we are going to frost windows 26 on the second floor. goowe are going to put an nsr tt they do not have a deck on the third level and anything else. an nsr is a notice of special restrictions that will be recorded with the property essentially saying you cannot have a deck on this portion of the residentce. >> doesn't have to be forever? what if i sold my home. >> if you choose to have it removed, you would have to come back. >> is there any way to avoid that?

if there is a restriction on my property -- >> if the commission does not like it they do not have to -- >> i always imagined if somebody wanted if they would have to come before the commission for that. i could be wrong about that. new >> if someone in the future wanted it, they might be able to do it as an over-the-counter permit and not come to the commission. with the in a star, they would have to come to the commission. -- with the nsr, they would have to come to the commission. >> this is a cloud on the title in? >> is a restriction.

it is a restriction like any other issue. >> it is not uncommon to have nsrs on properties. the deck could be approved over the counter, so there is no way your neighbors would bhave any way short of filing to block it. >> i thought that was the outcome. >> they could do that, but then it is on them, and that is something they would have to renew every year. >> this is not part of the motion, but commissioner more was pointing out you could rotate, put a window facing east on the third floor around the

corner from where currently the frosted window is. it would be narrow and tall. if he wants to do it, i do not think there is any harm to the neighbor, because it is facing east. >> if you look at it, it is very deep with no additional windows, so there would be side light coming from the east, and i think that would not completely make this room dark, and even though the narrow side lights can be very affective, we are still giving lights into the

room. >> he could change those plans. >> let's wait until they finish their conversation. i guess we can call the question. >> the motion is to approve the project with the elimination of window number 31 on the third floor, a frosting of windows 26 on the second floor and requiring a special restriction that no debt is to be built on the front of the third floor. [calling votes]

that motion passed unanimously. you are now with the general public comments. >> if there is not any general public comment on an item that was not on today's calendar. seeing none, the general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning, and welcome to the october 11, 2011 special joint meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission and the san francisco public utilities commission. my name is david campos, and i am the chair of the lafco. madam clerk, if you could please call the roll. before we do that, let me simply think the following members of sfgtv staff for covering this meeting. charles, nona, and i want to begin by thanking not only the members of the lafco but also of the san francisco public utilities commission for being here today. madam clerk. >> on the call of the world. commissioner campos. present. commissioner mirkarimi, absent. commissioner of a less. present.

commissioner hope schmeltzer. present. we do have a quorum. >> african turn it over to the vice president of the public utilities commission. mr. vice president moran. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> vice-president moran. commissioner torres. commissioner courtney. president vietor will be here shortly. commissioner caen is enforced in delayed and will not be able to attend. >> commissioner, i think it is significant to note that this is really the first meeting where we have an opportunity not just to talk about what we want to do but also what we can do. and that may feel a little constrained. on the other hand, i think it represents a tremendous progress. i think it is appropriate to acknowledge the work that got us here.

of lafco staff and puc staff and the members themselves. i think it is a very good place that we're at. i look forward to today's discussion. supervisor campos: thank you. with that in mind, let's call item number 3. >> opening remarks and discussion of expectations for the joint meeting. supervisor campos: to that end, let me build on what was said by vice president moran. there has been a lot of work that has gone into making it possible for us to be here today. once again, i want to thank the members of the san francisco puc for making themselves available and to have this joint meeting. it is very difficult and challenging, given the busy schedules that everyone has to find a time where both commissions can have this meeting. but i do think it is a very critical what we have this meeting and that we tried to move this project of community choice aggregation forward.

let me say, from my perspective, you know, why i believe that is important for us to take action today. it has been a number of years since the passage, in 2004, of the original community choice aggregation ordinance, which was modified and amended by the board of supervisors in 2007. since that time, the puc and the lafco have been charged with the responsibility of trying to implement this program. and i believe that it is important for us, not only because of the obligation we have legally and the charge that has been given to us by the board of supervisors and the may year, but also to the rate- appears to make sure we move this program forward. today is really about both agencies sending forward a recommendation to the board that includes a proposed a term sheet, so that the final

decision makers within the city and county of san francisco had the opportunity to make a decision about whether or not we are going to move forward. the action that will be taken hopefully in the next item -- actually, the second item, item number five, is an action where we, as the two commissions, make a recommendation for a proposed term sheet with the understanding that any action that is taken today is not a final action, that it simply moves the item forward to the board of supervisors said that the board and the mayor can then look at the issue and decide whether or not to move forward. i believe that both the puc and the lafco have fulfilled their mandate in terms of trying to figure out what is possible. and today is really about completing that work so that

once the board knows what is possible, once the mayor knows what is possible, they can make a decision on whether or not to move forward. so i want to thank the staff at the san francisco puc. i want to especially single out general manager harrington for all the work that he has done and for awhile these to rigid and working not only with his staff but also with the lafco staff. i want to thank ms. miller of lafco, as well as mr. fried for all the hours that have gone into it. i especially want to identify the advocates who have been an integral part of this process. with bad, i want to thank everyone who is here, and i look forward to a robust discussion about where we are today, and my hope is that once the discussion is over, we will move forward so that this item can be sent to the board and to the mayor for action and decision. with that, mr. vice president, i

