because of your verbal authorization to ton do it. if you would rather not have the second resolved it is really your call whether you want to just continue the item or whether you want to have it without that resolve. we believe that we have the authority to negotiate, we just don't have the authority to make a decision. so you would have a choice of continuing the item or taking it out. the board expressed an interest in seeing this. but i am not sure, i believe it may be calendared on their tentative calendar. on their friday calendar they have it. that does not mean you have to send it to them for their discussion. >> i like the idea of us giving some guidance so we do not just

get a negotiated contract that you thought was right but for some reason does not. if we continue the item we need to continue the discussion. i will tell you this, there are four areas where if we work to proceed, and i could try to send a term sheet to the board, i would like the term sheet modified in four ways. and i don't know that this will answer your questions, but it is what is on my mind. the first is to the extent that we have funded reserves, that they are structured in such a way, and i think they are, they be structured in such a way that they establish a cap on our liability. if somebody is asking for cold hard cash up front the other side of the coin is that will be all that they get. second, i would like to see a more conservative roll out. my reasons are twofold.

one is -- threefold. one is that it is an area where we have to mitigate. we can't fund the impact of that. that is an area where i get more conservative. second is if we do roll it out to the most likely customers first it means the ones we have held in reserve are the least likely customers and we can't assume that they will accept at the rate the first batch will. and then the third is that frankly i was -- i forget what slide it is. the slide that shows the comparative costs, actually caught me by surprise. we talked about it being a small percent of a small percent. i kept looking and seingly $7. that is pretty cheap. the $23 took me by surprise. it is 18% of the electric

portion of the pge bill. sorry. >> of the total bill. >> of the total. it is 30 odd percent of the portion of it. on a percentage basis it sent a huge amount of money. but it is a big percentage thing. it may not be of great concern to everyone but it will be part of the ad campaign or the whispering campaign. it makes me feel less confident that the rates that we saw in the marketing survey would actually be forth coming. if pressed to put a number on it the number would be going down to 20 megawatts, about 150,000 people. now that is a non-scientific number. it is the best that i could give you. and if it is something that we wanted to spend more time

figuring out a better way to come up with that number, that is fine too. smaller, i think, is important. the next two items are number one to put into the term sheet the escrow concept that we are negotiating contracts that we will not execute until the entire program is put together and we have a chance to do it and adopt it in whole. the last one, which is the tough one we have not talked about, is that i think the value of the reserves is substantial. my guess was some number of tens of millions of dollars. and this is for a program which while useful and beneficial and important is option optional. at the same time the fund projections are we have a $60 million to $80 million problem over the next 10 years in terms of unfunded capital needs.

and if we are talking about tens of millions of dollars on top of that without having an answer to how we deal with that problem, i think that is not right. so, i would add in there something saying that all of this is also contingent, not only on the escrow but us having adopted a plan to the point where we can say that the ongoing fund balance projections are sustainable for a hedge. that is a tough set of stuff to meet. i recognize that. but it is -- as i have been wrestling with the issues, it ends up being the minimum they can get me to yes on on agreeing to a term sheet at this point. if we need more discussion on that continuing it is appropriate but i could go either way. >> all right. i think it would be interesting to go back. these are all complex.

i think that they need further staff thought and discussion. for the most part i am in agreement that some of these i think are good ideas, you know. some of the liability issues and the abilities with the reserve questions. i feel that the time is ticking. i wonder if there is a way to submit the current term sheet, maybe not to the board, but so at least there is a starting place, and possible tow the bore as well where it is sort of a work in progress to get feedback and get some of the wisdom of the other policy bodies as we do the work on these other issues and continue any type of a decision really on a resolution. it is calendared for friday so there will be a discussion and maybe what we do is continue it

from our decision-making body to be able to at least review the current term sheet, get the wisdom of their input and then continue the item until september for a vote. >> do we have a meeting on friday? >> not for us. it is not a joint meeting. >> ok. >> is there any objection or any comments. >> i don't know what the proposal is? >> to continue the item on but that it continues. it will go over there for friday on comments. >> right. >> they will be looking at the

same term sheet. they might have an additional set of comments anyway. hopefully our staff will be there and bring it back in addition to these comments and issues that need resolution in order to bring it back. i do want to ask the general manager on the timeline. i know we are eager to keep the train moving here. looks like september is the next time we will review the term sheet. >> if you look at the timeline that you have on slide 20 we are not talking about executing a contract with shell until the first quarter of 2012. so, it is really a matter of when before then you would want to authorize the contract. but i think we are looking at either signing a contract in february of 2012 if you want to go into business in the summer of 2012. >> are there any other issues from the commission for the

