do for building local renewable generation in our city and the economic boost that would bring and the green careers it could provide and all of that, that it could bring. the city, we do see we really do need to have the preparatory work of planning the local buildout to be happening now seriously so it can operate in parallel to inform the procurement process and be working in parallel with that. so we hope that the s.f. p.u.c. will get the special meeting. actually, we're encouraging the p.u.c. to get that special meeting scheduled for august so it doesn't have to be delayed any longer. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. josh arsey with bright line. i wanted to echo the same sentiments with as far as the term sheet being in a place

where it should go from the p.u.c. to the board of supervisors, whatever you can do today to help make that happen. the special meeting, the letter, anything you can do, i think it's time to do that and just commissioner mirkarimi's point, i'm on the renewable task force that was mentioned with jason freed and barbara hail. we had a number of meetings and the only plan to get to a 100% renewable energy system in san francisco that's on the table is c.c.a. so let's move it forward. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed on this. this specific item. colleagues, we have an item before us, can we have a motion to continue this with the understanding that we also will send a letter requesting action from the p.u.c. at commissioner mirkarimi? >> i'm more than happy to

support the motion. i would actually double up on the idea if action doesn't take place i would encourage and co-sponsor with you the resolution to the board of supervisors that we move forward from board of lafco and board of supervisors in putting a real expedite on this. supervisor campos: i think there's a very clear message if there is no action on the part of the p.u.c., the board of supervisors will have to step in. so, colleagues, we have a motion. second by commissioner avalos. can we take that without objection? >> without objection. supervisor campos: thank you. madam clerk, please call item number four. >> item number four, authorizing the executive officer turn for local power for services of task and development for r.s.p.'s and other tasks for in-city renewable and demand side technologies consistent with the clean power s.f. program. supervisor campos: miss miller. >> yes, this item is before you for consideration to enter into a contract with local power.

they are one of our selected consultants under the r.f.q. we issued a few years back to develop the c.c.a. program. since february they have been negotiating with advocates pursuant to a resolution attached to my staff report to you. this is a resolution from the s.f. p.u.c., and local power under contract with them for development of what i will call the renewable portion of the local in-city renewable portion of the c.c.a. program. one of the potential tasks under that contract is they've been attempting to negotiate for that scope for some months now, and it has been a back-and-forth process but one that has not yet resulted in a task being

contracted for. so i'm bringing this item to you. there are certain of the task in the scope of work that we can contract for. what this is is the work that will be done to prepare the r.f.p. for the in-city renewable portion based on the c.c.a. program. we start the program and we have the ability to layer in our own resources as or our own energy efficiency programs and our own c.c.a. renewable projects. we need an r.f.p. to do that. we need a consultant to be able to plan that type of work. i will say one thing about the budget, which is the budget that is being looked at by the s.f. p.u.c. is $390,000. my authorization to you today is for not to exceed $100,000 for tasks that forth in this scope, tasks one, eight and a portion of nine. the remaining tasks are tasks

that we don't have the data to be able to provide. it's data that is with the s.f. p.u.c., but it will start the process going. it's basically a way to start activity moving on this particular item. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer? >> yes. i would like to make a motion to continue this item. it seems to me we don't have a term sheet at the moment. we're not exactly sure what the p.u.c. and it sounds like perhaps the p.u.c. is not exactly sure of all of the things it needs at the moment. and if we're actually going to consider this, i would have a lot of other things to say but it seems premature given we don't have a term sheet and perhaps we can wait until we actually know what the terms are before we hire additional consultants to -- to work towards things that would be --

to further the ends of the program. >> just in response to that, this is not necessarily reliant upon having a term sheet done. they started talking about these projects back in february. so i don't even think it was the s.f. p.u.c.'s intent that they have the term sheet actually finished, so as long as we have the parameters and we have buy-in from the consultant on those parameters which i do have. i know there are some issues out there about the program which i think speakers have already addressed. but the idea of this particular piece of it is to develop the r.f.p. in conjunction with the development of the term sheet. commissioner schmeltzer: yes, but it seems to me we were developing that thinking that we were already were a lot closer on the term sheet and we knew where it was going and it seems now that's considerably more up

in the air than it was. do i have a second for that motion from anyone? supervisor campos: i'm sorry, what was your motion? commissioner schmeltzer: to continue this item until we have a term sheet. supervisor campos: second. >> since the budget, the 390 is higher than our existing budget, do they have an idea where they would like the gap to come from? >> well, the --ly let mike address this but under the contract with local power, under their contract with s.f. p.u.c., the amount remaining is $390,000 under that contract. now, i will say we have limited funds. and we have a term sheet approval and then a potential marketing program and a whole lot of things we have to pay for with a limited budget. i think that's been one of the things s.f. p.u.c. has been

trying to address in the revision of the scope and so far that's not really been successful. but in terms of -- don't think we have extra money, but, you know, i haven't really addressed that since s.f. p.u.c. it's their intention to enter into, they provide a scope of work to the consultant. i think it's just a matter, hopefully, between theff of negotiating that further. if not, i will be back to you with additional requests. s&p mr. campbell? supervisor campos: mr. campbell? >> yes, with the s.f. p.u.c., miss miller is quite right, there's a $500,000 not to exceed contract the p.u.c. has with power, with $390,000 remaining on it. as miss miller notes, every dollar that we can husband will be available for outreach and

marketing and potential appropriations that might be needed. so there is a very strong interest in keeping consultant costs down to what actually lines up with what we need. on that point, one of the bits of direction we also heard an item similar to this, an item that was related to the extension of the contract, it's now been extended for another 12 months that was approved by my commission last week, last tuesday. it had a clear direction to only be hiring consultants for projects that directly relate to the scope of the program that we are envisioning. there are parts of the proposed scope better currently in discussion with local power and the advocates that do not line up with the existing plan for the program.

