be doing opt in that takes us beyond that and excess to the next increment in a positive way. so for those reasons i would recommend that we modify the term sheet to be the smaller of the programs. and that is one issue. the second issue i have is the resolution sets up an automatic process where it certain terms and conditions are met common than the general manager will be authorized to proceed. we as a commission and staff have been talking about how we change that so it would come back to the commission when it is fully baked. one of the concerns -- as a matter of routine, we often delegate authority to act based on certain known event, either happening or not.

this is one with a list of events are not known as to what form they can take. it is not a question of yes or no. it may be in several different forms that come back to us. i think it would be irresponsible of us to have an automatic execution provision in the resolution. i have suggested to staff, and i have copies here, that would maintain the affirmative statement it these kinds of issues can be resolved. it does bring back to the commission the item. we know how any other issues have been dealt with, and before we set that up, if we could have

a final vote on that. those are my issues. i will distribute -- i do not have a paper on the 20 megawatt version, but i think that is the changing of a couple of numbers. and i do have a paper on the resolution i will distribute. i believe this happened secretary already have copies. >> i do want to empower some point want to get to public comment. i know we of a number of people that want to speak. commissioner courtney. commissioner courtney: with respect to the second concern, i am wondering to what extend the third resolution from the bottom fails to address that. >> i think it states the broad

issue that we are currently concerned about, and it states it in pretty good terms as to what the intent is. my concern is and that we have a resolution on the bond requirement, we do not know what to cpcu is going to do. we do not know what form it will take. it could take another cash appropriation. it is not something that will have a check off. it will come back and one of several flavors. i think given that degree of uncertainty, it is more appropriate for that to be acted on once we know what it really looks like. what i have tried to do is keep the intent clear that the intent -- these are the five issues we're really concerned about. we hope and believe we can come

to resolution on that. and if we're able to come to a satisfactory resolution on that, it is our intent to proceed. i am trying not to lessen the statement of intent. what i am trying to do is in a responsible way preserve the option for us to take a look at the program in its entirety when it is complete when all of the unknowns are known and give it the final blessing before it goes out the door. >> with respect to the bond sale, it will go out for a $2 billion general obligation sale. what the market will tell us on that day will be important. but also other agencies within the state government. given the fact that we have a credit rating that is much better than california, maybe our chances would fare better in that marketplace. if in fact you are reducing the

size of the program, what impact does this have? to the contract with the specific motion of with the universe would be? >> at some points i do want to add before i turn it to mr. harrington, a couple of points. i think it is important to know what it is that we are voting on today. as i understand it, there are resolutions that are before us. one is a resolution before lafco and pcu. i do not know if the action that is taken today, if the resolution requires we specify 20 megawatts or 30 megawatts, and i will leave it up to mr. harrington and staff to decide that. to the extent that is an issue, i do not know if that is something we have to resolve today. >> i think that number is in the

term sheet, which is incorporated by reference. the second points with respect to the language on paragraph six, my reading of what you have before you are ready is consistent with what you're seeing here. it seems to me you are not really changing anything, at least the way i read it, to what is already here, because as i understand the process, even though you are passing this resolution, you still have to get a finalized sherman -- a term sheet, and you still have to vote and approve that. by voting for the resolution, you are not in any way giving the general manager of the authority to circumvent the process. ultimately once that comes before you, you will have the opportunity to decide whether or not these five conditions have been met. i>> i think that is correct.

the contract comes back to us and was very clear that we retain our absolute autonomy in our ability to approve or choose not to approve the contract. the contract is not the only thing in play. you have the contract with shell in the contract for the back rooms of. there is an awful lot of items that are out there, and it establishes an escrow. it is like buying a house. somebody has to be there to make sure everything is in order before you proceed. the resolution in front of you delegate the authority to the general manager, as opposed to going back to the policy board to make sure about is all worked out.

generally that is just fine, because the items we are delegating are pretty clearly known as the delegate them. in this case i think it is inappropriate, because we do not know how those will resolve. that is why i think it makes sense that we be the escrow agent. but at the end of this thing we take a look at all of the pieces and make sure they're all in order. it does state in their our intent is to proceed if we can. i tried not erode any of that intent. >>-- to tnot to erode any of tht intent. commissioner campos: why don't we turn now to public comment. please come forward. >> hello, commissioners. i am the coordinator of the local clean energy alliance.