term sheet for the staff to be considering so they can come back to us with a more fleshed out complete term sheet that we will be able to vote on in september? >> i would like to associate my remarks -- >> if a majority of the commission does not want to do the program it would be great to hear that as opposed to continuing to negotiate. if you think there are enough parts of it we would be happy to do that. if you think the risk can't be mitigated enough or another issue is important enough it would be important to continue. we are spending a lot of staff time negotiating. it is something that would be good to know. >> one thing that is convenient about continuing it until september is because at the

retreat we will talk about some of the long-term financial issues and power rates. i think that is part of that discussion. we are talking about putting an additional burden on that. the solution to one could be the solution for the other. the september discussion could benefit from our august discussion. so i think it works out pretty reasonable. >> yes. i am committed to the concept. i am committed to the initiative. i said before i took a position on this commission but i want to make sure that i want to align myself. we may decide that it is worth the risk. before i make that decision i want to know what the risks are

so i want to know if they are worth it. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i am very committed to this program. i know the potential it could have on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. it could be a huge player driving the market. as far as what we need to be doing as a city to reduce and comply with the state mandate that we are all scrambling to comply with. so i really want to see this program succeed. i would move to continue this item until september. any other comments from the commissioner? >> what percludes us from having a hearing in august?

>> we could have a special meeting on this item. but i don't know. maybe i will take that off-line with the general manager and we can talk about that. >> thank you. it would be interest to see what they come up with in their further thoughts as well. are there public comments on this item? >> eric brooks, i am here representing san francisco green party. i was glad to hear a lot of commissioners raise a lot of concerns about financials of the potential for this program rolling out. you can potentially continue it or you can send it on to the board of supervisors.

i know they are hot to put something forward on the second and we might want to afford them that opportunity. that item has to do with the local power part of that item has to do with preparation work for the local build out. years ago made very clear that the more of a local build of renewables and efficiency that your cca program has, the lower your price can be to your customers and a much lower -- the lower you can get all of the risks that you are talking about. i just want to correct a little bit your general manager.

the advocate side of this debate if you can call it that hasn't been saying that you can do what the staff wants to do at pge prices. we know you can't do that. what we have been saying is that if you do the robust work we ask for in the next prices to plan and to begin building and bonding and building a robust build out. up to 51% local renewable assets in the first 10 years, then you can early on in the program amortize that stuff so you can get a lower price to your customers very soon. it is not that we are arguing one way or another, that is the reality. the 100% green as a price. the 51% we are talking about is local renewables and

efficiencies that are hard things that are built and installed. those are apples and oranges. you need our apples to make the oranges of giving green power prices to your customers to be able to get a better price. on the next item please read the thing that we sent and distributed to you that starts with amendments to resolutions amending cs 92 rb 762611 it is our ask of you in amending your next resolution that will enable us to give you a product of work by january because it will take about six months that will mitigate almost everything you are saying is a threat to this program. that next item is vital to making this all work out. thank you.

>> we are concerns with the program as it is outlined here, especially where it is diverging from the ordinance and around some of the issues. and, you know, our interest in this program has been for clean energy but also very much for the potential for local renewable energy sources to be built in the city or the nearby region and the jobs that would bring. we do feel like if we were further along at this point in this program in having a more comprehensive plan as we may get to in the next item we feel that we would be further along and have a better design program when it was more competitive. broader than this program is informed. so we have been raising the

kind of questions and issues you raised to the staff and haven't really seen those being addressed. i am hoping those will be addressed. we are ok with this moving forward to the board and the different issues addressed. there is a lot of desire ability in this program. we are ok with it moving to the board is that other work is released. for you taking the time and to be responsive with these questions. thank you.