supervisor campos: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: miss miller, i am a little unclear on whether would be $390,000 worth of work delineated by 17 different staff members that would lead towards the expense of $390,000. the scope of the work originally stated seems to have changed from the original discussion about what is necessary. it seems like it is going way beyond what we're asking. what am i missing? commissioner miller: i am asking for $100,000 to do some of those tasks. the $390,000 was provided last february. maybe i am missing your question. it is a lot of money.

i think some of the tasks, particularly the risk and financial analysis could be cut down. there are people we have available at the sfpuc internally and through finance that might be able to do some of that work. i am here before you to ask for $100,000 to start the rfp process to leasfor what we needt couple of years to clear in city renewables. supervisor mirkarimi: i am definitely open to the $100,000 portion of it. i would never agree to the $390,000. absolutely not. it looks like it is trying to manufacture work in search of

trying to deplete the remaining amount of the funds that exist. i am sorry. that is just wrong. i oversaw a number of those reports in the past. sometimes i was pretty underwhelmed by the analysis provided at a high cost with regard to the fact there was not the level of depth that i was looking for. i want to make sure this is teased in such a way that we're not going to repeat that same situation. i kept asking for more work. with that came the price tag of more money being requested. i do not want to see that happen. i do not want there to be this blind faith of giving x amount

of dollars for a report that we are unsatisfied with. that would then require more money. i think everybody sort of knows each other now with local power. there needs to be a greater structured protocol so that the work product stands up to the cost. commissioner miller: yes, we have worked with local power before. we work with them through task order. we would not change that. this action before you is to authorize the entering into of a contract. i would not task that work until we have a specific task. the first task i have listed. the rfp has been provided. we would have them provide that

for comment. we would see that work. i say this with the caveat that i have received communications from the advocates and consultants that the entire region that if the $390,000 is not funded, they do not want to do any work at all. supervisor mirkarimi: let's call the elephant in the room. i am also an advocate. this is where i come from in this regard. whatever the relationship is with the advocates and consultant is an intimate relationship. it is one that is often wielded -- has wielded leverage on the spotty thinking it has to be an all or nothing relationship between a consultant and this body, too. i do not think that is clear or accurate. at some point, we have to stand up and say that on work product

itself, at a cost, we want to make sure we're getting the best we can for the dollar we're spending. i think that level of service needs to be maintained. the quality control needs to be insisted upon. >> i want to put some context to this. let me say this. the way i have approached the term sheet and build our and the work that needs to be done around both is that i do believe it is important for us to proceed and move forward with the build out on a parallel track. that said, i am going to be the last person to approve any contract where you are talking about manufactured work. i have directed staff to come to us with a recommendation as to what work needs to be done and

objectively should be done so that we move on parallel tracks and move forward with a clear understanding that no money will be paid unless it is money for services needed and is done in a way that clearly outlines what the bill liberals -- what the undeliverab-- deliverables are. i do not think saying three of $9,000 or nothing is acceptable under any circumstances. we will pay what is needed. i do think it is important for us to make sure that we begin this process. there's also an element of frustration with the puc because this discussion of what the work should be has been ongoing for quite some time. it has been weeks of discussion. we still have not finalized that

scope. i think it is important for lafco to strike the right balance in san will only pay what is needed. at the same time, we need to make sure we take actions to move the process forward. this action does not guarantee the $100,000 will be spent. is simply authorizes the executive officer to finalize and enter into a contract that specifically provides for work that needs to be done for the bill out. that is all it does. it went beyond that, i would not be comfortable with it. that is why i am comfortable with that. commissioner pimental. commissioner pimental: is local power interested in a negotiation on their proposal? is it an all or nothing proposal? commissioner miller: i have heard both depending on the

level of frustration. sometimes people say things that they then retract. i also do not know the total answer to that question. i have received in writing and have heard from the advocates that it is an all or nothing issue. i have said that is not how is for us. i am willing to go forward with this particular piece of this. it remains all or nothing, i will not enter into the contract. that is not how we do business. we would be bidding for a contract of that size. we would never just into a full source contract with that amount of money. we would did it, a task it, and go with the lowest responsible bidder. i am comfortable with what i have recommended to you. it is up to you whether you want