i am not have the opportunity to address the commissioners, but i have sent letters of various times. i wanted to say from the point of view of the advocates, advocate community that has been active on this issue, it has always been our intention to see these parallel tracks as being very important and integrated, and our support for moving forward to the supervisors has been conditional upon getting an agreement to move ahead on the parallel track of the local build out. as director harrington has mentioned, we expect the work to begin by the end of the month, and we're very happy to see that. just to say a word about that, although most of the discussion has been around the term sheet, these things are very closely connected, because of shawmut marshall said, it is the

building of local assets that gives the stability and strengt. those assets include energy reduction, as well as energy generation aspects. as we know, the energy production is quite a bit cheaper than energy generation. this helps eliminate the risk that people are talking about in terms of the system overall,. allows for the growth and expansion and real road map. we are in favor of this moving forward to the board. i just wanted to know the importance of the local building out pieces in terms of being able in the future to create a system, a balanced system that can eliminate risk of going into the future that can make the system much more cost effective for the city and provide the

kind of economic development and jobs that commissioner courtney was talking about. i had submitted to everyone some jobs estimates that are based on the type of program that was laid out in the implementation plan in 2007, and they are on the order of 1000 direct jobs per year for the program to be implemented over the next five years. thank you. commissioner campos: next speaker. >> good afternoon. eric grobrooks. i was sitting out here in audience watching this go forward like most of the other meetings, and no offense to any staff, but it is dryly rolling out the way these meetings usually do, and i think we're overlooking [inaudible] what an amazing couple of weeks

and has been. a week ago we sat down with the public utilities commission staff, power enterprise stuff, and general manager harrington, and finally after years of working towards this came to an agreement so by the end of the month it looks like we will have the task order going forward to do all of the build out work, the whole thing. and i wish he was here to hear it, because i thought mr. marshall's presentation was excellent. to the extent of that event we have expressed concerns about some of the aspect of this program rolling forward, the build out is what will help minimize the concerns. the build out is what will help minimize risk to repairs, and we think that once the bill about work -- the main research work will be done within six months,

right around earth day, which might be really exciting. we believe as soon as the research has come through in shows of what the bill out is capable of, that we will be able to bring down some of the numbers you were seeing on the charts today as the shell contract moves forward, regardless of whether you start with 20 megawatts or 30 megawatts at the start of the program. yes, the other thing is that as we said before in other meetings, jobs are crucial right now. the california unemployment rate is not going down. it is staying the same, and in some places it is going up. to have at least 1000 jobs from the program itself and probably a multiplier of a few thousand above that is likely based on the local clean energy alliance study. this is not just an exciting opportunity for clean energy in

making the program more affordable by making sure we do the build out work, but also an exciting opportunity to put a lot of people in this town to work and long-term employment for at least five years, and possibly a lot longer than that, because once we build up the initial 51% local renewable and efficiency capacity, we will not stop. we will build the other half and keep going. this is really -- even though it sounded casual today, this is an incredibly auspicious day. now that we see the assurance that the buildup is moving forward in the financials were work better on this, we as advocates are much more confident about moving this to the full board and having the whole city family work on this project so we can really get it right. thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i first wanted to thank the sfg staff. for working with community advocates for working out this plan where we can guarantee 100% prevailing wage jobs. to get to the expectation that local buildup's, with actual renewable generation that will entail will hopefully get to 1000 local jobs, which will have decent-paying wages and decent benefits as well. we urge this commission to move forward with the term sheet to the board of supervisors with the following reasons -- the first of which is making sure there is further analysis and review to get to the jobs estimate expected by advocates, and making sure that there is further discussion of how the city can take care of the true cost of electricity involved in making sure there is a good -- good power program. thank you.

commissioner campos: think you, sir. net speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and jeremiah dean. 00-- i am jeremiah dean. sfpcu staff, lafco staff, and thank you david campos for your leadership it is very much appreciated from all of us. and i would just like to say you have always thought of community tries of this program as a winner, and we are pleased to see that it is finally going to move forward, and we want to make sure this does today leave this joint commission and move

to the full board. that is what we're recommending that it moved today. we're pleased to hear the local build out work is currently going to be under way, and hopefully by the end of the month we will see how the local build out process will unfold, and really turn san francisco into the leader. also, just across the country we need to show that california is once again a leader and through this program we are moving to a clean and green economy, which cra is pushing for. i want to thank everyone here and please push this forward to the board of supervisors. thank you. >> hi. i am with global exchange. i will be brief.

i just want to say we're in agreement with what you have heard from the other clean local energy activists, and i want to thank sfpc with the work they have done to move things forward and supervisors in commissioners for all the work that has gone into getting this to this point, and we're very appreciative to see the commitment has been made to do the study and research to get us that plan to use a local build out and include efficiency into the clean power program. we're very supportive of seeing this move forward to the board so that supervisors and the city can engage you on this program and continue to work with you all in moving this forward. i want to thank you all. we're very happy and it is a great day to see this go forward. thank you. supervisor campos: any other member of the public that would

like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. before make additional remarks come i wanted to ask a question of commissioner morand. obviously we're not voting on a resolution that is before the sfpc, but i think your recommendation makes sense in the way that it is already embedded and providing more clarity is helpful. with respect to the 20 megawatts or 30 megawatts, i am wondering if it is possible to provide factual -- flexibility to the general manager and staff so that instead of identifying 20 or 30 it would have language that says up to 30 that allows for the possibility that 20 might be the actual -- i do not know.

