may execute the contract, and one of those would be to make sure there are no favorable regulatory decisions, and the other would be that the pricing from shell is x or below to make sure it matches what we are forecasting for prices. quickly, on timeline, here we are almost in august. on tuesday, we presented to our commission. the full package i just went through here, although i went through in more detail with them. the sfpuc was the first time that all five of those commissioners had been briefed in total. there were a lot of questions from the commission, particularly around program designed -- design, how rates are designed and such, and who would be the likely customers.

what would be the total appropriation necessary, and what might be coming down the pike from the puc. based upon those items, the puc did not vote on the resolution before them and wanted to hear the -- some more information before approving the term sheet. the chair and others at the commission on tuesday expressed an interest in having a special meeting in august, so i think there'll be some work in trying to pull that together. on a parallel path, and i know this body is looking at the term sheet. quickly, in 2012, just going forward for launch, after getting a contract approved and have the terms taken care of, we would be finalizing rates for shell, executing a contract in the first quarter of 2012. we would be going through a

public process around the same time, establishing the rates, and getting geared up for our marketing outreach plan, making sure everyone is aware of the program. such sending up the pre- enrollment opt-outs. again, we will be targeting 70% of overall residential customers, so it will be peppered brown the vast majority of the city. in 2012, july, flat generation rates go into effect. that is around the same time we think we will be starting to serve customers. august-september timeframe, we think we will be doing the post- enrollment. in terms of the legislative update, there were two bills of interest to us all. a.b. 976 was a bill that none of

us like very much. the good news is that it is looking like in the parlance of the folks of the legislature that it did not make it through the hurdles it needed to get through in committee on time, so it is definitely not happening in this year's session. we have been informed by our lobbyists in sacramento that for all intents and purposes, it is dead, so that is good news. s.b. 790 is the bill we are cosponsoring along with the sierra club. it has gone through the senate, and is now with the assembly. we made it through the first committee, and it is slated to go next to the appropriations committee. the other item i touched on in my previous remarks about the big things going on

regulatorily with the bond amount being the biggest. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. campbell. ms. miller, did you want to add anything to that? >> briefly, through the chair, the plan was that the sfpuc would approve the term sheet, and we would hear on friday any of the changes or comments that they had. since that did not occur, i want to briefly say that that may change my recommendation to you. a number of questions they had related -- i think mike did a good job of summarizing this. the related mainly to risk and what the risk was to the city, so there are some specific questions that the sfpuc is bringing back to them. hopefully, they will be able to meet in august. if that does not occur, we might want to consider meeting with them in a joint meeting in

september. the only thing i have been at is if you want to fall -- hear the full presentation, mike is perfectly willing to give it to you. it could be that because the puc did not approve the term sheet, we may be continue each day until such time as they do approve it. given that, i would like to hear your comments or questions. supervisor campos: colleagues, if i may, i just wanted to provide some context in terms of the process or the timeline i was envisioning with respect to this item. one of the things i want to make clear is while we want to do the process right, it also is important for us to do it expeditiously. the hope and the intention that i had was that by the time this item came to us today, that the term sheet would have been improved -- approved by the san

francisco puc. i appreciate the presentation by mr. campbell and the work that has gone into it, but i have to say that i am disappointed that the san francisco puc did not act on this. we all know that the discussions and conversations, negotiations have been ongoing for quite some time. some of the questions and issues that came up, i think, are issues that have come up before, and it is somewhat frustrating that those issues remain unresolved. my hope and expectation would be that the puc would indeed have a special meeting in august so there is a full vetting of the term sheet, so we understand what the concerns are and what we're going to do about those concerns, but i think it is important from my perspective to get a commitment on the part of

the san francisco public utilities commission by having an actual vote to this program. i think that that would be my hope and expectation, and i would ask that -- i mean, i agree with ms. miller that it makes sense for us to continue any approval of a term sheet because that may change, but i would also ask that we direct the executive officer to send a letter to the puc requesting a prompt resolution of this issues and prompt action on this program -- from resolution of those issues. those are just sort of my thoughts on that. what would happen is if there is approval by the puc, the item would then come to the lafco,

