services for $100,000. identify contractual terms, allocate responsibilities. >this is in a memo dated today from our executive officer. >> i have that in front of me. in terms of activities related to development of renewables in terms of issuing rfp's, many of the activities we think we can handle within the staff and the health of the help of lafco staff. i do not see an issue in terms of getting rfp's out the door and seeking out new renewable resources. we are interested in working with the advocates to see if we can get the benefit of local power to assist us with that. so far, we have been

unsuccessful in finding a mutually agreeable scope. commissioner schmeltzer: if the money set aside is not extended, what would it be used for? >> it could be used for a variety of things. it could be earmarked for the marketing and outreach that will be so important for the data we will face with pg&e as well as spending some of the initial startup costs. we talked about some of the appropriations that would be necessary. any dollar saved could help to avoid future appropriations. supervisor campos: if we were to take action on this, for this item to pass, we would need three votes. >> yes, you would need three votes. that would be the public member voting. supervisor campos: it does not seem like we're going to get

there. maybe the thing to do is to continue this item. >> i think my motion to continue is still unseconded. supervisor mirkarimi: i was willing to split it with regard to staff recommendation on moving forward with the first increment. hearing that there is not sufficient support for that, i will leave it up to the will of the body. supervisor campos: my preference would be to move forward with this. i also understand there are concerns. i want to make sure those concerns are addressed. why don't we take out without objection? before we do that, i want to give the advocates an opportunity for public comment. >> when this does come back, i

would like some more detail if we go in that direction. supervisor campos: we have not taken action yet. we want to make sure we have public comment before we take action. go ahead. >> i am the coordinator of the local clean energy alliance. i represent one of the organizations involved in the negotiations and discussions that have taken place. we've heard today is not at all represent the reality we have experienced. i want to try to express that. the question is about what the program will look like. it has been clear from the beginning that the cca program in san francisco without a strong local build up with resources developed in the city region without those resources

-- without those resources and assets, there is not a program the public to support. it is just buying energy on the open market with a renewable portfolios standard. this question is about economic development and jobs in san francisco because of a cca program and the possibility that provides going forward. that cannot be achieved without a plan for doing that. the plan for doing that cannot be achieved without a certain amount of research and work being done to understand the resources that currently exist and the resources that need to be developed, how they should be rolled out and play, how they should be packaged and put together, how they should be financed. we need to know what the plan is going to be. having that kind of plan can

influence how you do the market procurement. the market procurement can have real influence over the plan. all that has been talked about by the sfpuc is the market procurements peiece. the local bill that is the only reason for having the program in the first place. they would be fine to divert the $390,000 left in the budget towards the marketing plan being proposed in the term sheet. that is not what the communities idea of clean power is about. the scope of work we have got to develop is about being able to get a plan foer cleanpowersf that will have those benefits. that takes money and work to do it. there is no shortcut. [tone!] that is why we have been so behind on the work for some time. the representations made about

our relationship to local power or the making of work that is not needed and all that stuff, it just shows a strongly uninformed understanding of the realities of the situation. i am sorry that is the case. [tone!] supervisor campos: next speaker. >> i am with global exchange. we are in member of the local clean energy alliance. we very much did support this item moving forward. we appreciate lafco moving this process forward. this item is a portion of the scope of work. rather than in the and all or nothing from , it is more a sequencing matter.

this portion of $100,000 would be funding falls on the earlier portion of the scope of work that we've been looking for the sfpuc to fund. it is not all or nothing. it is just that a lot of the $100,000 portion of work would not be engaged and would not happen if the earlier portion of the analysis work that needs to be done -- that would need to happen first before this 100,000 zero should be appropriate to be engaged and spent out. we have been part of this negotiation. we do have a lot of eyes on this. there are a lot of people engaged right now that very much want this to succeed and are looking for this to be productive work. it is critical work for the program to be successful. there will be a lot of eyes on

the task sheet and deliverables. it is written into have monthly chickens to make sure the product that is useful is being delivered and that decisions can be made about the next steps with the product provided. it is a sequence. what you would be approving would only be used if sfpuc is moving forward on the first portion of the work. we really do look to the sfpuc to engage with us and find some tasks that will serve what they are working on and create an effective plan for the bill out of renewables. that is what we're hoping for. he would be helpful to see lafco stepping up for this portion to show sfpuc that we're

serious about helping to get the bill out plan and rfp to happen. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> and eric brooks representing san francisco green party and our city. i have a quick disclaimer. neither i nor any of the organizations i represent have received a penny and never will receive a penny from local power. there is no relationship like that. to get to some specifics about the work itself, just to put it in context the first part that june referred to that we need the sfpuc is largely a task of gathering information, voluminous

