the savings from purchasing recs between a build out receive which is about $18 million and a lower rate which is 12.86 cents. the final scenario shows the effect on the rate if you use all the purchasing saving recs to lower the rate and you would have no additional funds for build out. >> so it looks like it increases about 5.5 and $20.25 per month depends on how we determine the recs? okay. >> there is another table that

shows the same types of relationships if you had a resource mix of the bundle product and 45 percent of the -- >> i'm sorry. the table she's actually looking was not in the packet. it's on your desk. this is the new version that she's referring to so you can look at it more closely. >> it's on your screen. >> the rates are a little bit higher and the reserves are a little bit lower in the various scenarios because of the cost of that second product called firmed in shape. the differences between those three

products depending on who you talk to is very significant and not very significant. we can explain that more if you like. they are all green, they are all california certified. >> who presents the best scenario in terms of the range of opinions of the cost were each of these? >> you mean the staff on best scenarios? >> you mentioned staff and other people? >> there were commissioners who were concerned about purchasing 85 percent recs which is something in the middle. we are not recommending the base case because the rate is just too high and there is nothing left

for build out and we understand the city's commitment to the build out. we create the same tables for any resource mix if there are any different ratios you would like to see. >> okay. thank you. >> the next table shows the different way of depicting of what's in that first table, the first one we talked about with the 10, 5, 85, mixture of resources. this shows the different component of rate relative to cost. the portion called energy for the different

green products. we are hoping to present to the commission a not to exceed rate on may 14th and to get them a little more information about the build out plan. are there any other questions? >> before we entertain questions i wanted to make one correction of what i said. barbara hale, general manager for association for power. on your question to me about combined heat and power and whether it can be renewable. it can we renewable, power with natural gas is not considered renewable. there are opportunities to power it with a biomethane product or other fossil fuel that are considered

renewable fuels and those opportunities would make it qualify as a renewably heated source. combined under the meter doesn't count under california's p s rules under the renewable requirements because it's behind the meter and not on the utility side. that doesn't mean the city wouldn't want to renew on the aspect but it's as well. >> it wouldn't qualify? >> if it were combined methane few it wouldn't qualify behind the meter towards our requirements. >> thank you. comments or questions? i want to announce we are joined by smeltser.

>> i want to mention how we are going to be promoting this on a mass level and i know there is some anxiety that shell shock campaign was getting the word out more and i'm reviewing the tweets from the twitter feeds and facebook social network messaging and it doesn't seem like we are way behind the curb and i noticed puc has noted two times since october and looking at the facebook feeds out of many different post there is only maybe 1, 2, or 3. do we have a strategy so we have a constant presence to promoting positive things and changes as we go forward because i feel unless we catch up, we are really going to be not getting our message out and not framing this correctly.

>> in fairness to miss malcolm, she's been focused on the local bill. i will try to respond to your questions. the puc has a strategy which includes socialization of the media that you are referring to. at this point the relative low level of activity you are saying is largely based on the fact that we are not clear through our decision making process of what the bottom message is of what we are offering it. we are keeping our powder dry until we have clear information to communicate. once we have opportunity to present further local build information on may

14th, once we have our decision on the commission on not to exceed rate then we are able to describe to our customer community, the rate, the premium, the resource mix, the build opportunity that this program envisions and then we'll have a strong message to communicate. >> thank you. >> your welcome. >> thank you, miss hale, i appreciate that. i think my fear that i made through the chair that if we wait until we do have that clear message, by that point we will have lost a lot of ground in terms of the potential interest in this program and so i am really worried about that. i think that -- i'm hoping there is an

intermediate step short of having the final decisions on rates that allows us to put the word out there about this program release some of the basic characteristics of it. i don't know if you thought about that because i'm afraid if we wait until may 14th, or whenever, that it maybe too late. >> i hear and share your concern. i think it's quite fair to say that the audience is getting a message that leads out our perspective. so we will go back to our communication staff at the puc and see what we can do about making sure that we have a stronger presence that doesn't cost us too much of our limited communications budget for this program to make sure that we do have a voice within the

relatively low cost social media tools that are available to us, certainly. >> i think my message not only to the puc but to the advocates working on this, a lot of work has been done, i think we are rightly focusing on the build out and it has to be a priority here and we need to have a communication strategy in the meantime as we are finalizing these decisions in making sure that we have this lower rate as we can and the build out moves forward quickly and as robust as we can, but i don't think we should wait until we get to where we need to be on that to engage public information about this. >> we hear you, thank you. >> i'm also looking at the

