closed. we have a motion by supervisor avalos. a second by commissioner pimentel. madam clerk, please call item number four. >> item four, lafco calendar for 2012. supervisor campos: this is the proposed lafco calendar from the 2012 year. let's hear from mr. jason fried. >> what you have in front of you is a calendar for meetings to help us make sure we're able to get the schedule far enough in advance. we take the traditional fourth friday from the previous year and continue to that, with some exceptions in may. we went to the third friday because the fourth friday, and that leads into memorial day weekend. i wanted to make sure we have a quorum. in august, we take a break. in november and december, we can

find those two meetings for the holidays. it will be at the beginning of december. that is the schedule that is proposed of the board wishes to accept it or not. supervisor campos: colleagues, we had a schedule that is proposed. i do not know if any of you have any comments to the schedule or any proposed changes on the schedule. of course, you know, whatever action is taken here is taken with the understanding that there could be amendments to that calendar as things come up. and as we also get in the additional feedback from the community. >> absolutely. at any point in time, we can always call a special meeting. that occurred last year. we wanted to do a joint meeting with the puc. they have some issues meeting on friday, so we may need to address with special meetings at that point. supervisor campos: thank you. i will open it up to public

comment. any member who would like to speak on item four? lafco calendar for 2012. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have the proposed calendar for us. this is an action item. motion to approve by supervisor avalos. second by commissioner pimentel. we can take that without objection. i want to note that we have a special guest this afternoon here at lafco. we have little lawrence, who is an honorary member of the local agency formation commission. so we want to thank the honorary commissioner for being here. item number 5. >> 5, community choice aggregation activities report. status update on cleanpowersf program. and then the status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. supervisor campos: mr. michael

campbell, good afternoon. >> thank you. i am the director of cleanpowersf, often referred to as community choice aggregation to work in the sfpuc as part of power enterprise. i will be brief. taking the theme of this meeting here today. as you all know, we're very excited that the board of supervisors is set to take up the big parts of the contract approval. we hope to make cca a reality with the contract with shell for the power supply. and a contract appropriation for funds as necessary for collateral and to manage unforeseen events, starting off at launch. i know that is being set to be heard, most likely in february. we are excited to have that move forward. where that leads us is needing to have all the pieces in place

so that one week -- when we do get the approval launched, we have got what we need. one of those is having a service agreement with pg any extended. we already have one in place with pg&e. we are set to head that included before the end of february. we also need to is a bullet -- submit updated information plant. we have one that is already certified. we need an updated one that has been certified with the firm that we have been negotiating with in 2010 as our supplier. obviously, that is not correct. pretty pro forma. i expect that to get approved pretty quickly once we submit that. we're also doing the final word on finalizing the contract with noble americas, some back office

services, that we require. the term sheet has been made public. the deal points have already been arranged, and it is the hard work of putting that into a contract language. the other item that i have is a big one, which is the cpuc update, where things stand. we're waiting to hear on what will be the method for calculating the bond amount for any cca, legislation that allows cca stipulates that all cca's must post a bond designed to cover the anticipated costs of, should a cca terminate abruptly, with the ink from a da costa that might be to the utility. cpuc has been charged with determining the method for

calculating that. in the last year, we have gone through the regulatory process for that, but the cpuc has not yet issued a proposed decision or comment. at the very least, we know we are a bit least a month, maybe more, from a final determination on that a that is critically important because of our mission. sfpuc has made it clear that they're not willing to launch until they know the specifics of what that bond and that it would result in for calculation. so we are anxiously awaiting that. that is it for my report. happy to answer questions. i know that ms. miller had comments to add. supervisor campos: thank you. ms. miller, if you want to add anything? >> i just wanted to add, your interim executive officer, that in my memo to you, there is a date that is erroneous, which is that the matter would be going

to the budget committee on february 1. that is no longer the case. we're meeting with the advocates next week to try to sort out some issues with them. so the meeting for the budget committee will not be on february 1. it will be postponed until a later date. i also wanted to bring up this issue of the bond amount that mr. campbell just talked to. i think it has been under submission with the hearing officer for at least four months. so i think it might be a good idea to contact our center and a couple of our representatives, maybe having them sent a letter to the cpuc requesting action, maybe from the chair of lafco, to make sure it does not get lost in the many, many critical issues they're dealing with over there, because it is critical to us. we need to know that answer soon. supervisor campos: is there something specific we need to do? >> if the commission can just direct as to prepare the

