into 100%, because this is something that they assert that this is the game plan for san francisco. so i'm actually trying to understand the p.u.c.'s role in the rollout of that plan. with or without c.c.a. >> and by municipal, you mean the broader city, not just municipal customers like the city hall and general -- >> i mean san francisco. >> san francisco in general. yeah, i have been focused on c.c.a. to date but i am certain we can come with a presentation about that. >> speak into the mic. >> i'm sorry. should i repeat the answer? >> it's all right. but you will come back with an answer. is this the first you heard of this? i'm just curious. miss miller, through the chair to miss miller, i always feel like we go three steps forward and four steps back when we get to these junctures of dealing

with contracts. so just elaborate a little bit more. i thought there was a bit of a convergence or confluence of minds on this contract with the p.u.c.. why are things glitching? >> i think through the chair, nancy miller, your interim executive officer, this is my speculation, but i do believe that you have some new commissioners that don't have the history of some of the other commissioners. i believe that the program because it has changed since the initial ordinance has led to some questions regarding the phasing and the risk. i do think that the questions that were raised by the s.f.p.u.c. commission evidenced at least to me there had not been a lot of understanding by

the commission and that's really all that i can say. i've talked with mike about going -- taking the month of august and briefing those commissioners on the program where we have been, the history to be available to answer questions to them. so that we can figure out exactly why -- or hope to address those before we get to the next meeting. >> how could a new commissioner possibly hit the ground running in being able to absorb this information when it's been in increments or phases years in the making? and then be saddled with the decision based on what they were faced with in their last commission meeting? how would that have happened without a briefing? >> i'm not saying that they weren't briefed. i just recommended maybe we go and brief them to make sure we understand where they are. >> i want to understand how thorough this is being treated because this is actually reminiscent of problems in the past.

and so there has been -- i don't know why we're soft shoeing this. i would like to get an idea from lafco or p.u.c.'s staff side the level of assertiveness so people were thoroughly briefed when they took hold in their power of position. >> there were -- mike campbell once again with the sf p.u.c. one of the parts of the presentation i skipped over was about the numerous presentations made in public about lafco and s.f. p.u.c. so there have not been many votes the current commissioners have taken on this matter. there have been public presentations. there also have been some private briefing that's i know of. but perhaps if this is a broader issue, it should be taken up at the giant p.u.c. lafco meeting. >> when is the joint meeting, sfleeze >> we don't have a date. it is something we started talking with mike about today. but i am serious about going to

meet on our own -- hopefully with mike, with each commissioner, to talk about what their concerns are. as to the joint meeting, i did have a conversation with the -- with ed harrington about trying to set up their special meeting in august, which is something the commission did direct them to do. and i do think we also ought to set up a joint meeting. i mean, so that if action isn't taken in august, we can be prepared to do so in september when we have the joint meeting. >> i think you're being potentially naive about the fact that coming into a intensified election season after labor day, considering the three municipal races that are up, that this only distracts from the conversation both from the mayor's office and board of supervisors and commissioners that i think opportunity has now been missed by their not being a

joint meeting before labor day. i remember suggesting this several months ago that there be some level of preparation, number one, so there be a joint meeting. tpwhoub with the substitution of new commissioners coming on board, lafco, who's probably a little more seasoned and trained, would have behooved the new commissioners if we had a joint meeting now so this conversation could have taken place with them present and witness to the conversation instead of us having to start all over again. that's really what it feels like. every time that there's a gulf of time with the p.u.c. and p.u.c. commission, it feels like we're starting all over again. and i thought we had a much better level of fluidity going on several months ago that we gave license to both lafco staff and p.u.c. commission staff to work this stuff out. i have to tell you that i expected a little more

productivity and unity on this question. i don't see that now. >> well, we did try to have a joint meeting in the month of july, but that was not able to be calendared. so our backup position was what just occurred, a meeting on tuesday with the idea of being us hearing the term sheet on this friday. as you will recall, we forced the issue also of the term sheet to make sure that we could have something to introduce to the board of supervisors by next tuesday. so, yeah, no question it's a disappointment and it is -- i'm not here to lay blame. i'm just saying that the problem was with the meeting on tuesday was there were a number of questions asked related to risk and some other issues that the commission wasn't prepared to move, and so they continued it. i think if you listen to that

