be authorized an $19.5 million. they will have to be able to meet the internal reserve policies. we will need to have the back office relationships established, right now we are a negotiating with noble america's. the termination provisions will not take effect until the final confirmation assigned by the city. i want to take the a moment to recognize some folks from the city. ed brown, mike davis, and linda hamilton. they're here to answer questions and there are also here showing their commitment to the program. -- and they are also here showing their commitment to the program.

we appreciate their hard work right alongside coming up with a new form of contract. the next won't spend a lot of time on this one unless i get the dreaded beep-beep from the president. in the terms sheet, there are key parts i wanted to highlight. it addresses how the electronic transaction information would work. what the contractors role would be, and the term sheet does specify that they would be locating because interactivity is in san francisco. there is even a date specified of no later than six months after the launch of the program. let me touch base on timeline. were we are here now, the sf puc

contract and the 19.5 million. a parallel path, we expect the master contract to be approved by the board of supervisors. we're working toward the completion of the contract that noble americas. introduced at the board of supervisors, we expect the economist and the comptroller will have the report on the program that will be available for the supervisor's consideration. sometime in january, board approval could be finalized. the new areas and we think we will be setting the not to exceed rate. setting the rates for the

various class's. = = ca -- classes. the not to exceed rates will be approved by the body and to go before the board where there'll be some time where it can rejected those rates or not. then we jump to march where we get the final confirmation pricing from a shelshell, some t below that, that would be the rates that get put into customer and modifications along with ought out notices. -- opt-out notices. they may be making the final policy decisions in february. that is the earliest they can be at this point. they have to issue a decision at

the end of december to meet that. i am not sure it will necessarily happen. february is when we expect, it could be march. it is the position of this commission to make sure that it is known before we move forward. if it is outside of our control, it might cause a push back for us. assuming it doesn't happen, we can be looking at enrollment in the july or august time frame. we were talking about july because that is when the flat generation rates go into effect. we don't want to be launching the program before then, but what ever is magic about that particular day, the lack of action requires us to push something back, it is not a killer for the program at any way. i am happy to answer questions.

commissioner torres: are you familiar with a letter addressed to mike hosch from steve lawrence regarding commission -- >> it just came in last night, i am not sure everybody on staff saw it. commissioner torres: reference is the notion of the rates, and how confusing it is. >> is not this item. commissioner torres: forgive me. secondly, we also received a letter from many of the environmental organizations. are you familiar with that letter? >> it was dated december 1.

>> it also came in after 5:00 last night. that is when it came in. commissioner torres: may i read it to you very quickly? i don't mean to put you on the spot. we urge you in the strongest possible terms to make local, affordable and renewable electricity and green jobs the foundation upon which clean asset will be launched -- clean sf will be launched. you are familiar with that concept? >> yes. commissioner torres: and to ensure that a comprehensive spoke of work is completed. you're familiar with that as well. are we going to make a local affordable rental electricity on which clean power will be launched?

>> i think that there is general agreement on the goal that we want to do a robust global build out and have the program that is as expensive as possible and san francisco. i that there is disagreement on the strategy for how that happens. generally speaking, the staff's approach to this is that to have a local build up, you need money and you need to customers. you have to start somewhere. start with a program that brings in customers and money that makes it so you can have someone who can pay for the power and can use the power. commissioner torres: where in the resolution is the goal? >> it is of the program is set up. commissioner torres: we are committing to a robust local development. where does it say that?

>> is integral to every policy statement we have made. commissioner torres: i would think it is in the resolution. this is the document that we are being asked to approve. >> the item before you was of the entire program, it was the contract. that is why we we did not reiterate the different policy statements. >> my understanding is that they are under contract with local power to develop a plan and timeline for the local bill about -- buildout component. we extended the contract to take us to, i don't know when. >> it is about 11-month contract. >> there will be a plan being developed with the hope that the

local buildout will be generated from the first phase of the program. commissioner torres: why isn't it in this resolution? >> i can add it. we can add all of the policy statements if you like. commissioner torres: i think that is great, i just want to see it in writing. >> the different is not if it is the end result of the program, it is what comes first. it generates that -- >> what is in front of you is the amendment for the resolution. we need to enter that into somebody can work on language.