website for clean power sf and i appreciate the fact sheet's been done but i don't find it on the website. it seems it's a real critical piece of information that needs to be up there as soon as possible. >> that's an easy fix. >> i'm anxious that we get moving on this so we don't lose more ground. thank you. >> it seems like the fact sheets were created and no distribution about them and there was months ago they were created and if they are not distributed, i'm not sure how good they are. can we get a plan next week about how to get them out? >> yes. >> okay. and then we'll have miss malcolm and she'll be pointed on this as well? >> yes. our communication staff

we rely on. >> we did get to them a couple months ago and what did come out of that is we would have the faq's and let's make sure we are moving on this as well. >> we provided to the commissioners and other members of the board of supervisors offices for distribution within their networks. i know distribution occurred, but the point well-taken, if it's not on our website, we need to correct that and we need to figure out other steps we could be take to -- take -ing to make sure that gets out. >> welcome. thank you. >> i was going to give you more on regulatory development. both on the public utilities commission. the first has been

filed by pg and e that would set the groundwork for a city tariff. you know the city supports green tariffs. we do have some concerns about this settlement. first of all the rate making formula is unclear, the cost are unclear, the risk for program success is assumed by general body instead of by pg and e which is different from the city of san francisco. all of the initial resource that will be assigned this particular realtime is from energy that's already been purchased under contract by pg and e. there are provision for

pg and e for these resources. so they are browning this product instead of a green product. they are looking for a settlement. there is another proceeding. pg and e filed an advice letter which is required by the state law and puc's rule with regard to the code of conduct for marketing against pca's. the utilities were required by march 31st to state whether they would market against cca's or alternatively to create an independent marketing organization. the two other large utilities in the state sce and tempra decided

not to set up independent lobbying organizations or marketing organizations. pg and e states that it is retaining it's right to create one. it does not state that it will create one or that it plans not to create one. so, this is not consistent with state law and the san francisco puc will be filing a protest and asking the commission to direct pg and e to make-up it's mind. >> a poisoned -- point of clarification, we filed that. >> and when do we expect to have any kind of ruling? >> because it's an advice letter, we'll probably go on the commission's agenda in the next month or two unless pg and

e withdraws the letter and they can make a recommendation by the staff. >> thank you. >> any other questions? thank you very much. >> nancy miller, your interim executive officer. i would like to welcome you to the team. we are very excited. jason and i met with her. it's very nice to fill that slot. we are getting a lot of focus in terms of time and staff to be able to lead and deal with all these major issues we have going on with cca. just today i would like for to you authorize staff to present a protest letter to the chair to the same puc proceeding and just setting forth, we'll piggy back on what the puc has said and use some

stronger language where appropriate to make our concerns known about the pg and e request. secondly just a couple updates. or m o u. memorandum of understanding was approved by the sf puc. so that was taken care of and the peer review, the update is smud what i talked about before is willing to do for free a report on the deliverables and how they approach that kind of program similarities and providing a little bit of guidance there and i have been in contact with just recently with the advocates to make sure that we coordinate in terms of the work that's being done on

the peer review. we talked last month with the contract with lafco and they have some people they would like us to consider as well. the report i was planning on having when we come back on the next meeting. i'm not sure when that is, early in may i anticipate. my schedule for the early peer review is by the end of may. depending on when i will be meeting we'll bring that back to you. the #9 >> thank you. >> thank you miss miller. my question had to do with the timing and exactly what would the report look like? >> it won't be a report from this. it will be more like a letter in going through in terms of how they view it and

giving us some guidance. i don't think we need another report, it's more of a summary, taking a summary of what lpi has done in terms of their program for build out and providing some comments and guidance as well guidance. the s f p u c didn't describe the model. it's the program, the cost, the types of programs that will be looked at in our peer review. >> in terms of the role or the input from the advocates, i know they have some other suggestions as well. what do you envision that to be? >> there i want to talk to them about, they provided a list of for, i'm thinking we use one,

figuring out maybe which one and i don't know about in terms of engagement and the people they suggested. once again that may delay timing of that person because i haven't talk to those people yet. >> thank you. >> okay. any other thing to add? okay. we can open up for public comment. item 3 is up for public comment. any member of the public would like to comment, please come forward. >> i would like to comment on smart meters and -- >> actually that would be for general public comment later in the agenda. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. rick brooks from the local grass roots organization of our city. so

