scope of work that we were looking for in the new lobbying contract at the state level. we publicized it in sacramento through the newspaper circuits up there and threw the networks that we had there. we received three proposals. we had an outside panel that was completed with senior staff from the airport. and then we had our director of budget and internal affairs. we had the deputy assistant internal general manager on the panel. they received training with regards to the contract in department and what we were looking for in a successful applicant. they did the interview proposals and scored and zero steam as the highest score in that process. -- battle steine -- delstein e

-- edelstein as the highest score in the process. >> [inaudible] >> it was the same firm. yes? >> they may have been before that. we have a process of not just letting it ride. we do go out, but i believe they have some representatives for possibly 15 years, but they tended to be five-year contracts. in some cases we have done three years with one-year extensions or just five years. >> the other two firms were? >> the california strategy, i think that there score is in comparison and should be in your packet as well. >> the third?

>> i believe, and i will look to ivey, who was with us in contrast -- checking under 8. >> 8b. >> [inaudible] >> if there was lbe, i would be fine. i believe that there was a requirement on this proposal. they may have not -- and may not have met the lbe requirements. i might say that it was 10%, but i would have to double check that. >> they were not considered responsive? >> if you do not meet the -- meet the hrc requirement. >> had didedelsteid edelstein mt

requirement? >> they propose to work with the consultants for that. their proposals are to work with them at 3.5%. >> can you see any language on that? >> [unintelligible] >> i have a question on that item as well. there are other utility checks that use in-house lobbying services. was there a decision -- how did the decision, about to contract out, rather than provide this as in-house? >> >> we had conversations within the leadership of the puc. historically, we have used lobbyists in sacramento and they have done that quite well. they have discreet, concrete work plans that they go off of.

there was not a lot of interest in stepping up. you will remember that this past year, we hired a director of the budget of legislative affairs to town in how we are using our work locally. that was seen as a priority more so than hiring an additional position. >> it has always been a five- year contract? fa>> the last ones were five years. did you know for how long? >> the last contract, and i have been here for the state and federal legislative lobbyist, it was two one year terms. >> at the same amount? >> yes. >> three year, plus two one- year's.

>> yes. >> that sounds similar to what we do at the citywide contract in sacramento, right? >> one was the five-year, right? why the change? rather than a 311? >> as we have talked about at both the state in the federal, we landed on five, assuming the time it takes to actually go through the process, we have more direction and oversight based on legislative affairs. it seemed to make sense to go through a five-year contract. we had conversations with the mayor's office as well, as we had worked closely with them around legislative work. they were also briefed and solve the scope of work and that we would go in for five years of

the state and federal. >> if we wanted to change it to 311, would we have to bid again? if we wanted to make this change with an option for two additional one years, is that a decision that we could just make? >> that decision would be in the scope of what you put out, as long as you were not making it for longer than five years. >> can i ask one follow up? say that he wanted to shift a little bit and add additional work, taking off the bid at that point? when you were renewing the option? >> that would be a substantial change.

>> it would require an affirmative vote to exercise each of those one-year options. >> we are happy to do that, if that is where folks feel comfortable. if you want to do that in addition to the federal one, we just released the rfp last week. we could make those changes as well. >> has it always been five years? >> that was also a three, plus a one and one. >> well, i think we are -- where those five-year pause came from -- five-years came from, there was making sure that no one firm had a lock on the business forever. we started out with longer-term as an recognized that there was a need to reopen the bidding

from time to time. it was kind of from the other end as opposed to saying we want to go out for five years. the question is just -- i guess my question would be, what do we hope to achieve by doing that? we hope to create some degree of paper churning in doing that. if that was for a purpose, i would be fine with that. >> a five-year contract would not necessarily work as hard as a three-year contract. maybe in the fifth year i would start producing more. also, the politics changed so radically in sacramento these days. i just want to make sure that we have -- and i know this, but i want to make sure that we have the best possible options.

i do not think it is unreasonable for this contract to be consistent with a federal contract. waxman why not make it a federal contract, rather -- >> why not make it a three-year contract, then another? instead of may 3, 1, 1? >> we could do that, but that is a lot more paper to continue. three, plus the possibility of one ioneand one, you just have o do those annual renewals, which i agree keeps people on their toes. to set a three-year contract, you have to go out into a process at the end. this gives you the option of doing that or not. >> i would move to amend this

resolution for any term. i do not know what the language is other than a five-year term. >> second. >> on the amendment, and the discussion, commissioners? all of those in favor? a >> ye. -- >> aye. >> on the item as amended? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> any additional comments? any public comments? seeing no one, all of those in favor? ay >> e. -- >> aye. that concludes the consent calendar. madam secretary, if you would call item 10? -- 9? >> item #9. discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to seek board of supervisors approval and execute on behalf of the city and county of san

