that it would be covered. the third is to be even more clear. it says the puc will only authorize the general managers to launch the program as long as it is a per by the board of supervisors and the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the puc, and the same language stays in there. we wanted to make sure that is on the record. president moran: ok. so what is before the commission is the substitute resolution with the addition of the two whereas clauses that were just read earlier. ok. public comment on that item? >> good afternoon again, commissioners. san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization of our city. a few things on the amendments that you're going over. an important one is the ceqa issue.

what we're seeing out here is that we need the final approval of the shell contract and the program that is being based on it to be contingent upon the build out work -- and by the way, not necessarily the full nine to 11 months, but enough of the build of work being completed in five or six months to inform of the economics of the contract will work. we're not saying that the contract needs to be changed so that it is adopting construction and installation. we are saying that once we flesh out that build-out information sufficiently and, like we said, get the horse before the cart sufficiently, what we learned about how we're going to build the build-out will give us tools to radically affect the economics is some tiny shell contract. i do not believe that is a ceqa issue. because it is not asking for changes in infrastructure. it is just got to change the

financial structure and agreement. this was just a procurement contracts. maybe the city attorney will correct me on that, but i have a feeling that we can chart a territory there. i would just repeat, for my member groups, that what we said before, which is that we need this to proceed in a way that that build-out study work will be carefully integrated with the progress of a shell contract before it is finally approved, so that those economics will work out properly. so that we can get the economics of a large asset base that brings in revenue and a lot of revenue for solar efficiency and more to affect it. that is what we're getting at, that is where we need to move forward. and you should really look this over and decide whether you are able to move that forward today or not.

thank you. president moran: thank you. any other public comment? >> as part of the substitution cause for the contract, is there something in there that says once a local service is identified and it is generating that that would substitute not just a power source but would also shift the economic formula? >> it gives us the ability to substitute -- it is not -- it does not require it, because we also think that it might be bringing on new customers at the same time, and we actually need the generation, not the substitute, that allows for that kind of flexibility. then you decide whether you're changing rates based on that. it depends on whether you're substituting or whether you are adding. this is flexible enough to do both. but it is not directing one of the other, leaving it up to the flexibility of the commission to

make that decision. >> and this is a four and a half year contract? >> right. >> thank you. >> so far from the local clean energy alliance. i want to thank you all for the efforts to try to include in a very prominent way the local build-out work in the importance of doing that work as part of the clean power sf piece overall. i want to clarify what might still be a mystery about the relationship between the investigative work going on now by local power inc., and that might conceivably end up in the contract as a result of that work. said the contract, as is now, specifies a certain type of energy that would be purchased. it will specify a price at which that energy will be purchased. it will specify a certain amount

of energy that will be purchased. those are pieces where once the local bell about estimations edward r. dunne might have some influence. to give you an example, in terms of the normal load that the city has, it has peaked at certain points in time. say a certain time of year or a certain time of day, there is a maximum peaking point, if your capacity has to match that, you're going to pay a price that represents the peak power that will have to be produced. if you have a build-out plan with energy efficiency and demand reduction measures that shaves down the peak in a substantial way, then, presumably the price you pay for power should be different because you're not having to contract for the same level of capacity that you did before. i am just trying to express in a way were the information that is being developed now could conceivably have an impact on what you decide to contract a

few months down the line. that was the notion of making the contracts that are contingent upon those studies. i think what you're expressing is the commitment to move forward with a local build-out plan and a longer term plan in clearly would not be in your interest once you have that landing to the contract with terms that are into that a call to those interests. i am trying to lay out a little bit about how the investigative work could conceivably influence either the price points or the amount of energy you buy or other points like that. we think there is a commitment to move them forward, and i wanted to make that clarification. >> i want to respond and thank all of the activists and stakeholders for the letter in bringing this before us continuously. we hope that as the information

