chairperson campos: good afternoon, and welcome to be

lafco meeting. my name is david campus. we're joined by committee vice chair ross mirkarimi, as well as commissioner lia pimentel. i want to thank members of the audience for being here today. covering the meeting for sfgtv are caroline and derrick. >> please make sure to turn off all cellular phones and pagers. chairperson campos: thank you very much. madam clerk, could you please call item no. 2? >> approval of the minutes for the meeting february 28, 2011, special lafco meeting. chairperson campos: colleagues, i believe you have a copy of the meeting minutes. any comments or changes to those minutes?

and we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public to like to speak on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. emotion? -- a motion. we take that without objection. madam clerk, item three? >> report on the status of community choice aggregation activities, san francisco program, state legislation consideration of their resolution of support for sb 790, report on legislation affecting committee choice aggregation programs, status on marin clean energy, and status of proceedings at california public utilities commission. >> this will be sort of a tag team for item three. i will be presenting a few of these items.

i intend to cover an update on where we are in the negotiations on clean power sf, a status update with petrol solar, and update on what is going on in iran, as well as regulatory and legislative update. and we may have more to add to that. first off, we continue our discussions with noble americas, and shell is marin's supplier, delivering a greater portfolio mix than we otherwise get from pg&e. we will be utilizing the contract from work that we have as the starting point with shell, working through issues coming up in the discussions there. we've had numerous all-day

sessions, constant contact with shell, and continue to make progress there. we're very glad having the assistance of both the city attorney and our lafco colleagues. as i mentioned, we are also thinking about working with a noble americas, as the provider of back-office support, and noble americas has been providing this service for marin in concert with shell. on a parallel track, we're working on an rfp for the development of a generation resources, looking at existing city policy as the guide for that. with a clear preference for in city renewables and combined heat and power projects. we want these resources to tie their online dates and outputs

and profile to what the portfolio will ultimately negotiate with shell, to make sure those are all lined. a quick update with a pole mounted solar. considerations, over the last -- commissioner lapimentel: excuse me, could we call item 5? >> item 5, report on the pilot pulled mounted solar program. >> thank you, i got ahead of myself. butthe pole-mounted solar, the renewable team has been working with and evaluating the proposal, continuing to have a good dialogue with the solar team. based on the proposals, i should note their solution appears to be significantly higher in price

than other solar project bids that are renewables team has received in the recent past. we have shared the results of our analysis, and my understanding is the team intends to provide revised proposals and additional information for the sfpuc to evaluate, but we are continuing have productive dialogue with them and moving forward. as for what is going on in marin, the biggest news is primarily their progress on their rfp for their local build out and development of new renewables continues to move forward. they issued an rfp in december, got responses in february. there were 14 firms that responded, with a total of 25 projects tied with those responses, totaling 620 megawatts of new generation of

all of those were built. their rfp focused on the wind and solar, and the location most likely to get those was the central valley because of the good insulation characteristics there. their criteria for evaluating the bids in some ways with similar to those highlighted in city policy here, so it was interesting to talk about the characteristics of the counterparty, how much experience they have in the field, their credit rating, those types of things, localized pricing, per kilowatt hour output from the proposal, the product's viability, how likely it would be to be built and generating energy, the project location. they're giving the highest party points to those proposals located in marin.

they also are a family wedding proposals in the portfolio. -- there also is evaluating proposals in the portfolio. marin short list three of the proposals, and the firms are san diego-based, not new york city based, and san jose based sun power corp, and marin's expectation and hope is to get 40 megawatts under contract in the may, june timeframe. marin continues to be a great ally in our legislative and regulatory activities, which i amusing as a not too subtle segway to talking about regulatory -- which i am using as a not too subtle segue into the next topic. we have additional topics. the three are giving an update on the status of the bond case before the sfpuc, status of the

bond case, and a little bit of news on the legislative front. regarding what i am calling the bond case, this is in relation to ab 117, which requires cca to post a bond to cover expected reentry fees should they cease functioning and return their customers to the incumbent utility. in december, if you recall, they were set to reproof -- there were set to approve a bond mechanism that could have had negative consequences for the cca in general. the city along with our allies manage to get that adverse decision reconsidered, and they are reconsidering that case. they have reopened that case for additional information. it is not clear of the timing of

the decision or what the rules ultimately will be for evaluating that bonn did not, but we expect it around midsummer. since they were willing to pull the decision back in december, we feel it is realistic to assume the outcome should be better than we first saw. under the exit fee case, along with our allies, we have been working hard to address the method for calculating exit fees. sometimes the exit fees are referred to by their acronym in terms of how it shows up on customer billed charges as the pcia power charge. the current method, we have been arguing, and appropriately undervalues or does not recognize the value of the renewable attributes, including the exit fees customers are paying for the coverage to capture the above-market costs.