francisco, a master license agreement with the san francisco unified school district. the mla provides for the installation and operation of a series of on- site photovoltaic systems at appropriate locations throughout the sfusd, in order to provide solar power to serve some or all sfusd load as part of a city and county of san francisco program intended to increase the city's page 5 sfpuc march 13, 2012 development of solar energy. this mla sets forth the terms and conditions under which sfusd will allow the sfpuc to use certain sfusd sites for the purpose of installing, operating, and maintaining solar power projects. >> thank you, commissioners. barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. this will allow my staff and the staff of the unified school district to work together to identify good rooftops that the school district owns to install a solarpv o pv on and provide additional renewables generational resources here in san francisco. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners? >> i would like to move the item. >> thank you. >> i do have a question. i know that this does not

authorize the building of any particular installation. in that eventuality, who winds up paying for the solar? >> the solar installation would be paid for by the puc. it would be owned and operated by gas. the generation from that system would be meters. the school district would pay for the productions, for the generation they are using. they would pay, at the same rate -- it would pay, but did they say, at the same right? >> correct. >> it increases the amount of power that we have to sell on total. >> correct. >> it increases the average cost of that power. >> correct. very modestly. >> in it would be our hope to recover that by selling it to customers at the full market rate at the bank.

>> yes. >> the reason that i mention this, commissioner, is that it is not unlike some of our water system acquisitions, where we are adding capacity and not adding demand, and it has the ear -- if that of adding the average cost of the resource we are selling. the bottom line is how it works, that we have indicated we are one to pay premium in order to maintain certain environmental benefits. that this is the case in point and i wanted to make that point. >> correct. any system that would be invested in and installed, as we described, would be brought before you for a separate action in approval. >> thank you.

>> does this help our standing in some way? >> yes, we will better serve you renewable energy credit from this. it will count towards our rps requirements. >> do you know what amount at this point? >> i do not. this master license agreement gives us the opportunity to identify possible installations. >> break. -- great. it would be interesting to hear the range. i have the feeling that he will come back and say you have identified 120 schools that would be appropriate. if you could let us know the data that the commissioner was bringing up. >> probably not that many schools, off the bat. the school district is also concerned about doing maintenance work on the roof. and all of that does not happen

right away. >> one quick question about -- if you do not mind -- would you be kind enough to develop a little bit on item k, prudent utility practice with references? >> can you give a page number, commissioner? >> on the master license agreement. those methods and procedures as modified from time to time that are currently in common use by electric utilities to construct a electric power facilities for efficiently and economically. the question is, there is a reference to electric utilities. >> what we are referring to there is good utility practice. primarily under the electrical codes. there are standards to be met.

buff faitwe are committing to tl district that we are applying those standards. >> this is on the global installation work? >> it is on the photovoltaic installation and electrical components. the objective here is for safe operation of an installed system and ensuring the school district that allowing us to install a solar generation system on the rooftop is not going to compromise the safety and integrity of the building, from the electrical standards perspective. >> i understand that. >> the question would be -- does

this in some way -- say that you use historical project -- practices? >> good utility practice evolves over time. we would be meeting the current standards and current accepted approaches. it should not hold us back from being an innovator, but we would definitely need to stay within code requirements. phel>> does that apply to our employees and subcontractors? >> correct. >> i really do not want to belabor the point for a number of reasons, but my concern is that we are pointing to electric utilities -- to me we are pointing to electric utilities to give us some guidance about what is safe, prudent, and best

practice. let's talk about pg&e. let's make a determination about how they rolled these things out into does that work. are we going to get into that conversation with the school district as well? >> for us, when we talk about electric utilities, we're talking about the western electric system. not just out pg&e performs its work, but what the industry practice is an industry standards are. the references are there to apply to the state of california or the western electric coordinating council. we are casting a wide net in looking at the standard practices and innovations as they occur throughout the western united states. we are not constrained to look

only at pg&e practices. >> i guess i am belaboring the point now. i guess that my concern is, because of what you stated earlier, this kind of tends to point backwards. item k, with respect to proving utility practices, tends to point backwards to what the utility companies currently do, when in fact that public company is currently the innovator. i am curious as to whether this was a necessary component or something that the school district felt comfortable with. i do not know that it is necessary for that to be there. that it is material enough to delay moving this item forward.

