leadership that you are showing on this issue and we know our chair could not be here today but he's also been a very important player in all of this and i see some of the advocates who had been working on this for quite sometime and i want to thank you for being here and i think for being more patient than probably anyone should be -- i think it makes sense to figure out how we move forward with the build out and i think that the rfp idea is something that provides that opportunity. the one thing that i would like to figure out how we incorporate into anything we do is how do we make sure that we don't reinvent the wheel and that we maximize the benefits from work that has already been

done. we, as an agency, have invested a lot of money in work by entities like public power and local power -- how do we make sure that their work is incorporated into whatever happens. because we do are have work that has been done that provides a potential framework and i don't know what that looks like in terms of an rfp but i think it's important for us to make sure that work consult ants have done for lafco is a part of what is done and we don't lose that work and the other question i've had for quite sometime is what is it that we, as a city, can do internal ly as well to move the

ball rolling and one question is the issue of the h bonds and are there actions by the board of supervisors by the city that should be taken as part of any kind of build out or for any build out to move forward? that's something that i would like to be considered as we're putting together an rfp. i also would be interested in knowing more about what the timeline for an rfp would be and what that looks like you know in terms of putting an rfp together and getting responses and how long before we actually have any work completed. i don't know if it's a matter of months is it a year, is it longer and i don't know if staff has any thoughts on all of that.

>> we would want to bring it back to you because the scope of work is really important and i think the scope of work would have certain options and tasks with it and we'd advertise for approximately 30-days probably sixty for us to get it done and the product usually takes a few months depending on what we're asking for so that will really be determined by the scope. marketing -- answering some of those questions and some of the information that's already available we're really looking at long-term build out and identifying facilities there's been some work that's been done both at the sfpuc and lafco consult ants that we ought to update and what could be done now i know there's been ideas about grant applications and putting different kinds of solar facilities that are

follow upping up on what the department is doing now and miss hail can speak to that so the use of h bonds we would have to have someone paying for that power unless there's -- you know there are programs available here and there that i know the sfpuc sdp department of the environment look to and are we maximizing our use of grants. >> what are the various financing options that are available and you know i would like to hear you know if there are different proposals and different approaches to that. >> uh-huh. >> and then another question is you know to the extent that this work goes smoothly and we

get the kind of work product that is needed to we want to see, are there still internal challenges that will prevent us from moving forward with something? because, you know, we are here even though we have a program that's been proved by the board of supervisor's and so how do we make sure that we don't go down the path of doing additional work only to find ourselves in the same predicament. >> i think that's a good question and i don't think there's assurance that i could give you today either -- perhaps you know more better communication and better plan i don't know maybe that helps the

dialogue and helps remove some of the opposition. >> and i'll turn it over to commissioner breed. >> another component to the extent we can engage our labor partners in this at least having a conversation about what it would take to address some of those concerns we're going to have to deal with that issue anyway. >> right. >> thank you and i do appreciate commissioner campos you brought up the fact that there's already been a lot of work done i don't want us to reinvent the wheel and start over i think the fact that we've already got a lot of work done -- develop this comprehensive plan with work that has already been done and what's important is in order to make sure that we are successful, we want to have a

solid comprehensive plan that makes it difficult for those who oppose this plan to make excuses as to why they don't support it i think that's part of what my desire is here although i want us to move forward although i think we could also simultaneous ly move forward and get some of these things done but these things continue to be used as an excuse as to why we can't move this program forward and what i'd like to do simultaneous to dealing with the political drama around trying to convince various groups of folks that this could be great for the city if we could come together and offer our opinions make the

changes to move it forward i think we need to begin the process of bringing in the right level of consult ants and experts to help us put together a more comprehensive plan in addition to some of the things that are missing in the plan i think that's really what i'm looking for i think that it would really help us in our efforts to move forward faster than not doing anything else and i think this is our best option at this time and also my expectation because i'm not an expert in power or anything of that nature so i want to make sure that we have the people that are good at this kind of work assisting us and making the best recommendation so that we can make the best decision as policy makers around this

issue so this is why my suggestion is to put out or to develop an rfp around all of these things so -- and it could be a one part rfp or 2 part rfp but we want to get this plan in place and we want to plug in some of the holes and already the existing items that we're dealing with in order to make sure that we make it more difficult for people to try and and oppose this plan. >> great. any other comments or thoughts from colleagues or staff. any member of the public would like to speak on this item, please come forward. >> one more thing to add that was separate from the rfp that the public may want to comment on after i make my presentation

as aj hill mentioned any cca program can apply for the city and county of san francisco does have a cca program we're not serving any customers but according to the books -- right now the department of the environment gets that money through pg and e but there's no reason why the city and county of san francisco can't apply for that money directly and have its own program on top of what they get from the pg and e fund. if we apply directly we can actually the city can get the money directly so one thing that could potentially be done the board of supervisors can take the green finance bill passed earlier in the week and use that as a model to and i know the department of environment has a lot of great ideas and the puc has ideas,