>> if i can direct your attention, on page 8, the fifth whereas. the resolution attached to it. >> the second page of the resolution. commissioner torres: ok. >> there is a section that notes that this allows the development of new renewable resources, it is part of the process we are looking at. commissioner torres: what item on page two? page eight? this part. >> it describes the process that the general manager was describing. the issue related to this contract is that when we develop those local generation, how

does it go in to the contract. it allows for the generation to be rolled in. the focus of this was the contract, not the program. commissioner torres: roman numeral iv, the customer revenue stream is established. the condition preceding this, that is how the customer is -- >> there is a substitution clause in there, correct? >> as we can build of the generation, we will not be stuck with having fuel generation, we can roll in. >> is the language in the resolution sufficient for your purposes, commissioner? commissioner torres: i don't know yet.

>> maybe we will hear some testimony. supervisor campos is here. if you could also address this unusual circumstance where it appears that some of the proponents are urging us not to proceed. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here and for accommodating our schedule. we had the last board meeting of the calendar year, is a busy day. i want to thank the general manager and his staff for all the work they have put into this very important project for us. i think the question that was raised by commissioner torres is an excellent question. i would not be here asking you to approve this matter if i did not feel that there was a commitment on the part of the puc to have a strong, robust,

local build out. the reason it has taken time to get to this point, we want to make sure that before we came to the board of supervisors with a contract on community choice aggregation, that there was actual action on the issue of the bill out. i believe the action was taken when the work was renewed. to the extent that they raised about the language of the resolution, from my perspective, if you can add language, it reinforces that beyond right out and it is a very positive thing. the board of supervisors, from my perspective, nothing should move forward unless there is a clear commitment about having as robust a bill out as we possibly can, he billed out tied to the

generation of energy by the city and county, making sure there is a local higher component that is as meaningful as possible. i am here today, nevertheless, to ask you to approve this matter. i believe this is an important step that needs to be taken. it is one of many steps that needs to be taken. there is still a lot more work that needs to be done. the build up being a key component of that work. the way that this contract is structured, it will allow for incorporation and inclusion of the result of that work. i don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive to the contrary. let me take this opportunity to abolish the work of the advocates. we would not be here today without the many years of advocacy without the groups and

individuals that have dedicated to this issue. the letter is one that i agree with in terms of the spirit and what it is trying to convey. it is critical that we heed that advice to make sure that the bill that happens. where i have respectful disagreement is that i believe the process that we are following is a process that is consistent with that spirit, it is consistent with a robust build out, and as we go forward, this process will allow for it to be incorporated. i am not going to support anything that does not make a commitment to that happening. i would respectfully disagree with the advocates, but i know that they have a very important role to play, and i want to make sure that when the matter comes before the board, they have an opportunity to be fully heard to the extent that the changes have to be made to strengthen the component.

i believe that can happen if you take action today. i think is an exciting opportunity for us. a lot of years have gone into this program. many of elected officials have spent a lot of time on this, and i want to abolish their contributions. but more importantly, the contributions of the environmental community pushing this forward. let me say that there are still some components that need to be worked out. you are still going to have to come back and deal with the issue of rates. we still have to do better work in terms of energy efficiency. obviously, the build out is a key component of this. the duration of the contract is

one that allows us to really provide and develop the customer base that general manager harrington was speaking to. and remember that we have a commitment on the part of the city that we will have 100% renewable energy by 2020. i don't see how we accomplish that without implementing a community choice segregation program. with that, i think you for the work that has gone into this not only by your staff, by the general manager, and each one of you on the commission that has spent a lot of time working with us. i think it is an exciting day for san francisco, and i look forward to this item being passed and having the full discussion at the board of supervisors.

thank you for coming here and sharing -- president moran: thank you for coming here and sharing your thoughts with us. >> the term sheet discussion, perhaps you could let us know if anything came up in those conversations that was of concern or was appreciated? >> one of the things that we want to do with this kind of program is to make sure that there is full vetting at the board of supervisors. there was an initial hearing that took place at the government audit and oversight committee. the questions were more informational. quite frankly, one of the things that we authorized, some board members do not know a lot about community choice segregation. the reason that we wanted to have a hearing -- i don't know that there was a specific

concern other than trying to understand how the program works. the extent to which this program relates to the ordinance and the recognition that there have been changes that need to be a knowledge. i think that the city and the board of supervisors members are looking forward to the discussion. if the contract is approved by the commission, the matter would be introduced and to have the contract go to committee. and if need be, have more than one hearing. it would also come before the entire board. there was a larger issue of rates and what the puc is charging. it's not directly connected to the cca. it deals with the larger issues of this commission and that is a discussion that is also taking place. i think the board understands