>> think you. -- thank-you. >> obviously, there is great importance in the program that is an important piece of the entire scheme. the basic question about local jobs generated by this program is not the answer. i applied for item 12 to be approved. this would create union jobs, jobs that would create participation in this program. >> thank you. >> miss miller is our executive

officer and she asked me to speak on delaying sending this to the board. there is a lot of procedural items that need to occur. we know that the entire program is not available. we would like to see this item move to the full board. we understand some of the concerns going on like it being too large. there are some ways to mitigate that. if you try to get people that are -- and you could lower the amount. we're not talking of businesses in this program, we're only talking about residential customers. there is a lot of mitigation. there are a lot of ideas. we need this first that to continue to move forward. we'll get a contract and that helps us get farther down the process of addressing these

other questions. nancy miller has requested that you move this to the full board so they can have a chance to start the process. thank you. >> further comments? so, we will continue this item. hopefully, we will be able to have a meeting in august to move on it and if not, we will taken up with a meeting in september. the next item. >> madame president, item 12, discussion and possible action to move two community choice aggregation amendments to agreement number -- for the committee choice aggregation programs.

monitoring the advisory services on behalf of the public utilities commission for the community choice aggregation program. also authorizing executing these amendments each with the time extension of one year for a total time extension of four years each. >> i would like to make a couple of comments on this item and in response to some of the public comments are around local builder out. i think that this is really exciting and important opportunity and a critical part of this program. i would hope that we're talking about these various components that the bill that is really front and center, what will it look like, what is the time line for those pieces. i was glad to see the substitution caused so that will enable the practical and logistical perspective to replace and substitute once we

pull out those properties. we had a meeting with some of the stake holders on the subject and on their contract. this is a no cost extension for a year which i support. i know there was a letter circulated about the meeting. this goes to support the extension. i did not appreciate some of the language. they might be forced to request that lafco take independent actions. if we did not approve the contract, i want to reiterate that we really view lafco as our partners and we have worked hard to get to a place of mutual trust and respect, i believe.

i would hope that we would really try as much as possible to operate in tandem and conjunction with them, so i thought that the tone of that letter was threatening and it was a little strange and i know that that was a publicly circulated letter. i just wanted to speak to that. i don't know if there are questions for mr. campbell on the extension of the contract. i saw that there was an amendment that was submitted but my understanding is that without reissuing the entire new unrest p -- an entire new rfp, maybe we could ask the attorney to speak to that.

>> i know the staff has proposed an amendment that does not change that scope of work. the general manager and the staff have the authority within the contract that was competitively bid to issue orders pursuant to the original rfp. i just saw the materials that were passed out in the scope of work that was drafted by the consultants and my only point before the meeting is that that is a little the regular to have the consulted propose an amendment to the scope of work, that would usually go through the contract process, the purchasers office and that is not our usual protocol which follows the administrative code and the competitive bidding process to have a scope of work

at it as an amendment written by the consultant. >> why don't we put a motion on the table and then we will take public comment? is there a motion to approve item number 12? >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> why don't we take public comment before we take a vote? >> good afternoon. we represent the green party and the local grassroots organization. i would like to clarify what the advocates are asking for. what we're asking for is not a change of any of the current terms of the contract. that is not what this is about. the scope of work document that you have looked at which is about 19 pages, that is a

product of ourselves, the advocates for local power, and the staff of the puc working together to come up with the tasks under the current contract that would be played out under this contract extension. this does not change any terms at all, all it does it specify that the puc staff is planning for this contract to do under the current contract. this is just a description of the work tasks. maybe there are some things with the legal thing, if that is a problem, we would just call this a set of tasks words. at any rate, to get to the substance of what was brought up in the previous item, so what

this two page is from advocates asking you to attach that scope of work to your resolution, not as an amendment but just as indicating the expected work that local power will do under its current contract and we have advocates. the stuff of talking about, we have come up over many months, worked diligently with the staff to come up with all of these work tasks. we have gone to a bit of an impasse in that we want them in the scope of work that you have all seen. the puc said they would prefer a different approach and not only between ourselves as the groups that showed up today but in consultation with a lot of stakeholders, environmental justice groups, labor groups,

community justice, jobs justice, have received what the pcr result proposed saying that those are not adequate to get all of those things that i was talking about in the last item and how this would affect the overall program. it is crucial you not only approve this contract but had this set of amendment to your resolution and attach the work we want done so it is clear that you are saying to staff that those are the tasks we want to see so that when we too powerful program, this actually has good economics, etc. >> of course, if we had agreed, we would not have this conversation and the staff would oppose this because the point is that we don't believe that this is the appropriate work. this is not something we would want to pay for.

>> mr. brooks is giving a scope of work and he just to find it as the language which is not in scope of work but rather an indication of what would be done anyway. >> i don't want to get hung up on the terminology. we believe that we can amend the contract. we can work with whoever to figure out what those tasks are. mr. brooks would like you to accept the list that has been prepared that we have objected to. we do not believe these of the tasks that are appropriate. we would like it to be included so that you can force the staff to agree with them rather than the regular negotiation process. >> we should not