letters, the requests to go to our representatives, and the chair to authorized to sign the letter, that would be all we need. supervisor campos: colleagues, would there be any objection? i think that makes sense, and we should do that as quickly as we can. >> ok. supervisor campos: i have something that is not specific to committee choice aggregation, but something with respect to the california public utilities commission to there was an interesting editorial today in the "san francisco examiner" that talked about a piece of legislation that was introduced by senator yee that is trying to address the issue of the revolving door of the employees between the california public utilities commission and the utilities that the commission actually regulates. what the bill does is it changes the current law that basically has a one-year prohibition

against current cpuc staff or commissioners going coming in a, from the puc and then turning around and going to work for the very utilities that they were regulating at the puc. the current prohibition is one year. senator yee wisely has proposed that we increase that by two years. the interesting thing here is that the examiner editorial has actually advocated for a longer time span. it is actually calling for a five-year time span that people have to wait before they go from being a commissioner on the puc to then turning around and working for the utilities that were regulated by the puc. i do not know if there has to be a future agenda item for us to take a position on it that, but i personally believe that,

given the work that we have had the puc, weighing in on the importance of stopping this revolving door would be important for lafco to do. my preference would be to advocate for that five years that the examiner is asking for. i do not know what the process for that would be, but i think that it is important for us as lafco, one of the objectives of lafco is to promote good government, best practices, and i think that stopping that revolving door is basic good government. ms. miller, do you have any thoughts on that? >> jason fried, lafco staff bit of that is a very good idea. the end of february is one of the legislative bills have to be introduced at the assembly or in the senate. one thing i was planning on was actually coming to you with all the bills that might have an impact on sunday that lafco is looking at the that would definitely be one of them.

we can take a support or oppose position on each of those bills as needed in the february meeting. lafco can take those positions. supervisor campos: i think it would be helpful for us if we can track that and bring it to the next meeting, because that is something that impacts not just cca, but everything that happens on the puc. we should be on the record in support of good government. >> absolutely, that will be included on the list. supervisor campos: colleagues, commissioners, any questions about item number five? ms. miller? >> you know, i just had one more thought peter i am sorry. normally we try to schedule joint meetings with the sfpuc during the year. and it has always been -- as i have learned over the years, it is much better to start that

process earlier than later. i know we talked about the calendar, and now we're talking about cca. but if there is a need to meet in the spring or early summer, we should perhaps start that request now so that we can get a date with everyone's calendar so that we have at least the day. if we do not want it, we do not need to use it. perhaps it might make sense for you to direct us to date for the meeting. supervisor campos: i think this is connected directly to cca and that he would be helpful for staff to get a sense from this commission on what dates might work in terms of a joint meeting and maybe take a couple of days to survey the members of the commission or maybe today to find those states and submit something to the commission. >> that is great. if you could just give us that

direction, that would be fabulous. commissioner campos: unless there is objection, i think that direction is given. why don't we open up to public comment? any member of the public who would like to speak on item 5, if you could please come forward. i know that a number of these items, that the issue of cca will be coming at some point before the board. >> once again, eric brooks, san francisco green party and our city. just to quickly touch on the things you have touched on -- one, in reverse order, i think we do need a joint meeting in early spring, actually, because some action will come to the puc in spring. i would totally agree that we need to support the five-year concept on the revolving door issue. as a personal consumer, if you go down in my basement and look at the meter, you can see that

the only one that is not a smart meters is mine, and i'm about to, because of the cpuc, get charge hundreds of dollars a year, and it cannot possibly cost pg&e that much money. we definitely need a better representation and better controls over the revolving door. on community choice itself, i would just reiterate what we have said to a lot of you behind the scenes, and advocates have done a lot of homework over the last couple of weeks. we are getting an idea of where the sweet spots are on timing. it has been eight years since the first ordinance was passed, and we want to get this done as soon as we can. however, it is how little time, really. we need to make sure -- it is huddle time. we need to make sure we're taking enough time said that the build out meshes well.

