supervisor farrell, farrell aye supervisor kim, kim aye supervisor mar, mar aye, supervisor wiener, wiener aye, supervisor yee, supervisor breed? there are 11 ayes. madame clerk can you please begin reading todayth's memoryianians yes on behalf of supervisor kim for the late hs carey stockholders and doctor marlene yens and on behalf the avalos for the late mr. clone. >> that concluded our business for today mr. president. at this time, meeting is adjourned

go 49ers.

>> thank you. good afternoon and welcome to the friday january 25, 2013 meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is david employ campos and i am chair of the commission. we welcome everyone to the meeting and wish everyone who is watching a very happy new year. madam clerk if you would call roll. >> president campos. >> present. >> commissioner avalos. >> commissioner schmeltzer. absent. >> commissioner mar. commissioner pimentel. >> if i may i know with commissioner pimentel there is

an illness and if we could excuse here. >> okay. mr. chair, we have a quorum. >> before we start we would like to thank the clerk linda wong and acknowledge the sfgtv staff for covering the meeting today. madam clerk if you can please call item two. >> item two is election of the chairperson and the vice-chairperson for 2013. >> okay colleagues this is something that we do every year at the local agency formation commission, and i've had the honor of serving in the capacity of chair of lafco for the last two years following the tenure of then commissioner that was before me and it has been an exciting time for me, a

fruitful two years, and the most important thing of course that happened in the last two years is the fact that we got approval of the community choice aggregation program by the board of supervisors, and i want to thank the interim executive officer as well as lafco staff, ms. miller and mr. fried for the great work that they have done but i do believe in the positions, in these rules that it's important for other members of the commission to play a leadership role and one of the great things about this body is that we have a lot of talent and i've had the honor of working with vice chair avalos in the last two years and it's been an honor and pleasure to serve with him, and i think that he has all of the qualities,

expertise, temperament, ability to do a great job as chair of this body, so with that in mind it is my pleasure and honor to nominate commissioner john avalos to be the next chairperson. >> and i second that. >> all right. are there any other nominations? commissioner avalos. >> thank you. and thank you for your confidence and i will accept the nomination and i would like to acknowledge your great work on the committee, on lafco and the commission, especially the approve of cleanpower sf which i see is one of the most landmark pieces of work, legislation that we have done in recent years at the board and at lafco together, and i would want to count on your work and expertise and your

knowledge and serving as vice chair of this commission will be very helpful for me and the commission overall to make sure we have good continuity of your work so i would like to nominate you for vice chair. >> great. so we have a nomination -- >>i will second that one too. >> seconded by commissioner mar and i am proud to accept the nomination commissioner avalos, and it would be my pleasure and honor to serve with you as vice chair of this commission, and i am certainly committed to helping in any capacity as you as the chair if elected believe is appropriate, so i want to say they am honored to serve. so we have colleagues a nomination of commissioner john avalos to be the next chairperson of local agency formation commission, and a nomination of myself to serve

as vice chair, so unless there is any comment why don't we before we take the action open it up to public comment. if there any member of the approximately that would like to speak. >> good afternoon. you have to pardon my voice. i am getting back over the nasty cold that has been going around so i won't speak long but thanks to all three of you and lafco for the work you have done over the years to get cleanpower sf moving forward because it's now getting to the stage where it is going to more and more become a green jobs and a local jobs program. it's really fitting supervisor avalos is being made the chair of the commission. thanks. >> thank you. any other member

of the public who would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. so colleagues can we take those two nominations without objection? >> without objection. congratulations to chairperson avalos and the gavel is yours. >> thank you very much and it's an honor to have your support and look forward to our work together over the next year at least and beyond. let's call the next item please. >> item three is approval of the lafco minutes from the december seven, 2012 welfare regular meeting. >> colleagues we have attachment with our lafco minutes. those are up for approval and before we make any comments on this item we will open it up for public comment on our lafco

minutes. seeing no one come forward we will close public comment, and colleagues can we have a motion. >> i move approval of the minutes. >> okay. >> second. >> and we can take that without objection. minutes approved. item three -- four please. >> item four community choice aggregation activities report and update on cleanpower sf and proceeding at the california public utilities commission. >> very good. we have two presenters for this item. first is barbara hale. >> thank you mr. chairman. barbara hale assistant general manager for power at sfpuc so i wanted to update you on three items, our overall clean timeline, our recent activities at the public utilities commission and activities at the california public utilities commission so with respect to the time line. at this point we're on track. by this date

we should have completed presentations at our commission on the presentation by local power on their proposed business case and financial deliverables, and have presented before the commission materials to start to get them familiar with the not to exceed rate proposal which we have been discussing with the board. those activities went forward on tuesday and i will talk about that and we might see slippage with individual elements but even with they am seeing cleanpower sf given to the customers as our published calendar projected the slippage is in part because we're still