and at some point after, we would proceed to introduce something and forward it to the entire board of supervisors for their consideration. with respect, the final point i would say is that i do think we also need to have a joint meeting with the puc, but i do not think the meeting should happen only if they do not approve the term sheet. i think the meeting should happen in respect of -- in respect of -- the meeting should happen irrespective. commissioner mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i have a question to mr. campbell. as mayor knew some -- as mere -- mayor newsom was excellent

office and -- mayor newsom was exiting office and mayor lee was taking over, how were they planning to arrive at that 100%, and what is the plan? >> one of the things we are excited about the program is 100% renewable for cca. i know the puc and department of environment have a working on a task force on the 100% renewal plans -- renewable plans. supervisor mirkarimi: i'm sorry, i did not hear the answer to that question. to that point of conversion? i have yet to hear mayor lee do the same thing. >> by conversion you mean -- >> how they plan to convert municipal reliance from our

fossil fuel, nonclean energy into 100%, because this is something that they assert that this is the game plan for san francisco. so i'm actually trying to understand the p.u.c.'s role in the rollout of that plan. with or without c.c.a. >> and by municipal, you mean the broader city, not just municipal customers like the city hall and general -- >> i mean san francisco. >> san francisco in general. yeah, i have been focused on c.c.a. to date but i am certain we can come with a presentation about that. >> speak into the mic. >> i'm sorry. should i repeat the answer? >> it's all right. but you will come back with an answer. is this the first you heard of this? i'm just curious. miss miller, through the chair to miss miller, i always feel like we go three steps forward and four steps back when we get

to these junctures of dealing with contracts. so just elaborate a little bit more. i thought there was a bit of a convergence or confluence of minds on this contract with the p.u.c.. why are things glitching? >> i think through the chair, nancy miller, your interim executive officer, this is my speculation, but i do believe that you have some new commissioners that don't have the history of some of the other commissioners. i believe that the program because it has changed since the initial ordinance has led to some questions regarding the phasing and the risk. i do think that the questions that were raised by the s.f.p.u.c. commission evidenced at least to me there had not

been a lot of understanding by the commission and that's really all that i can say. i've talked with mike about going -- taking the month of august and briefing those commissioners on the program where we have been, the history to be available to answer questions to them. so that we can figure out exactly why -- or hope to address those before we get to the next meeting. >> how could a new commissioner possibly hit the ground running in being able to absorb this information when it's been in increments or phases years in the making? and then be saddled with the decision based on what they were faced with in their last commission meeting? how would that have happened without a briefing? >> i'm not saying that they weren't briefed. i just recommended maybe we go and brief them to make sure we understand where they are. >> i want to understand how thorough this is being treated because this is actually reminiscent of problems in the

past. and so there has been -- i don't know why we're soft shoeing this. i would like to get an idea from lafco or p.u.c.'s staff side the level of assertiveness so people were thoroughly briefed when they took hold in their power of position. >> there were -- mike campbell once again with the sf p.u.c. one of the parts of the presentation i skipped over was about the numerous presentations made in public about lafco and s.f. p.u.c. so there have not been many votes the current commissioners have taken on this matter. there have been public presentations. there also have been some private briefing that's i know of. but perhaps if this is a broader issue, it should be taken up at the giant p.u.c. lafco meeting. >> when is the joint meeting, sfleeze >> we don't have a date. it is something we started talking with mike about today.

but i am serious about going to meet on our own -- hopefully with mike, with each commissioner, to talk about what their concerns are. as to the joint meeting, i did have a conversation with the -- with ed harrington about trying to set up their special meeting in august, which is something the commission did direct them to do. and i do think we also ought to set up a joint meeting. i mean, so that if action isn't taken in august, we can be prepared to do so in september when we have the joint meeting. >> i think you're being potentially naive about the fact that coming into a intensified election season after labor day, considering the three municipal races that are up, that this only distracts from the conversation both from the mayor's office and board of supervisors and commissioners that i think opportunity has now been missed by their not being a

joint meeting before labor day. i remember suggesting this several months ago that there be some level of preparation, number one, so there be a joint meeting. tpwhoub with the substitution of new commissioners coming on board, lafco, who's probably a little more seasoned and trained, would have behooved the new commissioners if we had a joint meeting now so this conversation could have taken place with them present and witness to the conversation instead of us having to start all over again. that's really what it feels like. every time that there's a gulf of time with the p.u.c. and p.u.c. commission, it feels like we're starting all over again. and i thought we had a much better level of fluidity going on several months ago that we gave license to both lafco staff and p.u.c. commission staff to work this stuff out. i have to tell you that i expected a little more