i would put at the caution -- let's not move too fast. we need to make sure we get this under way before the budget season takes us away to other concerns, but let's give ourselves plenty of time. something else -- i will speak more on items not on the agenda, but i want to touch on it here because it relates to cca. the internet is becoming a big deal. you have heard me get up and talk about the internet before and city-wide broadband. that now is dovetailing with cca in that the conversations we have had with local power and others indicate that one thing we might need to do in regards to the fact that we do need a smart rid in san francisco that is really a well-design grid, and the pg&e meters are not necessarily the best for that, and that is one issue we have to work on, but part of that could involve a more sophisticated

build out of fiber optics to the city. we are hitting a point where this year is the year we need to get on that anyway for a lot of other reasons, public access and democratic access to the internet. i just wanted to flag that before i talk about it at the end of the meeting and the other items, so, thanks. commissioner campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. the one thing i like to say, and i would welcome the comments -- i do think that in moving forward, you do have to strike the right balance in making sure you do it in a timely way, but that we are also thoughtful and strategic about how we do this. for the benefit of my colleagues on the commission, one thing that i do plan to do and we will be doing shortly is to set up a meeting with the mayor to talk about community choice

aggregation. i do think that it is important for us to make sure that he has all the information about the program that we are proposing, and no program is perfect, but i do have concerns about some of the comments that have been made. my hope and expectation is that once the information is laid out and once we outline not only the specifics of the program, but also the process by which we got here, that's the mayor will see that there is a great deal of wisdom to what we are proposing. it is not just lafco, but it is also the public utilities commission, which is appointed by the mayor, and it is also with the support of the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission and the staff of the puc, so it is something we have worked collectively on.

my hope is that once we have an opportunity to meet with the mayor, that he will see the wisdom and the fact that community choice aggregation is not only the right thing, a position which prior boards and mayors of san francisco have taken, but it is fiscally the responsible thing to do. we need to make sure that we give ratepayers' not only options in terms of clean energy, but we also need to give them options in terms of pg&e. i do not think it is in the interests of ratepayers of the bay area for pg&e to be the only game in town. anyone who has followed the practices that pg&e has a engaged in i think has reason to be concerned. this is about giving consumers and ratepayers the choice. that is one of the integral pieces and components of community choice aggregation. that is why the board and mayors in the past have been supportive

of it, and i hope that's support continues out of room to hundred. i just want to make that note, and i will keep you informed of those conversations. colleagues, any other comments or questions? this is an information item, so madam clerk, if you could please call item 6. >> would you like to continue that matter -- commissioner campos: yes, if we could continue that item to the call of the chair. we continue that item to the call of the chair without objection. >> item 6, study on the voting process, including rent joyce voting joycerank choice -- including rank choice voting for local offices in the city and county. commissioner campos: this is an item requested we put on the agenda as an information item that may perhaps turned into an action item.

lafco conducts studies on a number of issues relevant to a specific jurisdiction. it is something we actually did last year with respect to the issue of the garbage collection, and we did a study and a survey that i thought was very helpful in terms of how other jurisdictions in the area not only pick up, collect, but transport and disposal of garbage. i thought that was a very helpful thing. one of the things we have seen in san francisco in the last few weeks is a discussion and different proposals around right choice of voting -- rank choice of voting. one of the things that i have found is true is there are many assumptions that are made, but not necessarily a lot of information in terms of how it has actually worked. i believe that a very strong

case can be made and has been made as to why rank choice of voting is a good thing for san francisco, but i do think that we need to be mindful that we could actually play a role in doing an objective study of what has actually happened with rank choice boating. i raise that as a possibility. i do not know where members of the commission are in terms of lafco providing that kind of role in gathering that kind of information -- with rank choice of voting. it would allow the city to have objective information about how voting has actually happened in san francisco. that is why i wanted to bring it forward as a discussion item and a possible action item. i do not know if there are any

comments. commissioner avalos. commissioner avalos: just a question to the chair -- currently, do we have any official documents summarizing rank choice voting and how successful it has been in terms of informing voters of how the vote, looking at voter turnout records with the past elections -- do we have anything official from the city? do we have such a document? if such an analysis does not currently exist in an official capacity. commissioner campos: i have directed with the understanding that we would have a much larger discussion here -- directed staff to just, you know, in a very limited way, gather some of the information that is available. there is some information, but i do not know that we have everything that we should have, and the reason why it is -- the

