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? all of those in favor? the item carries.

thank you. you can call item 16. >> this is to authorize the increase in utilities and commercial notes, the paper program, request approval from the board of supervisors, to negotiate the banking proposals, and provide banking for such an increase. >> these particulars are different and -- with anyone like a presentation on this. in the absence of this, do i have a motion? and the second? and is there any public comment? all of those in favor? the item will carry. >> item 16, the possible action item of the public service commission to enter into the

agreement to authorize the proposition for commercial paper programs. >> similar item -- have a motion? and the second? and is there any public comment? all of those in favor? the item will carry. >> item 17, for the capital improvement program contract -- and the obsolete sewer project, increasing the contract with a time extension. >> ok. this item is worth a few words. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the sunnyvale on solar project

has gone very well. the tunnelling was very effective. we will actually be activating the main title in january to begin providing flood protection and this project has been selected to receive $11 million in grant funding for the department of water resources. the modification in front of you will enable us to improve the local sewers, to provide additional flood protection. we will use the same technology that works so well. originally there was going to be a separate contract, that would create significant disruption to the neighborhood, and traffic, and was very close to home. the modification in front of you would use the existing tunnelling we have there now and would reduce service disruption, and actually saved -- save $200 and we can have

this asset in service before next year's wet weather. the modification will also install meters and calibration equipment that is a requirement of the grant. and with that your consideration, were further questions? >> and are there any questions? it is nice when we have a chance to do something that is a better solution that costs less. do i have a motion? this is approved and seconded. >> there is an environmental analysis for this project to review that particular change in the project and this is before you and you'll be adopting findings on that. >> thank you. >> three items on this, and the last time we spoke about the

significant seward project i talked about the environmental documentation and i was told that the meeting with the general manager -- i was told that we would make certain that the members of the waste water had a minimum notification list for the environmental determination. i did not see this, the first time i saw this was at the meeting. we have not yet fixed this. the second thing is that this change in the scope of the project, i now believe was brought to the waste water committee. we have certainly spoken about this project before, but i don't believe this particular change was brought before us. it sounds like a good idea and i am in support of this, but when we do this large of a change, we

should be telling people about this and finally, there is a significant typo on the -- on attachment a of the sequa findings. the first paragraph -- the last line, of the improvement project located at these facilities -- this is not really. somebody should amend that attachment, and once again, they should have caught that. and perhaps you can see to it that this is done before adopting the resolution. >> this is duly noted. thank you. and is there any other public comment? >> ok. we have a motion, all of those in favor? and the motion will pass. thank you.

>> i just want to respond and make certain that in the future, these to go there -- >> there are too many of them. >> and please call item 18. >> this is for the general manager of san francisco public utilities -- to accept the grant funding, for the emergency services, for the 2008 buffer zone program, for the department purchase of security equipment, 3602 upgrade. >> i have a motion on the second period and is there any public comment? all of those in favor? the item will carry. call item no. 19. >> the commissioner is a

designee on behalf of the city of san francisco, for the indoor water conservation, -- >> i would like a few words on this. this represents a change in direction that i think we should -- >> i am the assistant general manager for water. this program represents a new program for indoor water conservation and commercial -- commercial and institutional customers. they represent a large segment of the water-using community. as we have looked at overtime throughout the various models we have, this is a large area of the marketplace with a lot of opportunity for the installment of the additional fixtures, and in this particular case, we

spoke about art conservation model, and we anticipate a substantial amount of conservation in san francisco at a relatively modest cost. for the investment we are talking about -- given the commercial and industrial and institutional issues -- you can get water-saving set produce water at about $356. this is a good way to generate water. what we're looking for is the approval of the pilot program to go forward, and the ability to enter into that agreement, and this is funded in the 2012 budget, and part of the budget process -- we would come together for the additional funding to move forward into the future.

we think the investment in fixtures, and the community industrial institution was a great way to have conservation safety. >> thank you. and my way of commenting on this, this has been my experience when we look at conservation performance. the hardware-oriented measures are the ones that say -- >> those are the ones that will save us. it is safe to represent a saturation of one part of the market in terms of the residential trade. we are moving beyond that. >> there are only so many toilets out there. we will have to start with some additional fixtures out there. >> and are there any questions? and is there any public comment?

do i have a motion? it is moved and seconded. all of those in favor? the motion will carry. >> item 20, discussion of the possible actions for the enforcement program, section 399 po.03. >> this came before us on november 8. has anything changed. could i have a motion? >> this is moved and seconded. public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have touched on this -- at the meetings before and had wanted to bring this to the commission

earlier, but the community aggregation stuff has taken a lot more attention. but now that we're finally getting to the stage where renewable portfolios standards are going up, and we have to comply with these, we have to consider the reality of the standards on what is renewable, -- this is not that good in many ways. landfill gas, if you don't go through this very expensive process, -- this left a lot of toxic gas out there. and also, if you don't handle this the right way, having the municipalities that encourages its production, by throwing organic matter into these

facilities -- instead of trying to minimize this, another serious problem requires -- the biomass. this is so incredibly complex, that with all of these facilities that are being listed on the state website, it would contribute to the -- renewals. a lot of these are not sustainable and probably should not be considered renewable. we do not consider this renewable even though you can see that this is. there are crucial environmental reasons for this. with the enforcement of this program and how the enterprise as procurement in the future. and a lot of times, there are wood chips from the logging operations that are bad territory. we need to start evolving the way that we purchase energy, to

the power enterprise -- where we can leverage this for you as an agency, to start choosing when we can -- the sources or the mix of sources. i know this is not easy. but we have to of all the concept of what is renewable. it will also apply to committee choice aggregation. this is a battle we have not gotten into, because the allies -- they are going to find themselves on different sides of the fence because you will have some hard-liners like myself, and i have had discussions with the sierra club. they have had discussions about landfill gas, we have to make certain that we are engaging in this process, and what we call renewable -- it really is renewable, and that san francisco leads the way on this policy.

and this just does not pattern itself off of the state policy. >> we had a motion and the second on this? is there any additional public comment? all of those in favor? the item will carry. >> i now call item 21. >> the commission input requiring priorities -- a workshop with commissioners input, identifying areas of special interest for the fiscal year 2012, the budgets for discussion -- of the january 2012 budget workshop. >> and as he is setting up, i have spoken with commissioner