purchasing at the beginning. we wanted to make sure that it stays vigilant about making certain that the scope of work that is necessary is robust, strong, and is also created and guided by local power and other such consultants. so that the build-out part has the best picture put forward of how it should be.

we would move on separate tracks together. this would become dialectic. both processes are communicating with each other. so as preparation is done, we are paying attention to how that relates to the purchasing strategy. it is learning from what the build-out rfp is learning itself. i would respectfully correct lafco counsel a little bit. we don't want to bephase -- this to be phase i and phase ii, but phase i a and b.

it will be giving us a much stronger cca. [chime] supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? >> i would just like to make a quick statement showing that the sierra club is in support of the new scoping process and also that we are in strong support of local build-out of renewables. we look forward to having everything up and running. supervisor campos: any other member of the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. i want to reiterate that it is great to see everyone here that has been involved, the community

that everyone is working together and a lot of credit goes to the san francisco puc. i met with him in the last few days and i think it is that spirit that is translating and trickling down. madame clerk, call item number four. >> report on the city resources plan. >> jason fried, lafco staff. we will yield to sfpuc to present on this item. >> i am with the san francisco public utilities commission. i wanted to update you on the status of the resource plan. san francisco adopted a resource

plan by the board of supervisors, and they laid out a very broad goals that would close the poewwer plant. today should be the last day of operation. as the plan was originally written, the board of supervisors urged us to update the plan. the sfpuc is part of updating this plan. they will see if it is feasible. in response to guidance, they have taken a number of actions. first in updating the resources plan, we of a guidance -- update

guidance from lafco. the rocky mountain institute author of the resource plan -- authored the resource plan. we help vett and review the plan. it is our goal to take the updated resource plan before the commission of its endorsement. it proposes three broad strategies. i will briefly describe each of these strategies. they sort of recognize some of the constraints. about 80% of the electricity is provided by pg&e and not by the

city itself. with the exception of hunters point, they own the entire transmission system. the various energy service providers are subject to regulation that pre-empts san francisco being able to directly influence them. the third point is the updated electricity resources plan that recognizes the goals that aggregation complaint. as i mentioned, the updated resource plan has three very broad strategies. the first one is to empower san francisco residents how to reduce emissions through direct activities. this promotes energy efficiency, the insulation of

distributed generation. the second recommendation has increased the amount of greenhouse gas electricity that is supplied from the wholesale energy market. it means both within san francisco as well as the western united states that san francisco currently gets its energy from. it comes from provider's other than the city. and we ensure that the commission continues its mandate and the role. for purposes of promoting a greenhouse gas future, this develops a creditworthy bond rating to carry out long-term 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 product 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