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 discussion is wrapped up. my time is that i do not have any particular time limit today. president vietor: how long will the closed session items take, approximately? " secretary housh: i think if we had 30 minutes, that would be good. president vietor: commissioner torres, when do you have to

leave? commissioner torres: i would like to leave by 5:00 at the latest. president vietor: i appreciate that. vice president moran: if we wrap up our business, we should be able to do that. president vietor: next item. secretary housh: item number seven, a report of the general manager. >> we want to start with mr. rydstrom. we sold bonds last week. >> good afternoon. we went to market again last week and sold water revenue bonds. if i could have the commission secretary go to the overhead projector? a very successful sale, achieving $18.10 million worth of interest savings over the

lifetime of the 30-year bonds for ratepayers. that includes refunding some of our 2001 and 2002 revenue bonds. competitively, we sold the bonds. once again, we have bank of america, merrill lynch the winning bidder. on the next slide, slides 3, you can see all three sales. some of the bonds were the largest, $603 million. we had several bidders, and bank of america/merrill lynch once again the winning bidder there. to help put this into perspective for bank of america/merrill lynch, they have been one of our largest buyers since 2006, and the enterprise has been selling a great deal of bonds. about $1.60 billion total they have purchased, including what they have just purchased.

this bid was to fund our hetch- hetchy facilities as well as our water in the city. citigroup global bought those, and then our bank of america/merrill lynch bought all of the re-fundings. so we premature cheap what was adopted as part of the last budget hearing. in that model, we had an average cost of borrowing. we achieved an average overall of about 4.48%, so we are pretty close. the items that also happens, the bond sale, moody's did downgrade us given our weakness. we had thought that would occur. moody's previously had as one notch higher than s&p, so now, with the movies in adjustment --

the moody's adjustment, what that means is we are still very much on a roll with the debt. a strong aa. we noticed in the electronic markets, as we're required to do with our material disclosure, and all of our bond documents, for our build america bond revenues. president vietor: commissioner moran. vice president moran: did they state a reason for the downgrade? >> this is on a current basis as well as a projected basis. what movies does is just take them all and line them up in a row, and based on our current level of water sailors and the

cumulative fund balance reserves, that made us go into the third notch of aa. vice president moran: and was the size of the balancing accounts an issue there? >> they factor in all of the cash we have available. and also noticed a long term strength of the economics. we cannot fall out of sync. the willingness of the

commission to adopt the rate increases that were needed and the cost management, the efficiencies. they did give us a lot of credit strength, which we should be proud of, nevertheless. that is where we stacked up for them. vice president moran: thank you. >> the next items on the calendar, we will be going to market next summer. what this means, through the sale, we have sold $3.30 billion of the improvement program of the total. we have locked in ratepayer savings because we sold long- term fixed-rate debt, not unseen since the '60s. three under $84 million for ratepayers. future outreach reports.

we will also be working on some bonds, as well, to take advantage of these as well as some conservation bonds. that is it. further questions? president vietor: questions? comments? thank you. >> there was a letter about possibly closing bacon street, and i wanted mr. moala to talk about that. >> toom -- tommy moala, communications.

this is the reservoirs, the north and south basin. bacon streak extends longer than that, but this is just between the north and south basin. over the last years, the section of road has been closed due to construction we have been doing at that reservoir. it has been closed for all of our construction supplies and in line with neighborhood impact. that work is still ongoing as of now. so as we are looking ahead to the future, one of the things that was discussed during the planning stage of this project was looking at security options for the reservoir, and because the street does bisect about one-quarter of the water to san francisco, we decided to install these as part of the project. these can be raised or lowered

on the right-hand side. and the reason why these were installed was to provide operational flexibility in the event of an emergency, and if we ever need to close a street of, we can limit access. basically whenever we need to. and now, we are hosting on july 28 something on bacon street with a neighbor to talk about the long-term plan for the stretch of roadway and whether or not we want to concede -- continue with this. this tree is bisecting a drinking reservoir pecan -- reservoir. i am happy to take any questions. president vietor: o