that very important role that the public utilities commission plays. i think there is a real interest in making sure that we have as viable lead agency as we can and we remain the innovative agency that we have been and that we continue to be really leading the way nationwide. >> i want to make sure with mike campbell and clean power sf, the time is enough for the board to get better educated this since it is so complex and of his companion re peace. i would urge the staff to make sure that as these hearings get scheduled -- there is a lot of education that might need happen. >> i think it is important, commissioner, also making sure that those discussions go out into the communities.

we have a very diverse communities that need to know more about this. and the impact on would be directly impacted by this program. i think there would be a lot of interest in this program, and it is important for us to make sure that we think dion of this building, as important as what happens here is, that we have discussions on the ground in terms of the communities. thank you, commissioners. happy holidays to you and thank you for your service. president moran: any thoughts before we take additional public testimony? do we have public comment? hong >> i have no speaker cards although i am sure there are public speakers here.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. and the confirmation program director for the sierra club. i what commissioner torres: to thank -- i want to thank commissioner torres for hitting the nail on the head. while we want to move quickly to ratepayers, i think that the long-term success of this program is contingent on the fact that we are able to produce our own local energy and guarantee rates. in order to do that, the scope of work could really inform the process here. if we are bent on moving forward with a contract, i think that as an amendment, it could capture this. something like the final

approval is conditioned upon including rates that reflect the planned and the maximum number of customers in the rate to base. the maximum number of customers is in issue and because a lot to this program, if we are seeking to introduce this to thousands of households at a rate that is not competitive, we will see a significant amount of opt-out. we can't support anything that has a greater percentage of opt- out. we want less than 25%. we want them to be in the program later when we have the local buildout. i would like to see a movement that can capture these the ideas and maybe we can move forward on this.

>> additional comments? >> good afternoon, commissioners. american brokers representing the san francisco green party. -- eric brookes, representing the san francisco green party. the key here is that just based on the contract that you're looking at today, we're talking about a relatively small number of customers producing a relatively small revenue stream. they got off the ground, and the your just to be easy competing with pg&e to stay in the game. that is not completing a big

revenue stream. what we're talking about with the scope of work that just got under way last month is that a large body of work needs to be done to show opportunities for building out local efficiency and things like solar, wind, so that over time, the course of 15 to 30 years, you have a bigger revenue stream, not just a little one with some customers at the beginning paying higher rates. and you're not depending on a stream from a small number of customers, but building about a big, new system. building out hundreds of megawatts, it is the key to why

we keep saying that this resolution and this contract have a program that goes along with the project has to talk intrinsically about how the build out who works in the contract works and the overall program designed integrated closely together. that is not in this document. that is a concern. let's get back to the brass tacks of what this planet in this city needs right now, agree new deal that hires thousands of workers. i want to point out that the local solar contractor, the laborers have signed that letter because they note that the future of this city in the future of green jobs and producing from the report that we showed you a couple months

back, we're talking about a potential for 4000 jobs a year for at least five years if not longer. these things have to be closely integrated and move forward to gather so that we can achieve those goals and to get the level of hiring. that is what you need to be asking yourself. >> i am president of the boosters neighborhood association. they the last time i was here, some of you folks weren't here. it was during the closure of the power plant. on the one hand, i am happy that it has happened because it gave me a break from coming to you guys and messing up all of the afternoons.

there is a point of conflict when we were working on that because we weren't thrilled about exporting our demand. and exporting our need for fossil fuel plants to the east bay. the open goal of the closure of the power plant is also quick energy and renewable sources if of all possible so that we are not shifting the burden to somebody else. that is where it combines with the program here. i am in support of the resolution and i am happy to hear about the possible amendment. you won't region the goals that the city's residents really want with this program unless it really has a buildup program who

baked into it. the study can move forward along with the resolutions of it is good here possible amendments to that. and also what they said about the opportunity for jobs. i don't believe that the puc has been aggressive enough about policy during the recession. we work around the external forces of the credit freeze, we have our own credit markets with revenue bonds and other sources. we have ways to put our folks to work. we have to look at whatever policy we have to do that. i think it really should be a goal, trying to get it to work faster. if you need to move this forward, that is fine.