getting the rate fairness board comfortable with the not to exceed rates with how the mix of resources we rely on for our cleanpower sf program influences the overall all cost of the services and their the rates. with the impact of fully recovering the 13 million of hetch hetchy revenues that we're dedicating to this program and providing the security necessary for this program consistent with the board of supervisors' action. the pace of that recovery also has an impact on rates so we have been spending time with the board on those issues, so our adoption of the not to exceed rates at our commission may slip a little bit. we're also working -- what is the timeline to get those approved. >> the actual approval was to

happen at our commission on february 12 and i think it might slip to march, early march instead of early february. >> so we need the rate fairness board make a determination before the puc board. >> yes. we like for them to be comfortable to provide advice to our commission. we are at the same time pursuing our polling of customers with those not to exceed rates, with that mix of resources to see -- to test the customer comfort with the overall program offering. we won't have those results as quickly as we thought we were going to have them so that is another factor, and they're interested in knowing what the results of that polling effort is, and we've certainly told our commission that we won't bring the not to exceed rates to them until we have that comfort level up.

>> when you say "polling" are you talking about an actual poll to survey by phone? >> yes. the phone survey of customers. it's refreshing of the same survey, same type of survey we connected earlier on in the program to make sure we still have good data to base our expectations of customer opt out and acceptance of the program offering. >> is that something you can share next time we meet? >> yeah, we should be in a position to share the questions. i think we're going to preview the approach with you informally. i don't know if that preview can happen in the public setting given -- i don't think we want to wait for that until we launch it. >> i think it would be great to share with you as members of lafco. >> yeah, sounds great. >> [inaudible] >> i can wait. >> thank you. so we did have as

i said our commission meeting on tuesday did address the cleanpower sf. we did get a presentation from local power, our consultants that are advisingous how to structure the program to accelerate the local build out. that presentation involved quite a bit back and forth and questions from the commission and we're compiling the questions and working with local power to provide the commission specific questions and i am happy to share those with lafco board members as interest is expressed and with respect to california public utilities commission activities on the cleanpower sf front it's really at this point a focus on direction by the california public utilities commission to engage the parties interested in pg&e's green tariff option and settlement discussions so we have been participating with

those parties that expressed interest in meeting the commission's direction on that. the commission -- the california public utilities commission has set hearings on that request by pg&e for february 15 and so that's pretty much the deadline if there is going to be agreement as to what this program will look like it will be known by then and that's all i have to present to you up front. i am happy to answer questions or anything that the staff wants to augment what i said. thank you. >> commissioner campos. >> thank you chair avalos and again congratulations on your election as chair and i also note with a new board of supervisors coming in there are a couple of vacancies on the commission i hope will be filled shortly and we have some pretty

talented newly elected members of the board they hope will serve on this body and we look forward to that. i wanted to ms. hale to follow up on a couple of things and thank you again for all your work. thank your staff. in terms of the rate setting process one of the concerns i have and maybe you can shed light on this, if i may through the chair, in terms of recouping the amounts of reserves that are going to be used here my understanding is there is some flexibility in how much is recoupd and depending how you use that flexibility that could impact rates so i am wondering if you could say something about that and what the thinking is around that issue? >> yes. you will recall when the board considered the program in august the board directed us to -- i can't quote the

language, but the basic message was to the extent feasible let's try and recover the dedicated funds. excuse me. what we presented as staff to the rate fairness board was full recovery of all of the funds during the first four and a half years of the program. of course the quicker you recover those funds the more a rate bump it has on the program, so the board dialogue has been around can we extend out how long we give ourselves to recover those funds? and i think under the adopted board direction, yes we can, and then the issue is. okay. if we want to by how much? and those are some of the questions we're addressing with the rate fairness board and we will present it to our commission similarly to say the rate that we are proposing to

you is a not to exceed rate. the ultimate rate that we charge customers will not exceed that so we see it as a ceiling. one of the factors that influences that ceiling is how quickly we recover that appropriate fund. >> thank you for that. i think the language that was voted on by the board of supervisors purposely flexible and i think it's about striking the right balance because if you tried to recoup the amount as quickly as you can possibly can and which is something some members of the board wanted and you could under mind the success of the program and that is not something the board adopted as

a rule so i certainly would like to see the timeline extended to a period that is reasonable because we obviously wants the money to be recouped, but not to the point it actually under minds the success of the program because then you're going to use more money anyway, so i would hope that that there is flexibility in that and that it's not a hard line rule that we have to recover it by four and a half years or whatever the timeline is. i hope there is a longer period of time and that is one point i think is important. i also think it's important that in the near future that we also have a follow up joint meeting with the san francisco public utilities commission on where the program is. >> sounds good. we would be happy to work with your staff to check calendars and make that