does become more apparent and the data is collected, we can take steps to adjust accordingly. because i think there's a strong commitment on the part of this commission and the city families. supervisor campos represents that, too, to really recognize that local build-out is key. we want to continue to hear from you on where we can make adjustments if necessary, and hopefully this language will at least get us to the next step in moving this program forward. president moran: thank you. any additional public comment? >> hello again. thank you for incorporating language. one thing, forgive me if i missed it, i did not hear the commitment to making sure the maximum number of rate-payers come on. what we are risking here is if you want a program that is 100% renewable. this is the economics that some

of the advocates are speaking about. you might get a very high opt- out rate. this could only be for people signing on and not opt out because it is harder to court those repairs once we have already started a program. president moran: thank you. one of the things that is still outstanding to the commissioner, please send it out to the program. there are several times that we could address that. the time it would have to address it is when it comes back in march for the go, no go. that is also the time when we will look at any other new information that we have, so i think it comes out of the second track for local build out and would be in front of the commission at that time. we have retained authority to change the size of the program or incorporate new information

as it comes to us. that would be the time that it would naturally come together. the question would be, is the local build-out sufficiently developed that we can act on it at that time are does that have to be an action? >> we have a motion. we have a second. we have had public comment. and the other questions? >> ok, all those in favor? opposed? the item passes. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. it has been seven years, right? president moran: that is item 12? >> yes. president moran: we skip over items 10 and 11. 11 is my intent to call toward the end of the meeting after we have had the budget workshop. i believe mr. chang is with us.

if you could call 10. we're trying to keep this moving. >> item 10, presentation discussion of the rate fairness report and presentation on municipal power rates. shall i call 13 as well? president moran: um, no. >> in that case, let me run through quickly item 10. i am a member of the raid prepared this board. i would like to quickly give background on the board, the numbers, and our findings for rates for men is about power. in your presentation on page two.

let me put this on the overhead. the rate fairness board was in november 2002 by 2002e, designed to set forth rate policies for the city. it is an advisory body from the charged with quoting public hearings in making rate policy recommendations to the puc. members of the board consists of four members of the polish, two appointed by the mayor. two from the board of supervisors. three members of the city departments. administrator, controller, and the office of public finance. this year, we had process for reviewing and is about power rates. in doing so, we had four meetings this quarter. in numbers were very engaged. we had many presentations from staff, and we have been able to

engage staff with a number of inquiries that we have had. there has been the minted public comment before the rate fairness board. as such, the recommendation that we may a the representation of the rate fairness board and their members with limited public comment. that being said, the rate fairness board generally as guiding principles in fulfilling its responsibilities and determined the rates, as part of the charter section are to improve and maintain the financial condition and the ratings, to provide sufficient resources for the continued financial health, operation and maintenance and repair of the enterprise, and be based on the cost of service. just a way of background. rates have been currently in place since 1989. it has been limited rate increases since then.

we're proposing rate increases today. to put them in context. the first major increases for about 12 years. the context of the rate increase are to look at the booking options. the two book-ends are the two cents rates over two years or 4 cents over four years. primary drivers are two cents and four cents to ensure that the rate scale fund and the puc maintains operations to a prudent level. as recommended by staff. in both scenarios, the prudent level will be restored. however, if it should dip below 2 cents, that stabilization fund would not be maintained. that is not the point we're advocating as part of the board. what we're advocating is to look somewhere between that two cents and 4 cents, between full restoration of the capital

programs and limited or no restoration. key questions we have asked in evaluating were that recommendation should be between two cents and 4 cents is, the first question is, is it fair to have the $90 million in capital programs funded through general fund department bills? the second question is to what degree should the rate fairness board, in its recommendations, be sensitive to the current fiscal condition, fiscal constraints of the general fund department? in both cases, we believe there should be a balance between the two. it is basically a balance of the trinity debt. what the refairness board believes is in adding back then i'm million dollars in capital programs, where do we at and how do we add is, first, to make sure there is a public-sector benefit. second, do have and use of

