work that could be and should be done. in either disagreed to or not. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer. commissioner schmeltzer: i have a related concern said. and aside from this. first, i am concerned that we do not have a more specific scope in front of us before we are being asked to approve it. i am not sure i am concerned at local power is here or not given my experience of hearing them advocate for themselves. my other concern is the tone of this. it is as if we are negotiating with them so that they will allow us to pay them for the benefit that they will bestow upon us. it is almost as though they are saying they will be generous

enough to take our money. i am not sure why we're trying so hard to find something for them to do. i feel like you and the puc are going out of your way to look for something to give them a contract for at this point. i am not hearing anything in this that i am convinced we need from them. if we're just looking for work to give to somebody, these are lean times. there is not enough money for anything in government that we want to be able to do. there are things we need to be doing. we need to spend more time and need more staff for those. i am not hearing why this is so necessary. $100,000 is a substantial amount of money. i feel like we are being told we need to pay this money to them and are looking for some reason to do it.

by understand you are not saying that. that is how it feels from here and from the proposal that local power wrote. i just do not appreciate it. beyond that, i have had my own concerns with the quality of their product in the past. supervisor campos: i think it is really important for me to respond to that. i do not know that anyone can sit here and say that anyone is trying to make work. my role as the chair of this commission is to make sure that we move this project forward in a fiscally prudent way. i asked for a recommendation from staff as to what work needs to be done to make sure -- and to make sure it is done in a cost-effective way. the recommendation has come before me. it has been presented.

that is why it is before this commission. if the commission feels it is not appropriate, that is fine. there is a difference of opinion. there is no effort here to simply give money away for the sake of giving money away. i would ask staff if they believe this is work that should be done and if the scope is appropriate given where we are in this process. commissioner miller: the tasks that i have outlined before you, yes. that is why the recommendation is before you. task one, its portion of nine, and eight, as outlined in the proposal. >> i guess based on what i am reading in a staff report, i would want to know more. you did write something up and identify tasks. you also said the final scope of work may include general advice on how the dozen things -- half

a dozen things listed. what we received from local power was extensive and detailed. it included a lot more. it also listed about 17 different people. i think i would want to know more about what we are proposing to use them for and what we would get for potentially up to $100,000. supervisor campos: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am willing to go with a staff recommendation and echo chair ccampos in this case. i thought we were going with a small scope that calls out the most pressing need. in the past, i have seen some useful analysis provided by local power. at other times, i have asked for

greater followup when i thought we received was not satisfactory. it has been sort of an up and down. in this case if there can be a real structured monitoring of the quality of the work, i am ok to give it that increment. what kind of deflates the discussion is if you have to spend $390,000. i am hoping it is not all or nothing. that subverts this discussion. i do not know what is real, or our retre -- or arbitrary. if you want to go with what staff recommended, you have my

support for that. supervisor campos: commissioner pimental. commissioner pimental: if the proposal is rejected, who would do the existing tasks? local powers as all or nothing. who would complete the existing tasks that were proposed to go to local power? commissioner miller: i think the plan is that he would issue another rf or use other consultants we have available to potentially perform the. this is an sfpuc contract, so i am not sure you have anyone else other than local power on contract for that work. i think they would have to, sfpuc would have to issue an

rfp. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer. commissioner schmeltzer: if this contract does not go forward and if local power is not engaged to do this work, how does that affect your program? that is assuming we get a term sheet and place in the program is meeting the other time scheduled goals. >> mike campbell with the sfpuc. thank you for that question. in our discussions with the advocate and local power, we have been reviewing the work skill. one of the issues is that there is a difference of opinion in terms of what is necessary. my professional opinion is that a lot of the scope in there is not necessary for moving our program forward and would import -- divert important dollars away from what we need

to get launched. we have proposed several works groups involved in helping write rfp's. those have been rejected. commissioner schmeltzer: i am talking about staff's proposed scope. >> the scope of work we have generally plant that is not written down? commissioner schmeltzer: i am referring to the memo we were provided that says local power would include the following 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