commissioner morand: i think we could leave the choice for another day. the difficulty is at some point you have to tell them. most of the discussion will be around what the market price to power is and what the conditions are to attach that and how we meet those. this is a more fundamental question. also nothing succeeds like success. if you as a successful first increment, i think that builds the month of for a successful sector -- second increment. at some point we have to make that choice. and that is a policy choice. and i think it is one we should address. >> supervisor campos: i

think if we leave the possibility open, i think there will be a chance to come back to this issue. i do not know if general harrington has any thoughts on this, leaving it for now and coming back to which? >> in discussions with shell, they would not be interested in a program of less than 20. it would be in the range of 20 and 30, and we could work with that. he would have an opportunity to make a decision when we enter into the contract. in march we would expect to sign the contract. between now and march you have to make a final decision, but we have the opportunity to make it. president>> maybe you can give e information on the 20 vs 30 option, what the author out rates seem to be, just a little more data. maybe we can make a more

informed decision on that. >> we would be happy to do that in general. we think it would be about the same because the rates would be pretty much the same. the 30 megawatt program, he led have 75,000 customers. -- you would have 75,000 customers. we can get you more details, but that is the general sense of it. commissioner moran: i forgot about the minimum level. it might make more sense for the sheet to reflect 20-30. i think part of the benefit of having a small one is that you have a second group of people, but if the first group doesn't sign up, you have the first group to fill ain the void.

if we put the term sheet as 20- 30, i think that states the state of affairs at the moment. >> and that is fine with me. a final point, i know there is possibility of losing a quorum. i understand that we are talking about complicated issues, their questions that remain. this is about lafco and the puc saying to the board of supervisors and the mayor, consistent with the mandate, we have put together what we believe are the best terms possible right now so that the board and american have that discussion -- and the mayor can have that discussion. some of the issues that have been raised, you have to resolve

them today. there will be opportunities for us to resolve them, and many of the issues have to be resolved at a level of the board of supervisors anyway. this discussion has been extremely useful, it will be something that is very informative and very important. i believe he advocates are absolutely right, not only with something in respect to the term sheet, many of the challenges are challenges that will have to be dealt with your respective -- irrespective of cca. for the city to not only provide more choices to ratepayers, but to make sure that we meet our clean energy objectives, the environmental objectives of the

city. i hope and ask for your support. president vietor: i appreciate your comments, i think usyou summarized it well. i am hopeful that it can be the wedge for the opening to this longer conversation and vigor conversation a round of the general fund the subsidy question, renewable and efficiency programs, moving forward from an environmental perspective. and early these questions we are bringing up around these hard policy decisions that we will need to be making as a city family, as a city body, it order to figure out how moneys will be best spent and protected the system. i hope this can be hand in hand, the cca.

i hope this is just the tip of the iceberg of a longer conversation. >> commissioner avalos? commissioner avalos: if you could share with us the process of the board of supervisors? >> assuming this item is approved by both commissions today, starting tuesday of next week, i will introduce the matter before the board of supervisors. legally, it has to sit for about 30 days. it is one of the reasons to mean the time lines with and working under for the last few months, to make sure that the introduction happens in october. it would set for 30 days and it would be heard by the board of

supervisors sometime in november. process was, madame clerk, lafco first or puc first? >> on the lafco resolution has presented a. -- as presented. >> we have a request of the term sheet reflects a 20-30. i don't know if it has to be made a motion with respect to the term sheet as to both the puc resolution and the lafco resolution. >> it is not stated in the resolution, it is just on the term sheet. >> this is nancy miller, the

other text changes regarding the intent to authorize language would be a change to our resolution. we are taking of the resolution. >> we need a motion to amend the resolution as suggested by commissioner moran. we have the motion by commissioner avalos. without objection? the resolution has been amended. >> on the resolution as amended. [roll call vote] >> for the record, do we need a vote from the alternate? no? the resolution passes. turned it over to president

vietor. >> if you live entertain a motion to amend. >> it is the amendment the commissioner moran introduced. in favor? opposed? if there is no objection, all those in favor? the motion carries. >> item number six. >> letter to governor brown and a california public utilities commission urging the fair and equitable methodology. >> this is a very brief item. i will make it brief. it is a resolution that has a letter attached