tape, i think it was definitely a unanimous decision and it wasn't one that was -- that there was a lot of discussion over, let me put it that way. >> how do we make up for lost time? >> well, as i said, i think we make up for lost time by meeting with the commissioners, taking this month and doing that because hopefully they will have a special meeting. i have already been in touch with the general manager of the s.f.p.u.c. to try to make sure that meeting happens, a special meeting by the s.f. p.u.c. commission some time in august. and if we can, you know, your schedules, you take a break in august so i'm not -- but it could be possible that we could meet in august. even with them if we got a date. certain we would have a joint meeting then and we could push that alternative as well. >> so mr. campbell through the chair can we get a joint meeting in august? >> as i mentioned in my remarks, i know by the tuesday meeting that my commissioners did

express an interest in that. so i can take back the discussion as well. >> is he still the chair of the commission? >> yes, sir. >> if i may wanted to add a point here, which is we have made it very clear to the p.u.c., p.u.c. staff of the importance of having something done before the board of supervisors takes its recess. that's the reason we tried to have a joint meeting in july and where it became very clear scheduling would not allow for a joint meeting, then would push very hard to make sure there was a p.u.c. meeting prior to a lafco meeting so that the p.u.c. could approve the term sheet at that meeting and then we at lafco could consider that term sheet. so i think it's important to understand it's into the we hope they have a special meeting or that there is action taken in august, but we expect it has to happen, is that a hope? i think it's every expectation

that it has to happen. we're already late in this process. but something does trouble me, which is this. that i hope that it doesn't take having to have a joint meeting for the p.u.c., for the p.u.c. commission to actually take a positive step approving c.c.a., because, you know, it shouldn't have to require lafco -- the lafco commission being in the room for the p.u.c. as a commission to make that commitment and the fact that they're unwilling to make that commitment or unable for whatever reason to make that commitment when they're on their own, that's really troubling. i do think that we need to have a joint meeting as soon as possible but i do think it's quite telling and disturbing that left to its own, the

commission hasn't taken that positive step. the issue that's have been raised are important issues but they're not new issues, and that's what's frustrating here. >> commissioner mirkarimi? >> commissioner mirkarimi: i think what we have learned over the last three years on this stop and start and stop and start process in terms of us being able to activate the file c.c.a. process for approval before this government is the fact that it works well or better when there's a certain amount of hand holding. and when there is sort of this detachment because we feel a sense of confidence in both the p.u.c. and lafco working together and their ability to try to foster the proper vision by both sectors, then that makes us happy going into it but the by-product seems to fall apart

at this particular time. and there's so many variables happening at the same time, especially time sensitive variables that those issues seem to be -- and that understanding seems to be subordinate for whatever reasons to the p.u.c.'s whatever their interest or agenda is. i would assume, director harrington, would love to get this off his plate by now. i just would assume that after everything he's done to evolve with this process. and we appreciate his stick to itness in years, mr. campbell, and p.u.c., but lafco, we're dogged about this. so to not expect this conversation to take this total quality would be fool hearty foolhardy because this is the year this must be done. this is a time where i think people will appreciate the contrast between what woe have

to offer and what pg&e cannot. and i think this is absolutely the right time, where sentiment i think in the public, general public, would be i think receptive to something we had to offer. there's nothing stopping this from this program succeeding but that must require these two organs of sfee hall to come together. and there's something that seems to be amiss every time we get to this one place. it worries me. so the commission, if it's a new p.u.c. commissioners, i'm feeling like this is the dog ate my homework excuse. get them in the room with us so we can make sure that we have a meeting of the minds together. and i just told the commissioner compos, chair, that i insist this driver should not be a p.u.c. commission. it's being co-driven. exactly what i had expected when i was chairing this body as well too.