productivity and unity on this question. i don't see that now. >> well, we did try to have a joint meeting in the month of july, but that was not able to be calendared. so our backup position was what just occurred, a meeting on tuesday with the idea of being us hearing the term sheet on this friday. as you will recall, we forced the issue also of the term sheet to make sure that we could have something to introduce to the board of supervisors by next tuesday. so, yeah, no question it's a disappointment and it is -- i'm not here to lay blame. i'm just saying that the problem was with the meeting on tuesday was there were a number of questions asked related to risk and some other issues that the commission wasn't prepared to move, and so they continued it.

i think if you listen to that tape, i think it was definitely a unanimous decision and it wasn't one that was -- that there was a lot of discussion over, let me put it that way. >> how do we make up for lost time? >> well, as i said, i think we make up for lost time by meeting with the commissioners, taking this month and doing that because hopefully they will have a special meeting. i have already been in touch with the general manager of the s.f.p.u.c. to try to make sure that meeting happens, a special meeting by the s.f. p.u.c. commission some time in august. and if we can, you know, your schedules, you take a break in august so i'm not -- but it could be possible that we could meet in august. even with them if we got a date. certain we would have a joint meeting then and we could push that alternative as well. >> so mr. campbell through the chair can we get a joint meeting in august? >> as i mentioned in my remarks, i know by the tuesday meeting

that my commissioners did express an interest in that. so i can take back the discussion as well. >> is he still the chair of the commission? >> yes, sir. >> if i may wanted to add a point here, which is we have made it very clear to the p.u.c., p.u.c. staff of the importance of having something done before the board of supervisors takes its recess. that's the reason we tried to have a joint meeting in july and where it became very clear scheduling would not allow for a joint meeting, then would push very hard to make sure there was a p.u.c. meeting prior to a lafco meeting so that the p.u.c. could approve the term sheet at that meeting and then we at lafco could consider that term sheet. so i think it's important to understand it's into the we hope they have a special meeting or that there is action taken in august, but we expect it has to

happen, is that a hope? i think it's every expectation that it has to happen. we're already late in this process. but something does trouble me, which is this. that i hope that it doesn't take having to have a joint meeting for the p.u.c., for the p.u.c. commission to actually take a positive step approving c.c.a., because, you know, it shouldn't have to require lafco -- the lafco commission being in the room for the p.u.c. as a commission to make that commitment and the fact that they're unwilling to make that commitment or unable for whatever reason to make that commitment when they're on their own, that's really troubling. i do think that we need to have a joint meeting as soon as possible but i do think it's quite telling and disturbing that left to its own, the

commission hasn't taken that positive step. the issue that's have been raised are important issues but they're not new issues, and that's what's frustrating here. >> commissioner mirkarimi? >> commissioner mirkarimi: i think what we have learned over the last three years on this stop and start and stop and start process in terms of us being able to activate the file c.c.a. process for approval before this government is the fact that it works well or better when there's a certain amount of hand holding. and when there is sort of this detachment because we feel a sense of confidence in both the p.u.c. and lafco working together and their ability to try to foster the proper vision by both sectors, then that makes us happy going into it but the

by-product seems to fall apart at this particular time. and there's so many variables happening at the same time, especially time sensitive variables that those issues seem to be -- and that understanding seems to be subordinate for whatever reasons to the p.u.c.'s whatever their interest or agenda is. i would assume, director harrington, would love to get this off his plate by now. i just would assume that after everything he's done to evolve with this process. and we appreciate his stick to itness in years, mr. campbell, and p.u.c., but lafco, we're dogged about this. so to not expect this conversation to take this total quality would be fool hearty foolhardy because this is the year this must be done. this is a time where i think people will appreciate the contrast between what woe have

to offer and what pg&e cannot. and i think this is absolutely the right time, where sentiment i think in the public, general public, would be i think receptive to something we had to offer. there's nothing stopping this from this program succeeding but that must require these two organs of sfee hall to come together. and there's something that seems to be amiss every time we get to this one place. it worries me. so the commission, if it's a new p.u.c. commissioners, i'm feeling like this is the dog ate my homework excuse. get them in the room with us so we can make sure that we have a meeting of the minds together. and i just told the commissioner compos, chair, that i insist this driver should not be a p.u.c. commission. it's being co-driven. exactly what i had expected when i was chairing this body as well too.