do not know if you wanted to add anything. >> no, i guess i do not. thank you. >supervisor campos: are there any other remarks from the members? ok, let's move now to item number -- actually, is there any public comment on item number three? is there any member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item number four, community choice aggregation a bigger park, including a presentation from shawn marshall of the local energy aggregation network. >> mr. campbell, good morning. is the microphone on? >> good morning. i am much more comfortable up here when i can hear an echo. thank you. i am mike campbell, director of community choice aggregation program for san francisco, part

of the clean power sf program, power enterprise of the sfpuc. it is my pleasure to be here this morning. we have a big agenda for us. there'll be more in depth update in the subsequent items. but two things -- one thing i wanted to note is we did get passage and signature now from the governor of sb 790. this was the cca legislation that all of us that the sfpuc and lafco staff have been working very hard to get through. it will help level the playing field and only show you that there will be more cca's in the future. it has been such a battle going forward. i just wanted to highlight that and start the meeting on a very positive note. it is my pleasure to introduce to you all shawn marshall.

she has started l a nonprofit hasean that is fine -- she has started a nonprofit called lean that is focused on cca's here and across the country. she is also on the board at the energy authority, so she brings a lot of expertise and experience for this body. >> good morning, commissioners. >> good morning, ms. marshall. >> as mike said, my partner and i started lean energy u.s. earlier this year with the express purpose of expanding the community choice aggregation model in california and throughout the united states. so i am very pleased to be here this morning on what appears to be a press this day for you all,

to hopefully join a small but growing club of cca aggregations across the country. our mission is to accelerate the expansion of clean energy cca's into new communities and states and to foster energy innovation within cca programs. what we will be talking about in a moment is how innovative california, including san francisco's where it currently is with it -- with respect to clean energy cca's. but we have a lot to learn from our counterparts in massachusetts and illinois with the adoption rates and the energy efficient programs that they have going. a lot of what we're doing right now is gathering best practices and pushing the needle on how we can use cca as a test bed for a true energy transformation in the states where it is enabled.

we did this in turn nonprofit fashion right now by building awareness and understanding. what you all have experienced over the last several years is a tremendous learning curve on what this whole business of cca is about, and we have much more to do across the country with the elected bodies, with planning commissions, other staff members from local governments, to help them explain the value of what we're doing here and how it can be done without burying staff and taking a tremendous resource. we're doing that. we're also providing policy support to the extent that we can within our nonprofit status. we were involved in 790, and i am delighted that that was signed by the governor on saturday. we're also actively engaged in some cca research. right now, we're looking hard at this issue of local billed out, which i know is a big topic here in san francisco, and how to refinance that? what is the balance here between

distributed generation and central renewals and how you actually financed that a little bit sooner in the spectrum than later? right now, as you know, the investment tax credit appears to favor a direct to market ppa approach, an approach that is perfectly valid and typical. but we think, and i know many of the advocates in this room think, that there's an opportunity to get there sooner entered a diversified portfolio of diversifiedppa's, energy service providers, and local billed out, which is potentially regional bell about. and we are engaged in putting together a cca expansion fund to incentivize new cca's and local governments to get to the starting line in doing what you all are hopefully doing and have been doing for the last couple of years. so where are we in the u.s.? currently cca exists in six states. massachusetts was the first to

come on line in 1970 -- in 1997 out in martha's vineyard and on the case. there's every approximately two hundred thousand customers. their rates are competitive with their utility. i should say that their utility is not an iou in the sense that we have them here. the utility handle the distribution side of the equation. so it is not as competitive as it is currently here in california. in ohio, there were next to follow suit in 1999. they have got a couple aggregations. the best known as the northeast ohio public energy council. they have got, i think, 129 communities now. but a large percentage of ohio has done what illinois is now doing, which is in essence privatizing cca of tradition or the committee acts is essentially as an agent for the third party supplier to come in. that has real pros and cons, and

we're working hard to make sure that the local communities are not giving away the store and are demanding higher and higher percentages of green energy. that is our work right now in the midwest. so i will say, there are no gangbusters, because ohio has at its two million customers, and illinois recently to ballot with 20 committees and are looking to go to a ballot with 20 more in 2012. so we have something to learn about adoption rights out here in california. in rhode island, they are still sort of very stuck in this narrow view of we're only going to do municipal accounts only. it is not available to residential and industrial commercial customers. but they do have 36 cities to have aggregated in rhode island. new jersey, the advocates are still pushing hard there to give them up to the first program. i reported out on illinois. they enacted cca in 2009, and they are really going gangbusters.

but again, it is this different paradigm where the city is asking -- acting as they pass through. they take on the wrist, but in my view, the yield very the long-term benefit. other promising states -- yes, commissioner? >> tallon judy fine big investors? >> it is a technical term. it find it really against our experience here in california in terms of adoption rates. so when 20 cities go to ballot, it is mayor lee 25 cities. in 20 cities passed a referendum to move forward with their programs. that is an adoption rate that blows california out of the water. so you still not really have one, hopefully two soon. sonoma is coming up the pike. and they're getting ready to go to ballot with 20 more. >> they have been on since 2009. >> correct. >> what has been the experience?