just would like to take this up to 30 thousand foot level and focus on let's and p g and e offering. on the state level sierra club and other organizations and i have been a statewide organizer in this process as well. we've done a pretty good job and created a double edge sword with ourselves with this whole quote unquote green offering from pg and e and it was going to be this green thing and it's kind of garbage to be hops -- honest and they are not really renewable. what the organization established with pg and e is forcing this -- them to propose something

better. it cost. they are going to be able to sell that even though we might think this is a reality. even though there is some delay, why it's so critical from the standpoint of the advocates that we make sure that our rate is competitive than what pg & e is putting

forward. i have one recommendation to this. i think we should rock bottom a not to exceed rate at the 11.1 cents that they show you at the bottom of their charts and also include in the resolution, propose this to the s f p u c. that they are allowed to charge slightly above to get funds to help plan the fund for a build out and things like that. finally i want to say to the specifics of the build out that advocates are going to want to see much more detail before we feel confident that this is a real and strong build out program. anyway on that first rate proposal, if we get that moving forward we can do that right away without too many

risk and that will put us in a position. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> good afternoon. i'm from the chapter of the bay clubful -- i want to thank you for all your leadership and thank you to kim. it's been wonderful having her on board and the advocates have met with her and it's been a very good open discussion and collaborative process. we really enjoy having you and we are glad to be working with you and also in the spirit of being collaborative i want to make sure that we are all working together on the rates and the decision suspect just -- isn't just made with the puc commission. i think with the advocates with puc and lafco to

seeing what the options we have before deciding on the rate. i understand it needs to happen quickly but i hope we can meet together to discuss those things. thank you very much. have a great afternoon. >> thank you, any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we'll close to comment. this is an information item, so we have possible action on here, but we don't -- >> it would just be a motion to authorize the chair to sign a letter to be filed with the puc with the pg & e matter. >> okay. so moved. >> second? okay. seconded and can we take that without objection. >> commissioner breed? >> i guess i want to understand why we would need to do that? why we would need to authorize

the signing of a letter? >> you don't need to, if the chair wants to sign a letter is that we discussed it at the commission. it's just a communication. it's typically a courtesy to the other members that this letter is going out. >> okay. thank you. >> if any commissioner wanted to object to it, i suppose it would be the time to say that. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. so colleagues can we take that motion without objection? . the motion passes. >> the next item please. >> item 4, the budget for 2013-2014. >> jason with lafco staff. we gave you the last budget and

between meetings we have come to the conclusion with the same budget being presented today. i didn't get any objections over the course of the month of representing the final budget this way. if anyone has any questions, i will be happy to answer. it's the same presentation as last time. i can do it again. >> just do your brief summary. >> the brief summary as we have done for the last five years, we have the right to get to the money that we are allocated by the city and county of san francisco, but we have given the money back for the next year and we are recommending that we do this year as well. >> thank you. we can open this up for public comment. the nature of the lafco budget for public comment. seeing none, we'll come forward. >> i do have a question on that, from the local green

grass organization. if lafco decides over next month or two that some added contractor work is necessary for peer reviews, it's, does the fact that we are going to give back to the city preclude us from -- some of the proposal could be substantial, you know a $100,000 could it be precluded? >> no. the money coming back is from the puc. we are fine. >> okay. seeing no further public comment, we'll close public comment. we'll move for a motion. passes without objection.

>> item 2 -- offices between election cycles. >> last month we came to the draft presentation for your input and comment. the one thing we did get and have included in the new package of high level perspective is the top ten cities national. we realized when we were compiling that list that four of them were already in the report, there are are top ten california cities and that categorization. we did add the additional 6 six to the report. you have 3 things in front of you and i have copies for the public. it gives a good written detail and the excel spreadsheet you have gives the detail for each individual jurisdiction for office that's being looked at. i'm going to run through powerpoint and

answer any questions that you may have. looks like you have two copies of the powerpoint there. i would go with that one there. >> the goals and objectives was a reminder was to look at how san francisco replaces it's elected officials in mid cycles and comparison to that and how other jurisdictions do that and we added other consolidated city counties and california are the ones where they go together. there are a lot of places that have consolidated cities and counties where the population was really small. we did not look at those. we looked at alaska that has small populations where it wasn't necessary