it does not seem to me to encourage the practice that the public utilities commission is engaging in. it in fact seems counterproductive to that. the you understand? >> commissioners, may i make a suggestion? this is in the definition area and that might be useful to find out where it is used. we can take a look to see if in fact it is used, where it is used, and if that answers some of it. >> i appreciate that. >> let's do that and come back. >> then we will continue this item until the end of the agenda. i guess we are ready to move on

to item 10. >> i do not know if you want to call public comment on the last one, but we have not finished it. items 10, lebron, and 12 are somewhat interrelated. -- tan, a 11, and 12 or somewhat and bridging into related. -- items 10, lebron, and 12 are somewhat interrelated -- items 10, 11, and 12 are somewhat interrelated. >> item number 10. discussion and possible action to adopt a framework for land management and use relating to sfpuc lands not otherwise subject to specific policy guidance, including leases or permits for secondary uses on sfpuc land, disposition of sfpuc owned lands and acquisition of land by the sfpuc. >> i am here before you with framework documents. we have a long discussion last time. we have actually taken it out and done some outreach to the citizens advisory committee, to

the barry water stewart and others. we have not made any changes. most of these we heard were generally that it formed a framework for decision making and it was not addressing any specific property. i want to make that clear. we were not addressing a specific property for these plans at that point in time. >> question. >> yes, commissioner. >> under item 10, let's see what it is called here, the framework of land management used. is that the old one? under tamil lebron, do we have the new one? >> 11 is the realistic guidelines. that is where the confusion comes in. we called on both at the same time, last time.

>> the framework is the umbrella. then the detailed guidelines? >> more procedural about how we actually right leases and permits. >> #10 is the new one? >> yes, it is the framework document and it is the same as it was last time. and this item, my understanding is that this does not change policy of the commission, correct? >> there are existing policies in place and be listed those in the framework document. this does not change any framework policy that we currently have. >> the effect of adopting this? >> the effect of adopting this

is that it is a decision making pool for you to lose -- for you to use. it leases permits. documents and staff will show, with criteria, such lines of those types of transactions. the intent is it is a restatement of policy that already exists. >> yes. >> ok. >> i like to comment on that, too. i thought it was interesting to look at mr. richie's memo about surplus property. >> that was me. >> it was? >> but that memo that talked about surplus and those

properties will be reviewed and evaluated. what i think the framework helps with is to look at it with an additional ones, our triple bottom line lands. it is not purely about economics. going back to commissioner caen's comment. it is hard to look at these properties throughout the cookie cutter approach. we need to look at each one in a unique way. i appreciate the effort of this framework to at least have some guidance and cohesion around the different lenses and policies that do exist that we might be able to make a bit more of an informed decision that takes into account not just the dollars and cents of the project but any other value add or any other additional community benefits that might be part of the parcel. that is how i feel this from work as something to facilitate our decision making as a specific parcel may or may not come before us to understand the

context of it. >> my expectation is the individual items to come in front of us for that kind of consideration. it would be within -- the discussion would be within this framework. we would talk about the objectives of disposition of land, how it meets the three criteria. and this overall framework. it helps from our future discussions as well. -- frame our future discussions as well. >> could i have a motion? >> so moved. seconded. >> we do have some public comment. mr. caen. >> good afternoon. i want to commend and thank you

all for dressing this issue. the framework is something that is helpful to the public. if it is confusing on these properties and to you is confusing to us. this is helpful in understanding the direction of this. thank you for addressing the san francisco reservoir. removing their roof is a positive step and is welcomed by the community. i did want to mention a couple of things. the framework could use classification in trying to categorize all these properties, the resolution and the body of the document rex them into categories. number one is sfpuc land. everything under sfpuc jurisdiction. and everything within the disposition of sfpuc owned lands and acquisition. this -- this position section is

meant to apply exclusively to sfpuc owned lands but when you get to the disposition section, the term owned has been deleted or was not there in the first place. the disposition section talks about sfpuc-owned land and the text says sfpuc-owned land but the heading does not. if the intent is is only to apply to sfpuc-owned land, adding the word owned to that section would make sense. if that is not the intent, you'd want to remove that word from the resolution and elsewhere in the document so it reads consistently. also if the city and county of san francisco properties that are discussed on page one as being included in the jurisdiction of the puc and management including disposition, i would suggest

adding a criteria to the disposition section which includes the city policies that are addressed in page 4. i do not see mention of incorporation of city policies in the disposition section under criteria. city policies do fall under that category. i know that it's confusing. that was not clear to me and i went to make that point to you. thank you for your consideration. president moran: thank you. commissioner vietor: i would like to ask mr. carlin if -- to add the word owned on sfpuc land. >> that is on the title. >> the title, roman number ii. the