to wait on that or not. i think there is work to be done. i would task it. we're not spending $100,000 in the next month. i would task id. we would have a report back. i do not know if the consultant will take the offer, to tell you the truth. we will see. supervisor campos: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: how is it that the quote here is literally the same amount that exists in the pot? commissioner miller: i think the consultant will tell you that it will actually cost them more. they want to keep the contract price where it was. i believe isthat is what the consultant will tell you. i know that is what the advocates will tell you. my scope is more limited than what is before you, then what

local power provided. supervisor mirkarimi: it is too bad nobody from local power is here. why are they not? commissioner miller: i invited representatives from local power to come. i think they feel they have representatives. supervisor mirkarimi: what does that mean exactly? commissioner miller: it is my understanding and i have been told that advocates worked on the scope of work with the consultants. is that not true? supervisor mirkarimi: let's only deal with the facts. they are not here. commissioner miller: i asked him to come. supervisor mirkarimi: this conversation feels all little incomplete without us being able to talk to the consultant himself. it would not be thorough for us to move on this one piece of paper before us.

i understand what you are asking in an incremental way that makes sense. i am bothered by what is being depicted that is all or nothing. if that is true, you lose me there. commissioner miller: i think that is true. you would lose me there. every week, we have had this communication. there is a good-faith effort to move it forward and say this is work that could be and should be done. in either disagreed to or not. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer. commissioner schmeltzer: i have a related concern said. and aside from this. first, i am concerned that we do not have a more specific scope in front of us before we are being asked to approve it. i am not sure i am concerned at

local power is here or not given my experience of hearing them advocate for themselves. my other concern is the tone of this. it is as if we are negotiating with them so that they will allow us to pay them for the benefit that they will bestow upon us. it is almost as though they are saying they will be generous enough to take our money. i am not sure why we're trying so hard to find something for them to do. i feel like you and the puc are going out of your way to look for something to give them a contract for at this point. i am not hearing anything in this that i am convinced we need from them. if we're just looking for work to give to somebody, these are lean times. there is not enough money for anything in government that we

want to be able to do. there are things we need to be doing. we need to spend more time and need more staff for those. i am not hearing why this is so necessary. $100,000 is a substantial amount of money. i feel like we are being told we need to pay this money to them and are looking for some reason to do it. by understand you are not saying that. that is how it feels from here and from the proposal that local power wrote. i just do not appreciate it. beyond that, i have had my own concerns with the quality of their product in the past. supervisor campos: i think it is really important for me to respond to that. i do not know that anyone can sit here and say that anyone is

trying to make work. my role as the chair of this commission is to make sure that we move this project forward in a fiscally prudent way. i asked for a recommendation from staff as to what work needs to be done to make sure -- and to make sure it is done in a cost-effective way. the recommendation has come before me. it has been presented. that is why it is before this commission. if the commission feels it is not appropriate, that is fine. there is a difference of opinion. there is no effort here to simply give money away for the sake of giving money away. i would ask staff if they believe this is work that should be done and if the scope is appropriate given where we are in this process. commissioner miller: the tasks that i have outlined before you, yes. that is why the recommendation is before you. task one, its portion of nine,

and eight, as outlined in the proposal. >> i guess based on what i am reading in a staff report, i would want to know more. you did write something up and identify tasks. you also said the final scope of work may include general advice on how the dozen things -- half a dozen things listed. what we received from local power was extensive and detailed. it included a lot more. it also listed about 17 different people. i think i would want to know more about what we are proposing to use them for and what we would get for potentially up to $100,000. supervisor campos: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am

willing to go with a staff recommendation and echo chair ccampos in this case. i thought we were going with a small scope that calls out the most pressing need. in the past, i have seen some useful analysis provided by local power. at other times, i have asked for greater followup when i thought we received was not satisfactory. it has been sort of an up and down. in this case if there can be a real structured monitoring of the quality of the work, i am ok to give it that increment. what kind of deflates the discussion is if you have to

spend $390,000. i am hoping it is not all or nothing. that subverts this discussion. i do not know what is real, or our retre -- or arbitrary. if you want to go with what staff recommended, you have my support for that. supervisor campos: commissioner pimental. commissioner pimental: if the proposal is rejected, who would do the existing tasks? local powers as all or nothing. who would complete the existing tasks that were proposed to go to local power? commissioner miller: i think the plan is that he would issue another rf or use other consultants we have available

to potentially perform the. this is an sfpuc contract, so i am not sure you have anyone else other than local power on contract for that work. i think they would have to, sfpuc would have to issue an rfp. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer. commissioner schmeltzer: if this contract does not go forward and if local power is not engaged to do this work, how does that affect your program? that is assuming we get a term sheet and place in the program is meeting the other time scheduled goals. >> mike campbell with the sfpuc.

thank you for that question. in our discussions with the advocate and local power, we have been reviewing the work skill. one of the issues is that there is a difference of opinion in terms of what is necessary. my professional opinion is that a lot of the scope in there is not necessary for moving our program forward and would import -- divert important dollars away from what we need to get launched. we have proposed several works groups involved in helping write rfp's. those have been rejected. commissioner schmeltzer: i am talking about staff's proposed scope. >> the scope of work we have generally plant that is not written down? commissioner schmeltzer: i am referring to the memo we were provided that