information about pg & e and sfpuc and its rate pairs, etc., so that it's a huge amount of information that has to be crunched and then more work needs to be done to scope out the entire -- they were talking about scoping out the entire city for a full buildout of renewable and hundreds of efficiencies in hundreds of mega watts. in sonoma county, just that beginning part of getting rate pair information and analyzing that data that component all in itself cost $300,000. and sonoma has a similar size rate base as san francisco does. so i know you got sticker shock on this but the reality is this is what it takes to have a plan on a buildout an entire city. it's vital that you move

forward this today so we can send the message to the is sfpuc so they can do their bigger part and get this done. and i've got be clear, advocates are not going to support a c.c.a. program that does not fully flush out the buildout like this. it will not be viable economically. it will have problems and it will not give us the green jobs and the ability to have a strong impact on the climate crisis that we must have. we absolutely must have a big program moving forward na's actually building and installing renewable efficiency to the tune of hundreds of mega watts or this is not worth the paper that it's written on. so commissioners need to understand that it's vital that we get this work done and that amount of money is what it costs. as council miller said to you, actually from the meetings

we've had local power said, well, it would actually cost more but since there is 398 left, that's what we have to go with and that's the only reason that's the number. as to any relationships that might exist -- >> thank you. >> between activists an others i would like to see any proof that any commission would like to put forward so that we can have a real conversation about it. >> next speaker. >> commissioner josh r., brightline defense. and i would actually encourage the commission to go forward with staff recommendation. and i'll tell you why. just a couple of new items from a couple of speakers. the puc has expressly extended the contract to do this buildout because one of the things that hasn't been stated that we've had seven meetings that resulted in near armageddon with the puc and

community advocates about the fact that the program was you moving forward without a plan without a local buildout. without local buildout, the program does not work. i say that because we've gone out over the past few months to test that proposition and we find it to be true. so i don't know -- i don't even know what the tasks are other than if the tassbs are no move the conversation and move the plan to do a local build wouth this program then that's what we need to do. the scope that nancy mentioned, you know, we've had seven meetings with the contracter, the sfpuc staff maybe 14 hours of dialogue that led to the scope that's before you. yes, the p.u.c. did put out its own scope believed what it is the local buildout. but when we tested it, it was a failure. it went nowhere. and so the scope that's been

developed now and i suppose there could be more conversation in the next couple of weeks is calculated to work. when we took that as a community group and said this is the plan to build if your neighborhood to deliver tangible results after we begin with this kind of first flavor of this program, that gets people excited. so if you don't have this buildout, if you don't have the plan if you don't start doing the work and don't get it done, the plan is not calculated to succeed because if you don't have a local buildout there's no plan. this is what we're most excited about and we've been here on these two parallel tracks. we want to do this type of work, to have the local 3wil8dout. i'm sure you'll have these conversations with your local vendor. other than having these conversations with barbara heal, well, the first one he

blessed them with his hand. that's how this scope is formed. it's feedback. it's exciting. so we've got to have a plan for local buildout. it will's move forward to do that. and i think that's the decision for you. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public? >> good afternoon, commissioners jeremiah dean, sierra club. i don't have much more to add to what my fellow advocates have said today. they pretty much laid out the plan why it's beneficial to the community, to california, to sacramento, to san francisco. everyone needs to know that clean power is the way to go. we need to get to renewables. i would love to see san francisco get to 100% as soon as possible. and not 100% green to just 70,000 customers. i would like to see everybody in san francisco have the ability to have 100% clean

renewable energy. and the way to get to that zpwole through this scope of work. we need that local buildout. it's going bring jobs. it's going to bring an amazing boom to green technology. we're going to see that if we get this scope to move forward. sierra club, san francisco would like to see the resolution today from ms. miller move forward. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing nothing, public comment is closed? commissioner america rimmy? -- merkarimi. >> i'm supportive that we do this on an increment staff recommendation. based on the conversations that took place before public comment, you know, i think it's important as what we're buying

here. i've become accustomed to how they write and what they propose and what the product is based on what's been contracted. and so i'm very clear that what i think we invest in, we should be able to insist with high expectation with -- what that work product should be. when i see that the eight key points in their treatise in their percent speckive to us, one involving wholesale procurement. number two, data collection and analysis. number three program financial analysis. number five risk review. number five, regulatory and policy review. number six contract term sheets. number seven, development of proposals. and number eight developing r.f.p. really none of this

speaks to green jobs. and in this development proposal right now if that is one of the primary goals then there needs to be, i think a more robust expectation that that's something that we need to see spoken to. because i don't think the city does a very good job with green jobs whatsoever. and the reliances on this program to deliver green jobs then i would hope that that component be well applied to this particular contract or with another contractor. ms. miller? >> yeah, there is a co ponent of the development of green -- component of the development of green jobs that was submitted and is part of task seven and