the renewables tends to be above market cost. we would not be getting any credit for the renewable energy associated with that. at the cpuc, even the utilities have been backed into agreeing that the existing method is for all that and result in the calculation is biased towards a higher amount, which is a higher charge for a cca customer. so that is a positive direction there. the case is now focused on determining what is the appropriate value for what to renewables should be. the lower the value, the lower the charge, and hearings in that case are scheduled to begin on monday, and we will have sfpuc experts and others testifying on monday. last, exciting news on the legislative front. i know that the lafco team has

additional information, but sb 790 is a bill to help the cca programs through the state. the co-sponsors of that bill or the marin energy authority, sfpuc, and also the sierra club. it is a strong force there, designed to address the shortcomings of the original legislation and tie up some of the loopholes that have allowed pge need to take actions on the board. some of you may know that sfpuc being a large municipal utility and waste water and electricity areas has a strong presence in sacramento. we have our lobbyists are fully engaged. with that, i can answer questions. i think the lafco team has more

to that. chairperson campos: why don't we hear from ms. miller. >> i want to underscore what mike said about the negotiations with shell. they have significant resources working with us trying to put together our term sheet and program. that has been moving along i think really well in terms of their commitment to the program. the bond and the pcia exit fee issues are very important because those are cost incumbent on our program and it makes our program cheaper if we have those eliminated, and that is always good. finally, along with sb 790, i just want jason to give a little presentation because we have a resolution of support. in addition, we're working with other groups, utilities, to have

them help pass the resolution. >> before you you have a resolution and support of 790 so we can at san francisco lafco to the group that is supporting sb 790. it also instructs lafco to inform the board of supervisors we have passed this bill. it would also be a bill of support. there is one of the bill that we are also monitoring closely. it is a bill that was sponsored by ibew 1245, which is the local that represents pg&e workers, and that bill looks to be a spot bill, introduced, does not get the true language of what they want to do, but deals directly with cca. we will be monitoring that

closely. that bill has a hearing next month, and we will have to react quickly to that bill. we are prepared to do so once the amendment is made. chairperson campos: if i may, in terms of our involvement, may be on the resolution, what else can we do in terms of our advocacy? >> we have been active at the coalition that has been working on this. miss miller and myself have been reaching out to some of the same people on the government side that we reached out to when prop. 16 was coming about, to make sure they are aware that 790 is out there. we're working in course with the broader goal to give the bill as much support as we can. chairperson campos: ms. miller? >> i was going to add that we're going to send them a model resolution. this helps move things along, and model resolution and a staff report to present to their government entities. chairperson campos: commissioner

mirkarimi? vice-chairperson mirkarimi: has the california puc ever taken legislative considerations like this themselves? >> yes, the cpuc is allowed to take positions on legislation before them, just like your body here. you are not allowed to take positions on legislation before voters. vice-chairperson mirkarimi: and have they or will they weigh in on this? >> i don't know the answer to that question. vice-chairperson mirkarimi: i would suggest they do, because this was instigated by the assembly bill. with their endorsement, which they should endorse -- if not, they should be removed -- then i would ask that that happened. i would like to tie up all loose ends, because ultimately, cpuc

needs to be enforcing the very reforms we are talking about, and i want to make sure they are actually on board. >> that is a good point, and we will check with them. there are two new commissioners. i know that sfpuc has been in contact with them. it will come up on their agenda at some point. we will probably be in touch with some of you about insisting -- assisting with that in denver for support. also, it occurred to me that the california utilities association is having their conference next week, and i have been in touch with their executive officer about doing a resolution. it is that kind of duplication of activities that we will do with this effort as well. there are a number of those kinds of associations that will be in contact with. vice-chairperson mirkarimi: right, but in the meantime, is

kind of like a sport for pg&e to snipe and undercut municipalities were trying to pursue this, and it was literally nothing with the exception of a little bit of response from cpuc in defense of marin. i am just wondering if that will change and could this get the cpuc more emboldened to protect municipalities from this level of subversion. >> we are certainly trying, and that is the kind of thing with new members, you always have a different position. chairperson campos: i am wondering all along the lines of what commissioner mirkarimi was saying, if we pass this resolution, should we send a letter on behalf of lafco to all the members of the puc indicating we have taken a position and it is appropriate for them as the regulatory body for the industry to let the legislature know. >> yes, and we could do that

with the executive director as well. chairperson campos: yes. a final question for staff for me, we were trying to set up a joint meeting of lafco with the san francisco public utilities commission, and our last meeting was supposed to be a joint meeting, but there was an issue of quorum. i'm wondering if you could say little about when that is happening, assuming both commissions be on the same page and continue to push this forward as quickly as possible. >> we are working to try to put together that meeting. my guess is it will be sometime in mid to late april is the time frame we're looking at now that would coincide with the april meeting. we will have a joint meeting with sfpuc, schedules permitting of course. chairperson campos: i would

underscore to our staff and the puc staff the importance of making sure that happens. i think there is momentum, and we need to make sure we take full advantage of that. colleagues, any other comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on this, you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so two points, one is that it's good to hear what marine is doing and even though it's outside of the county, it's great to hear that marine is actually triggering stuff being built, instead of us buying energy on the market. that's going to improve the statewide situation and renewables. however, the commissioners should also know that sonoma county is getting under way with a c.c.a. sonoma county just put forward