implementation. we believe that this city-owned facilities are easier to implement. there's less of a sign of rate and less of a cost-benefit analysis to be evaluated by the city of facilities, because the ability to apply it would be easier there. we conversely see that is harder to do so in a privately-run facilities. we believe that their return investment should be a crucial criteria. there should be some way were we increase the rate, that the payback to those investments should have a return to the last one is we believe there should be some contribution towards the greenhouse reduction targets that we have already set within the city's climate action plan. specifically, which programs are we looking at, that we're urging the commission that add back? one that we thought is the city-of renewable speed of their strong support amongst the board to add that back, because we believe that the departments that would do so are well-

inclined. there is supportive of the program. we can also target departments for which the rate increase would have the most relatively adverse impact. departments such as the board of education. if we ask them to pay more, which gives them more of a benefit to ease that paper did. we looked at gold seller. there is some support for it. in past artisan -- participation levels, some funds and not been used. because of that, we believe that program should be supported at a lower level than some other programs. we as a believe that because the retail customers are the ones that benefit, that is and then we also need to look at. president moran: we have been holding our own folks to 5 minutes, and you're beyond that. how much time do you need? >> one minute. the magic -- the next measure would be to lessen that. on the add-backs, energy

efficiency programs, we believe they will see more savings. we will target city departments that would be affected most by these our increases. we also believe that the energy efficiency programs will be able to create jobs, because they're actually hiring for those capital improvement programs. and also would be able to every city infrastructure. the of country transmission upgrades, it is a sizable investment, but because that infrastructure has been there for some time, it is well- established. some delay as possible. since the system is in no imminent danger of failure, if we push back some of the improvements, it will be about the ease some of the burden of increasing rates for nearly end of the time spectrum towards the end. the final program is the siepi cuts. there is some support for it. -- the cip cuts.

we can sell the power back to the public sector. our final thought, we believe that the financial health of the utility should not be compromised. we believe that some restoration -- there needs to be restoration of the programs, but be sensitive to the current budget is attrition that these general fund departments are facing. we strongly believe that the municipal power rates should not affect community choice aggregation, and we stand to make recommendations further in the years as they come to the puc. thank you very much. if we can switch gears, if there any questions -- president moran: let's pause for a moment. we do not have the right item in front of us yet. but if you have questions about its deliberations and recommendations, this would be the time. >> sorry, the energy efficiency,

there was support? >> strong support. president moran: thank you. when you say shift gears comedy me go to the next item. >> yes, sir. president moran: we need to call that. anything else on this report? any public comment? yes? >> i wanted to speak to the issue of gosolar sf. before we cut funds, we need to look at what contracts were not done to completion. it is an opportunity to put solar panels on local homes. president moran: ok, thank you. again, we're not on the rate item yet. >> i am from the san francisco green party. i wanted to reiterate what the fairness board said, which is that to the extent that we are

strategic about how we do the rate increases, even though that is, you know, the next item, to the extent that we make sure that we are, as with the previous item that you discussed, really focusing our resources as we raise the rates on making sure that a good solid build-out under cca and under other programs happens in san francisco, especially city buildings, school buildings, hospitals buildings, making sure that energy efficiency installations go in. so that at the same time we're raising rates, we're also lowering costs so that we can work this out. and if we do not make this an across-the-board rate increase, that will be easier as well. we need to be very strategic about how we do this process. president moran: ok, thank you, and i trust that you'll be here when the rate item is before us.

>> will hold my comments on the rate item until we get there but a but i wanted to appreciate the work of the rate fairness board. i did not go to their four meetings this quarter, but i have been two previous meetings in previous cycles. it is one of the more arcane and yet important things that we do. it was an element of the, not the most recent, but the second most recent puc restructuring to add that transparency to the rate review process, in addition to the commission and the people who have sat on that board provided important functions in the city, along with the staff. i just wanted to call that out and thank them for their work. president moran: thank you. any other public comment? this is not an action item, so we do not need a motion. thank you. please call item number 13. >> the discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution supporting the extension of the