eight. so it's in the body of the -- of the document. it's not a separate line item. it wasn't separately numbered. >> but what i'm saying is it didn't wow me. it didn't wow me at all. we have gone through p.u.c. we've gone through recurrent energy. we've gone through the solar city contracts. we have gone through -- i cannot tell you how many dozens and dozens of hours of debate through the budget committee and board of supervisors and being with the understanding that this would yield green jobs. and i still don't think the city has come to scratching the surface of yielding jobs for disadvantaged communities. it's frankly underwhemming. so in this case what i read beyond the eight key points of this percent speck us to, same thing. i don't see it, i don't feel it. so i want to make sure that if we invest in this, that we're

getting something that we absolutely need and they absolutely can deliver on so that it is a quality prict. not just to satisfy but poll dicks or the advocacy because i feel the same need. and if it's local hiring, i mean, then, it's double, i think the standard since this is not a local company. it's not fran-based. so i would expect -- san francisco-based. so i would expect there would have to be double the expectations that gives us something that we hope that they deliver. since we're only talking to one company in this case, an a company that we're familiar with. then we should see a brokering of what should come out in the final reporting.

>> ok. we have a motion to continue. i don't know if it's been seconded. let me say that now that we have a full compliment of the commission. i was open to the idea of continuing but again i believe that it's important for us to move this forward. i appreciate the comments from the commissioner. i think it's important to be dealt with every penny that we spend and that we provide specificity in terms of the deliverables and that we don't spend anymore than we need to. to strike a balance in terms of moving forward with the understanding that we will not spend more than what is needed. and with the understanding that it's been agreed that the

p.u.c. will do this work. i would ask for a motion to accept staff's recommendation to aprove, give the executive officer approval or authority to enter into a contract up to an amount of 100,000 but that's not necessarily the amount that will be spent. so is there a motion? motion by commissioner avalos. is there a second. >> second by commissioner mikarimi. [voting] >> mr. chair, we have three ayes and one no. >> the motion passes. madam clerk can you call item number five? >> item number five, executive

officer's report. >> ms. miller? >> i have no report, thank you. >> but, i'm sorry, i do want to introduce -- i'm going to have jason interview our new intern. i just wanted to get the opportunity to introduce our intern for the summer. last summer, she had different tasks to do. she is currently going to u.c. davis and is looking to do green type work in her future. i just wanted to welcome her do our internship program. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, any questions? is there any public comment on this item? any money -- body wanting to speak? public comment is closed. madam, can you call item number

six. it's within the jurisdiction of the commissioner. seeing none public bhick comment is closed. item seven? >> item number seven, future agenda items." >> colleagues any member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment was closed. >> just a quick question in terms oaf the join meeting with the -- of the joint meeting with the p.u.c., do you need specific dates for us. >> i want to know if you want to meet in august as well. a regular meeting is the fourth friday which is august 26th. so i'll potentially try for a

joint meeting on that date. >> so if people have any concerns if you can let ms. miller know. >> thank you. >> man clerk, final item. >> item number eight adjournment. thank you. meeting is adjourned. nice weekend.

president vietor: good afternoon. i would like to call the meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission to order. mr. secretary, could you call the roll? secretary housh: [reading roll] i would like to note that commissioner caen is on the way. president vietor: next item. secretary housh: the approval of the minutes of july 12, 2011. >> president vietor: approved? next item. general manager harrington: --

secretary housh: public comment for members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and that are not on today's agenda. we have no cards. president vietor: anyone? next item. secretary housh: identifies, -- i no. 5. -- item 5. general manager harrington: -- president vietor: can hold this until commissioner -- can we hold this until commissioner caen arrives? which item?

yes. vice president moran? vice president moran: usually, it is a very detailed conversation about how we seek to balance these overtime. we really need to look get that and see what the implication is for rates for both water and on the power side, so i just suggest that we put this so that we can deal with the big issues before we get into the more detailed review of the budget. and then, there are a couple of policies that were listed as enterprise policies, and my intent is that we establish policies of those areas.

i have seen a draft. it makes sense to start and then extend it in others. but i wanted to be clear that my intent was to have those affect all three. president vietor: thank you. other questions or comments on the communications? hearing none, next item. secretary housh: the next item with the other new business, if the commissioner has any item. vice president moran: this is a question on the time budget. i think we have not been able to fit in folks a couple of times, and i think it would be useful to see if any of us have any time limits we are working with and how much time staff needs so that we can make sure that our discussionwr