$250,000 to do a feasibility study for their c.c.a. and some of you might know that sonoma county has been doing prerptory work for the buildout -- preparatory work for the buildout that advocates have kept advocating for here in san francisco, the full detailed plan for the buildingout for their c.c.a., so that they're getting ahead of the game on local distributed generation renewables and efficiency. and so i'd add that to the note on the progress at the local san francisco utilities commission, on dual tract that we've been talking about. in a really nice way, marine can represent the track that the sfpuc and lafco staff seems to be leaning towards, sonoma represents the track that we have finally gotten agreed to, to actually plan out the entire local buildout and so as we

move both those tracks forward, we should be looking at sonoma to see how it differs from marine and how we can have sort of a dialect between those two to educate bus how to do our own and do both tracks. one note on sort of statewide issues, i just noticed today and i just noticed it from one comment from one solar panel owner on a blog. so this would still have to be verified. but according to this person that was responding to an article about smart meters, he has solar panels, he calls pg & e to ask about the smart meter they wanted to put into his home in relation to his solar panels. found out from pg & e that the new smart meter, unlike the old meter, will not run backwards in order to measure electricity going back into the grid. dd marine -- and this guy told

him he'd have to pay $500 to get a smart meet that are would run backwards. now, most smart meters do run backwards, if pg & e's alterior mote sve to so that people are discouraged from putting solar panels on their roofs because there's no reverse metering, that is a huge deal and it affects all the things in the state and i would encourage all of us to agendaize this and have staff look into that and see if that is indeed the case so that the next meeting we can take a stand on it. and it would be good to get the san francisco utilities commission to support 790. thanks. >> thank you. chairperson campos: is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i guess we need to go back to the action item which is the resolution on the state legislation. >> that's correct.

chairperson campos: so, colleagues, we have a resolution, can i get a motion, a motion to accept, to approve, by commissioner mirkarimi. can we take that without objection? thank you. resolution passes. and, madam clerk, you can call item number four? >> item number four, report on the issuance of the request for proposal for a study on refuse collection, hauling and disposal in the greater bay area. chairperson campos: now we're going to hear from our expective director on this item. -- executive director on this item. >> yes, through the chair, nanny miller here, checktive officer. on february 28, the commission approved an r.s.p. to be issued for a study to compare the processes upon which -- under which the city and county of san francisco selects a refuse provider. and to compare that with other

greater bay area jurisdictions. the r.f.p. was issued on march 1 and it was due on march 14. we received three responses from bidders. we texted three references on each one of the bidders and we conducted interviews on march 21 and the lowest bidder and the highest scorer is r-3 consulting group. i have prepared a contract, it is before you. the scope of services was outlined in the r.f.p. and just briefly i want to just talk about the jurisdictions that will be reviewed. they're in the staff report and it includes the jurisdictions under the county waste management authority which includes alameda county, fremont, berkeley, emeryville, albany, dublin, castro valley sanitary district in oakland, city of oakland.

it will look at marin county which includes all the cities within marin county, santa clara county which it also provides services for a number of cities within the county, including los altos, san jose, mountain view, santa clara, gilroy and palo alto. they will look at jurisdictions that use barging techniques and the only jurisdiction in california is l.a. county, so we're going to have them look at a couple of other jurisdictions out of the state as well. and that is part of our r.f.p. which just to take a very brief summary and look at the possibilities of barging for refuse hauling for the city and county of san francisco. the bid by the consultant was -- $27,500 and i think i'll just stop there unless you have any questions for me.

chairperson campos: thank you. colleagues, you may recall that at the last lafco meeting we approved to go moving forward with the issuance of this r.f.p. and gave the executive officer the authority to begin the contract negotiations and finalize the contract subject to ratification by this commission. and we have been working very closely with ms. miller, my office and i, and have been involved in putting together of the r.f.p. as well as reviewing the results and i am confident that this is the right approach and we also wanted to make sure that lafco staff received input from the department of the environment, which was also able to provide feedback and our hope is that we can have an expedited review and that the vendor can come back to us in a

short period of time to provide their results so that we can in turn provide that information to the board of supervisors as they make their deliberations. >> i would just add that the department of environment was very helpful, very professional in assisting us in the development of the r.f.p. and also sat with us during the interview panel and we will be working with them as we conduct this study. the study will be due on march 14, or parred me, april 14. we will have a draft and we will be bringing that back to you. representatives from all three consulting groups are here if you had any questions for them. rick hutchenson, their principle, and melody lassiter, are here as well. chairperson campos: colleagues. any questions? vice chairperson mirkarimi: what do you think that the net effect of the study actually helps us