revenue bond oversight committee from january 1, 2013 to as close as possible to january 2017. >> on the last item, i just wanted to thank two other members of the rate fairness board in the audience. i appreciate their support. on the current item before you, what the revenue bonds over sec committee is advocating puc is to adopt a resolution to support an extension of the rboc sunset date. rboc was founded for proposition p, designed for sunset on january 1, 2013. we're in the middle of the process of conducting three audits and in the middle of the implementation of a significant number of the recent capital programs and soon to come on board the sewer capital programs

as well. because of that, we are asking the puc to support the extension. rboc is a separate independent oversight body, recognized for its transparency. because of that, it has been favorable to the bond rating. we believe the extension is a worthy one. we ask for your support. thank you. president moran: ok, thank you. commissioners from any questions on this item? public comment? seeing none, men have a motion? >> so moved. second. president moran: all those in favor? opposed? the item carries. thank you for your work. i appreciate you taking the time to come here today. you're not compensated. we recognize that.

we value the service you put in. thank you. now, getting back on track. my intention is at 3:00 to call the budget item. so in the next half hour, let's try to get through everything else. >> so the rates, what is going to be the process and the timeline for the rate discussion on this 2 cents vs four since per is a cost recovery? >> that was option 1a and option two. we have option 1b that you'll hear about. the discussion was that you would be determining that today. it then goes to the board of supervisors. if no action is taken at the board, it goes into effect within 30 days. the board has 30 days to override any rate or a charge that the puc by a two-thirds

vote is done within 30 days. because 30 days would only bring back from their recess would one day ago, my expectation is that if you vote on this today, it will go over about a week from now, which will give the board a chance to get back from their break and had a hearing should they choose to have one in january. >> and they need a two-thirds vote to stop the raid. >> last time with the water rates, we send those over. the board had a hearing and chose to take no action. there was no resolution introduced. they had a hearing about it. we had a hearing at the budget committee about this last week. >> and if it is less than two- thirds, it goes forward? >> right. president moran: the reason i want to move to the budget item at 3:00 this because it gives us another half hour to deal with that. hopefully that can be concluded by 4:00 p.m. i know we have some time constraints on the commission today. thank you. >> selling move to item 14?

item 14 from a discussion and possible action to approve the records retention policy in records retention schedule of the san francisco puc and randy general manager of the ready to periodically update and amend the policy and schedule to ensure future compliance with city policy and records management best practices. president moran: the material provided was complete and amazingly thorough. i do not know that we need a presentation on that. i was impressed with the completeness of the material. does any commissioner want a presentation on that or are we ready to move? >> so moved. >> second. president moran: public comment? >> there is. sorry, i appreciate the staff work on this. it is very detailed. it is a good record retention policy and schedule. i only have one problem, and

that is in the further resolve to authorize the general manager it is my view that under administration code section 8.3 that the commission actually retains jurisdiction to amend the policy and schedule. and the last time a similar thing came up before the mta board, i made that comment in the city attorney actually agreed that under the a administration code, changes can be recommended by the journal manager but it is ultimately the border commission that the dobbs. so i would support the resolution with an amendment to the further resolve to eliminate the authority of the general manager to make periodic changes and essentially retained that jurisdiction for the commission in the future when there is a substantive change to the policy for a variety of reasons that would periodically come before the commission. president moran: thank you.

city attorney? >> the answer from the city attorney's office. the result reads to grant the general manager authority to make changes to comply with any subsequent changes to the administrative code, which would be on par with the other administrative code provisions to say that the commission has to approve any changes. so i think you can delegate to the general manager to keep your record retention policy consistent with the administrative code. i think he is referring to the second part in records management best practices, to make other sort of discretionary changes in the policy. so if you want to strike that language, you could do that. i cannot tell you definitively

that this is not something that you can delegate there was concern about it and want to pull this off the calendar. >> commissioners, what is your pleasure? >> that sounds fine and we would strike that -- >> the last four sentences. >> i would like to keep that as an amended version. >> we have an amendment that is moved, and seconded, and is there any discussion on the amendment? and is there any public comment? >> i can live with that for the moment. >> all of those in favor? the item will carry. we have a motion on the second. is there any additional public comment?