work. >> and the newly elected chair and i think it's good to do that and i have a final question and i am wondering if you could tell us about what is happening with the status of the hiring of a new community community choice aggregation director at the puc? as you know mr. campbell left last year and i think it's important to get a permanent replacement as soon as possible. >> thank you. yes. we do have an acting director at this point so we have a funded vacancy. we have taken that request to fill that vacancy through the city's process and i understand that we're awaiting word from the mayor's committee that releases request for filling such vacancies so it's pending. >> and do you know what the

process for that determination is? and how long are we talking about? and is there a specific concern that maybe keeping it from moving forward? >> i'm not aware of a specific concern having been expressed about frankly i'm not in the conversations directly. the public utilities commission and my group in particular has a number of vacancies that are in a similar movement through the process, so it's difficult to sort of read the tea leaves how soon that position might be released. concern about the fact that the vacancy remains a vacancy was expressed at our commission meeting on tuesday and our commissioners shared the concern, and i understand that's being communicated to the

committee that do that as well. >> i appreciate that and i understand it's not in your control for that issue but if i can ask whether there is anything we can do to expedite that process and communicating with the yor's office or any other way and i think it's important that they understand how significant it is to fill this position and we have a program by the board of supervisors and to do that you need a permanent replacement there and i hope that happens as soon as possible. thank you very much. >> okay. ms. hale thank you for your presentation. if there are no other questions we can go on to ms. miller.

>> i will add on to what was reported on there are continued meeting with the sfpuc staff and the stakeholders and meetings with the technical review process which is a peer review process and those meetings have been interim. as you expect there is some level of discussion about how -- i call it phase two, but the local build out is going to occur, when it's going to occur, how it will be funded, the timing of that, and the siewnchs made under the model and those are not always discussions. first of all just to try to get to understand where we are, and second what is needed to move forward so i wanted to let you know those are ongoing. i think they have been productive. i think while there is some difficulty in those that at

least your lafco's staff has pledged to see if we can figure out a common path to get the recommendation before you as soon as possible. i just wanted to bring that to your attention. thanks. >> great thank you. commissioner campos, we talked about joining puc lafco meeting. do you have a certain time that you think is most appropriate for that. >> you know i think a lot of it depends on the availability of both commissions, and in the past we have sort of left it to lafco and puc staff in terms of surveying i guess different members of the commissions to see what would work. i don't know if it's possible to do it next month, but i would leave

that up to staff in terms of knowing what would be the best route. >> and perhaps today leaving it open -- actually schedule a joint meeting for next month but the possibility could be there? >> yeah. >> okay. we will leave it at that. let's open up this item for public comment. any member of the public would like to comment on this item please come forward. >> good afternoon again commissioners. eric brooks. my clock started at two minutes and 15 secondses. can i get that adjusted? thank you. so eric brooks san francisco breen party and local grass-roots organization "our city". i wanted to speak to the issue that counsel miller raised yes

as to how we're going to do the build out there have been consider contentions shall we say in recent meetings and hammering that out and getting that right, and i won't go into details about all of that, but the main thing i would like to impress on the lafco commissioners is that there's been a new development in this dialogue that looks to be pretty problematic, and that is you know two years ago we the advocates and the lafco staff and other staff began work on earnest work for a build out and that model depends large numbers for the most part small local renewable instalations, efficiency installations. most

importantly behind the meter in customer's property and what that is about is -- it means it's after the meter that pg&e has on the house so what you're doing by doing small diverse local installations like that behind the meter you're avoiding a lot of cost of transmission and distribution that you would otherwise have to pay pg&e, and so that's the key to that model, and along with that you get the benefit that because you're installing a lot of small renewables and efficiencies installations you're creating a lot of jobs. right now the model that local power put forward looks like 3,000 a year, so it's very important that we keep on that model, but what we saw in the last week is that

because of some of the critiques of that model we have been working on for a couple of years the staff has proposed going to a completely different model that is building large solar farms at a distance in front of the meter so they have go through pg&e transmission and distribution lines and these would be sold the more expensive way to do renewables and all of this is going to roughly double the cost of the rate on energy to the customer, so it's vital that we get the lafco to send a strong message to the sfpuc hey that's not good enough. we need the local distribution and the local jobs. we need to get back to the other model and make it work. thanks. >> thank you. any other member of the public would like to comment please come forward.

>> david mc cord. i am the chair of the energy committee and san francisco has a great opportunity here now to develop really first class community choice aggregation system and right now there are two models presented. one by puc staff. they have been working diligently on that and also they -- the plan, the model being