reason why this is on the agenda is to see if there is an interest on the part of the commission to direct lafco staff to actually gather that information, to really put together all the information that the city and county has available, with the idea that once that information is gathered, maybe we could conduct a study or analysis of what it shows. commissioner avalos: i think it is a worthwhile activity. i also think, given that rank choice voting seems to be the cutting edge or not commonly practiced all across the country, we can look at other places where it is and what the temperature is like in terms of the public acceptance, which is an issue here in san francisco or may or may not be an issue, but i think it is something that may be worth exploring. the kinds of trends we are

seeing elsewhere as well, just as a comparison of san francisco, and maybe there are possible growing pains that places that an act rank choice voting have in their natural maturation process, and i think it is worthwhile to compare side-by-side what is happening in san francisco just as a point of comparison and contrast. commissioner campos: thank you, commissioner. commissioner pimentel. commissioner pimentel: i think it is a good idea to see if rank choice voting has confused citizens who might not understand. has it decrease turnout or increased. i think it is an opportunity to see how it has affected residents of san francisco. commissioner campos: great. i welcome those comments. that is one of the reasons i wanted to have this item because i do think that these are the kinds of things that we can do,

and i think that one approach might be to simply give direction to staff to continue gathering what is available and may be to compile some of that information. depending on where that is, at some point, we also have the ability in our funding, if we need to hire any experts to shed light on some of the data to do that. staff could definitely come back to us with a more specific proposal on what that would look like. commissioner avalos: i would recommend that we move forward on that. again, i just want to reiterate -- i think it is worthwhile looking at how many places around the country do have rank choice voting. it would be useful to have as a comparison. i think that is part of what the attack on rank choice voting has been in san francisco -- that it is not a very common thing, but

we have had it almost 10 years, and i had never really heard those comments until last year. the stakes seemed to be a lot higher for a lot of people last year, too, so if there is a way to normalize with the process is, by looking at what is done elsewhere and how common it is elsewhere, i think that would help give us some perspective. commissioner campos: thank you. before we go to staff, i wanted to -- i do not know of staff has any comments or anything to add. >> more than happy to study whatever parts or aspects of elections are going on. i think this is something initially we could definitely do internally with staff, but one of the things -- i did do some preliminary looking, but the one thing that i think would be needed is the department of elections over the last few years has -- at least with what

they have available on their website -- has changed how they report numbers, so it might be useful to see if they have the old files and we could do a comparison. in some cases, they have under voting and over voting mixed together, and in some cases, they have them separated. if there's a way to determine with previous elections, if they still have the numbers behind them, to put an together. commissioner campos: to the extent that there is very specialized expertise that may be needed, i would trust that you would come back to us and let us know if you have hit a point where that is the case and where we need to authorize, you know, the hiring of anyone else, of an expert. ms. miller, anything to add? >> no, i think we have directions from you. i would add that part of the direction is also what commissioner avalos was saying

with the issue of consumer acceptance or potentially consumer education, whether or not that is necessary. we will add that to the list of things to look at. commissioner campos: i think that is a very important piece. the consumer education peace -- i mean, the voter education peace that is related to the question commissioner pimentel raised i think is an important one. we have heard some argument that this is, you know, keeping some voters from participating. the whole point of rank choice voting is to increase voter participation. in some of the service, the polling that was done actually shows that there has been a pretty good understanding across the board, but i think that being able to have specific data or information on that issue would be very helpful. >> right, and we will look to see whether there are studies out there and let you know. commissioner campos: before we

act on this, why don't we open it up to public comment? if any member of the public would like to speak on this, please come forward. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks. i deeply apologize for being a serial public comment, but this issue is due to the heart of me, as a green and a lover of good democracy. i would wholeheartedly support the direction you are going. i would also add we should study other countries like australia. they have had rank choice. canada has had a little bit of it in british columbia. it is not limited to the united states. just to bring this down to why this is so important to lafco, we are in a situation where we may be at some point in the future appointee a municipal -- setting up a municipal utility district that has an elected board. it is conceivable that our cca