so i'm hoping that we fix this before labor day. i really do. thank you. and thank you for your indulgence of my whining. supervisor campos: commissioner smeltser? >> thank you. and i think this is really just more about where we find ourselves today and where we address the staff who are here in front of us, who have been working. i would assume as hard as they possibly can and don't enjoy having their work dragged out any more then the rest of us would if they were in their position. so i think everybody is frustrated, i think that also bears remembering that our frustration is i think wrongly directed at the people who are here today rather than the people who took the action at the meeting, who are not in front of us today.

so with that -- supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner. that's a good point. i don't think anyone is taking it out on mr. campbell or the p.u.c. staff. i think the frustration is with the p.u.c. as a commission not acting when we expected them to act. but obviously, we are grateful to staff for the work that they do but that's not within their control. in terms of moving forward, miss miller, when will we know if there is a possibility for a joint meeting or is there a possibility of the special meeting at the p.u.c. where this action could be taken? >> i would suggest -- i made that request on tuesday. i would suggest that we send a letter to the chair insisting on a joint meeting. i can give them, you know, late august, depending on your

calendars through september for that as well as the -- the -- insisting on the special meeting for them to have questions answered. would i also have in that letter staff of lafco would be contacting them to meet to discuss questions and issues. so i think that's one thing. when i will know, you know, i actually think that it also will be helpful if i have you contact the chair of the s.f. p.u.c., in addition to me contacting ed again. supervisor campos: sure. i did speak to mr. harrington and expressed the frustration that we have with this development. >> and i will have our clerk check in with their clerk daily, and i've asked jason to contact the s.f. p.u.c. daily to find

out any updates on a date. supervisor campos: colleagues, do you have any comments or questions? why don't we open this piece up to public comment. >> good afternoon yet again, commissioners. eric brooks. i'm here representing san francisco green party and local grass roots organization in our city. i would policeman phi the err of frustration but take a slightly different trajectory, as i think a lot of us as advocates, i'm sure you have seen in the media, we have our own concerns about how the s.f. p.u.c.'s program may be moving forward, what the term sheet might look like. we have for several months gone back with s.f. p.u.c. staff and

s.f. p.u.c. commissioners about the specific concerns. and i think that we've reached a point in that process where since the term sheet is just sitting at the s.f. p.u.c., it's become an insillar process and it's gone forward about as well as it can go. so i would agree that it's time now that ab-117 makes the board of supervisors the implementing body for this policy. it's time now for the term sheet to move from the s.f. p.u.c. and get to the board of supervisors, where we as advocates feel like we can in a new forum that's working actually to make this policy happen immediately, where we can work with the board of supervisors on the concerns that we have and actually flushing out this term sheet so it actually makes sense for everybody. especially to the extent as we

said before, we think a lot of the concerns raised by s.f. p.u.c. commissioners and that are raised by us will be addressed by moving forward the scope of work that's in your next item, expeditiously so we can develop a very solid and big body of work for the potential or real local, renewable efficiencies being built here in san francisco to create economic engines which will strongly impact the kind of concern that's were raised in the s.f. p.u.c. and the kind of concerns we're raising about how the s.f. p.u.c.'s process might have some laps in it. but i strongly agree with the commissioners it's time for this to move out of the s.f. p.u.c. and be put in the hands of the board of supervisors so we could have that real dialogue between the organizers and at the board and get the term sheet and the

buildout work moving together so they can inform each other. but as you say, if we just leave this sitting in the s.f. p.u.c., it's not moving much. it's time for them to just express their concerns and then grant the real decision-making body, the board of supervisors, the next crack at this immediately so we can get a better understanding. thanks. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> hi. jean brashear, green energy director at global exchange. and we do have some concerns and questions about the specific term sheet. but we do like what's most important for it to move forward at this point so the board of supervisors can engage about it. we do think it's very important for clean power s.f. to be moving forward and be moving forward in a timely manner. of course, that is because of the great potential that clean power s.f. has for what it can

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.