so i'm hoping that we fix this before labor day. i really do. thank you. and thank you for your indulgence of my whining. supervisor campos: commissioner smeltser? >> thank you. and i think this is really just more about where we find ourselves today and where we address the staff who are here in front of us, who have been working. i would assume as hard as they possibly can and don't enjoy having their work dragged out any more then the rest of us would if they were in their position. so i think everybody is frustrated, i think that also bears remembering that our frustration is i think wrongly directed at the people who are here today rather than the people who took the action at the meeting, who are not in front of us today.

so with that -- supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner. that's a good point. i don't think anyone is taking it out on mr. campbell or the p.u.c. staff. i think the frustration is with the p.u.c. as a commission not acting when we expected them to act. but obviously, we are grateful to staff for the work that they do but that's not within their control. in terms of moving forward, miss miller, when will we know if there is a possibility for a joint meeting or is there a possibility of the special meeting at the p.u.c. where this action could be taken? >> i would suggest -- i made that request on tuesday. i would suggest that we send a letter to the chair insisting on a joint meeting. i can give them, you know, late august, depending on your

calendars through september for that as well as the -- the -- insisting on the special meeting for them to have questions answered. would i also have in that letter staff of lafco would be contacting them to meet to discuss questions and issues. so i think that's one thing. when i will know, you know, i actually think that it also will be helpful if i have you contact the chair of the s.f. p.u.c., in addition to me contacting ed again. supervisor campos: sure. i did speak to mr. harrington and expressed the frustration that we have with this development. >> and i will have our clerk check in with their clerk daily, and i've asked jason to contact the s.f. p.u.c. daily to find

out any updates on a date. supervisor campos: colleagues, do you have any comments or questions? why don't we open this piece up to public comment. >> good afternoon yet again, commissioners. eric brooks. i'm here representing san francisco green party and local grass roots organization in our city. i would policeman phi the err of frustration but take a slightly different trajectory, as i think a lot of us as advocates, i'm sure you have seen in the media, we have our own concerns about how the s.f. p.u.c.'s program may be moving forward, what the term sheet might look like. we have for several months gone back with s.f. p.u.c. staff and

s.f. p.u.c. commissioners about the specific concerns. and i think that we've reached a point in that process where since the term sheet is just sitting at the s.f. p.u.c., it's become an insillar process and it's gone forward about as well as it can go. so i would agree that it's time now that ab-117 makes the board of supervisors the implementing body for this policy. it's time now for the term sheet to move from the s.f. p.u.c. and get to the board of supervisors, where we as advocates feel like we can in a new forum that's working actually to make this policy happen immediately, where we can work with the board of supervisors on the concerns that we have and actually flushing out this term sheet so it actually makes sense for everybody. especially to the extent as we

said before, we think a lot of the concerns raised by s.f. p.u.c. commissioners and that are raised by us will be addressed by moving forward the scope of work that's in your next item, expeditiously so we can develop a very solid and big body of work for the potential or real local, renewable efficiencies being built here in san francisco to create economic engines which will strongly impact the kind of concern that's were raised in the s.f. p.u.c. and the kind of concerns we're raising about how the s.f. p.u.c.'s process might have some laps in it. but i strongly agree with the commissioners it's time for this to move out of the s.f. p.u.c. and be put in the hands of the board of supervisors so we could have that real dialogue between the organizers and at the board and get the term sheet and the

buildout work moving together so they can inform each other. but as you say, if we just leave this sitting in the s.f. p.u.c., it's not moving much. it's time for them to just express their concerns and then grant the real decision-making body, the board of supervisors, the next crack at this immediately so we can get a better understanding. thanks. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> hi. jean brashear, green energy director at global exchange. and we do have some concerns and questions about the specific term sheet. but we do like what's most important for it to move forward at this point so the board of supervisors can engage about it. we do think it's very important for clean power s.f. to be moving forward and be moving forward in a timely manner. of course, that is because of the great potential that clean power