what has been the experience for the consumers? >> they have not yet launched their first cca. oak park is leading the charge there, and they're getting ready to ratify or select their supplier next monday. that will be the first 20,000 customers in the city of oak park. >> how many communities have these facilities online and operating as we speak? >> across the united states? >> just massachusetts? >> one in massachusetts, only two to come shortly with the city of boston. it is hundreds in the state of ohio. but in terms of jpa-driven cca's, only two in ohio. the rest are coming to the city as agent methodologies. >> so three nationwide? >> four. >> thank you.

supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. it is still ongoing. i wonder if you're going to touch upon what types of projects we're talking about in massachusetts or ohio that are already online in terms of clean energy? >> yes, i will get there. in fact, i am going to get their right now. mike asked me to keep this short, so ask any detailed questions that you have. but in clean energy, there's no question that california is leading the way. first with mea. next toughly with the san francisco setting the bar perhaps even higher with a commitment to local build-out and distributed generation. right now, as you know, marin energy authority has a mix of 33% renewable. 27% of that is qualified, california qualified renewable in our portfolio mixed. our rates our competitive.

sundays are higher. some desert lore with pg&e. next year, with the rate hike, it looks like we will be cutting in slightly lower than their rates on the generation side. you cannot play the iou's game the iou way in the long term. it is very tough on the rate competition issue. massachusetts is headed in the right direction with clean energy. they currently have a standard of 6%, so there's a fine portfolio is only 6%. they are really following what the state requirements are. one of our goals is, let's work on the rps levels in other states, but that is a different day. they do have a co-op which they formed with the municipal utility in order to go out direct to market. they just signed a 20-year contract for 18 megawatts of solar at competitive rates. so they're starting down the ppa

to ownership and really interested in this idea of asset formation, but that is down the line for the. premium rates across the board in terms of 100% renewals are offered at a premium -- sorry. they're not embedded within what anyone would consider right now is cost competitive. i will say that his oak park as attendees and clean energy threshold that they have established. they also have a 100% clean energy premium that given where the rates are, that a deep green will come in slightly lower, but they do not expect that to last too long. again, if this really is a long view on the trade issue, you cannot -- i have said this to our counsel, you have got to look at it over time, because the market is volatile. the quicker you can get to a balanced portfolio of assets of ownership, the better of you're going to be long-term in terms

of rate stability and cost effectiveness. and want to underscore balance. energy efficiency as for massachusetts has put all its eggs in the basket. because there were able to get the ee carve out, what we call the public goods charge that currently cca's are not getting. we will now through 790 as long as the public's goods charges extended. that is sending to work on. but massachusetts gets the carve out. they have done a lot with energy efficiency, but it is on the program side of the duty predates and weatherization. -- but they do the rebates and weatherization. how do we make cca a test bed for energy efficiency integrated into procurement on the supply side? as opposed to on the demand side, and how do possibly push the envelope on energy efficiency as a feed-in tariff? there are possibilities, and we

hope to ride with san francisco and others. but we feel our innovations in the field. rates are the bottom line no matter where you are. i expect that even in san francisco, rates matter. right now in marin, we're looking at with the elastic is it -- what the rate elasticity of the customer base is in terms of when we are slightly higher than pg&e. and how far can you go and for how long with slightly higher rates before you start seeing any effect in your opt-out? that funding will need to watch, and i am sure you will on a regular modeling bases, to make sure you're not losing customers and thereby undermine your cca program. that is the balancing act we juggle every day. in the midwest, where they have not made a real commitment to clean energy other than oak park at 10%, it is all about the rights. they're going to realize a 20% rate savings over their incumbent utility. and they're only going in on a

two-year contract. so it will be interesting to see what happens with that group in a couple of years. the cities do not benefit a lot right now. they took on no risk, but they also do not have a lot of the economic benefit that we see out here. adoption rates, we have already discussed. when you have in front of you is a handout. not even going to try and go there. but hopefully some members of the public -- i do not know there are extras. i will not belabor this, but this is a slide of all the communities, at least that we know of, that are actively considering cca. you guys are lovely next up to bat. sonoma is right behind you. they are taking it to their board of supervisors for their feasibility analysis to get started down this road. they also have a couple scenarios with aggressive and local -- when i say local, it is really regional bell allowed -- build-out.

it is back combination of build- out and directed service provider. monterey and santa cruz are looking for initial funding so they can get going on their spending -- study. davis is looking. richmond looks like it will join mea's program. we're starting to make inroads in california, but our focus has been northern california. here is the rest of the country in terms of what is happening. most of the action right now is in illinois. we're hoping that there will be an uptick in activity in massachusetts. we're not doing a lot rainout in ohio. with that, i will end my comments on the national picture, but i look forward to joining you do this a very cool glove -- " love of innovation and forward thinking. supervisor campos: thank yofo