>> 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 because -- i would be happy to go over this. this continue refers back to the 2007 ordinances which talk about a 360 megawatt program. we offered you a 30 megawatt program and one was to reduce debt and some because of the

risk involved. trying to implement a program that we are not trying to implement is a strange thing to try to get someone to do. we're looking at a rollout and having someone to work for the 60 megawatt program which would make no sense to me. that is the general concept. >> can i ask for clarification? the 30 megawatt was for the shell portion. that peace is on a local builder out portion, right? >> let's talk about the financing. what we want to do is to financial assistance. the way that you build something is that you have investors or customers. what they would like us to do is to build something with need their. the only investors would be the puc.

if we don't have any program, we have no customers. thinking that there is a program that you could build out local generations without a source of funding does not really work. i think that some of the stakeholders have understood which took us several years to explain that they're not free. if you issue bonds, someone must pay them back. if you're going to issue bonds, you have to of customers to pay them back or have some revenue stream to pay them back. that is not a clear concept that is in this scope. this scope says that you should be building. that is not something that works for me. there is a lot problems to try to go out and see how you might do a pro forma so that you could

build something, be happy to work on that. if you would do solar, how you would afford to pay for it, all the regulations that you deal with, that would be a great scope of work. you have to go out and change the permits or two different things to be able to do these build ounce, happy to work on that. if you want to pick out the sites and figure out where you will build something and you have no financing plan to build it and to avoid the discussion, that is not make any sense which is why now we have had any. >> they have not said there was an interest in doing that.

>> i would like to talk about the general manager to work more closely with the stakeholders and see if we can come to some sort of agreement on a scope of work that feels like value added to this program because this would build the pieces. there's a lot of value to be added from this group and we need to figure out the best way to come to terms with what would work. >> that is why i think the general manager's position is reasonable. >> i have been at the table for a lot of meetings with the puc and they did put forward their

version of the plan which is to do it at an early meeting. it was not going to produce the sort of comprehensive information we need to veto a local builder out plan. if you can't do that and look at this work and see which one you think would actually get you a comprehensive information you would need, the kind of scope of work they have been offering is the issue that has been at the project here and there without a full understanding of the analysis of what is needed and different financing offices -- options. i must say that i did not like the misrepresentation that advocates use of the bonds. i don't know if that was directed at me or someone else but i wondered who was it. are really think that is in his characterization of what we're doing and what our understanding of these issues is.

i wanted to say the commission that the language in the e-mail, the town of it or whatever, i did not draft it and i would not have chosen that tone or whenever. what we were trying to do is express that we feel that we need to get this information to deal with the questions and concerns that were raised about the other aspects of the program and to not lead us forward into the real strategy. if we had had that information earlier, i feel like the questions are coming now that came up for us in february. we are just getting stalled without having staff really get this information and maybe they don't think they need it. looking at the sticker shock of what that is costing, i look at the sticker shock of those rates as making the program very

hard to be accessible. what we were trying to do is try to inform that if we're not able to get the puc to get this information and to form the program, then we will be looking for a place where we can get the information for you we would rather that the commission to reps -- rather the commission directed staff to do this. we would like to get this information so that we can move

forward. >> thank you. >> i would like to follow-up on that and say that as a further correction perhaps at our meeting, we could have a report back on what has happened with this conversation and if this is not work, it will be really specific to local builder out. it sounds like there is information they need in order to put together a comprehensive plan and whether it should be information -- it seems to me that mike is the director of the program and is the navigator of the ship. if we can get some of that information and depends on what the resolution will be in the next meeting, as part of the terms of discussion, that would

be quite helpful. >> in terms of giving staffed direction, we are at a point that is considerably down the road. i think that has been significant progress. i am interested in getting the information we need to deliver our program. we're the people who will be responsible for it working or not. whatever scope of work is given to whatever contractor is part of our effort to get the interest in need to deliver our program and not part of an effort to create some the else's program. i think that is part of the direction. >> thank you.