merge all those together while we're waiting to get a program up and running. there's no reason why we shouldn't be going after it for the city of san francisco. >> great. >> any member of the public who would like to speak you have up to 2 minutes. >> i'm al weinrub for the record anyway this is nice to hear you know the advocates that have been working on this for a long time have called for a comprehensive plan and we had a comprehensive scope of work and it got cut short about march of last year if i remember correctly but within

that -- the work that has been done calls for a number of very important measures that can be done in terms of behind the meter capabilities and the use of combined heat and power the ability of integrating with new renewables a lot of that work is there what was left undone in that work was specifically the part of the work that has to do with the site selection and that was basically load data and other kinds of data to try to select them from among the universe of meters those would probably be the best ones to approach the building owners to figure out a cet of projects that could be developed over time and would indicate the kind of financing and kind of jobs that would be coming out

of those projects and so i think we endorse strongly that notion of doing the site selection work and the definition of projects that could lead to the specific job numbers that we've been talking about in a very abstract sense and we know both at the sfpuc commission and mayor's office and many people who have comments about cleanpowersf is that well, the program that we're talking about doesn't match the intent and this would be a way of having the program match the intent to provide the data that the mayor says is not there and to provide the data that he says he's not sure about and so on and so forth so i think this is all very positive both the notion of starting from the framework

that exists to try to complete that notion and try to fill out the scope of work that had been laid out there. one of the important aspects was the integration of the work possibly that could be done by the department of the environment as well as the sfpuc in terms of bringing the strength of those organizations together so thanks very much for putting forward this notion and for moving on it that would be suburb. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. representing san francisco's local green party i want to say thank you very much commissioner breed for putting this on the table this is a huge big important step and also i'd concur with

commissioner campos suggestion's of things to work on this would need to be really comprehensive so we can cover all these bases and cover scenarios too what if we form a jpa or one with mar rin or one with an individual city and we should also consider the possibility that was raised by miss malcolm it seems like it's very possible if we can get cooperation from sfpuc that we do in house purchasing of electricity instead of having to go to a contract like shell we have the capacity to do that we just need to expand that capacity on the hech hetchy system. so we got to make sure that we're differentiating ourselves and we'll have an opt

out and eighty percent usually eighty percent of the people stay in as long as you have a competitive rate and we've gotten a competitive rate. so we'd get a much higher uptake and pg and e is going to be able to market itself as being a hundred percent green to maybe 2 percent of its customers and that's not real. please do consult with the advocates about the scope of work we really want some buy in on how that works out so we can make sure that this is a comprehensive rfp and that it covers all the bases and goes out to bid for the whole thing to get every possible bidder to make sure we get the right choices of who to implement it and this is vital to showing

the mayor's office and labor the reality of what we keep promising them and we don't see what labor's position right now is oppositional we see it as hey put up or shut up. show us what's real so we can get on board with you on this. whether or not the enterprise agency will implement this body of work needs to be done anyway just so that we can really make the case for labor and show how we'll get product labor agreements and sfrong strong union hiring and and please take the work underway and finish that work and that will give us -- >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> i'm here representing the

thousand of bay area citizens who are concerned about the future of our climate i would like to thank supervisor breed as well for introducing this idea i'm actually a constituent who has not gotten to meet you yet and i appreciate being represented like this i wanted to second the idea that we have a lot of existing work that's been done and if we fill in the gaps and holes into the that would be a lot better than starting over and i agree with commissioner campos legitimate concern but i think it's important to perceive of this as perhapses a chicken and egg issue so the plan -- i would argue is key to getting the public and political support that we want we don't have it

unless it seems like if we even had the plan that would be no good but i think the plan itself showing the jobs potential that gives member unions and the counsel as a whole an opportunity to evaluate their position as well as the public utilities commission to reevaluate the position as well it's necessary and mandatory that we show those jobs are real and i agree with mr. brooks that i don't fault labor for wanting to see that it's real. i've heard commissioners on the puc and commission on the environment and the mayor, while addressing the board of supervisors during question time refer to a half

plan or half baked plan or not ready for prime time plan and i agree with commissioner breed the plans not being completed is the main point that everyone uses to say that the program is not ready to launch even for them to approve not to exceed rates so i think a solid comprehensive plan is absolutely necessary to show not only to remove the excuses for folks who are perhaps taking action for other political reasons, but also substantive -- we might have citizens who need to see the data and i think if we can show both citizens and policy makers the data, then this will be a knockout. thanks very much. >> thank you very much. is

there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. the one thing that i would add in terms of understanding why it is that things haven't been moved forward i think it's a lot more complicated than what some of the opponents have said and i think that this rfp does make a lot of sense. that said, i do want to point out that a lot of the work that has been done in the last 2, 3 years, it's work that the very people who then turned around and said you know this work is incomplete, they were a part of that discussion so you know, we have to be mindful of the fact that there are going to be excuses that are going to be put forward and there are some people who are

always going to use those excuses but to the extent that there are legitimate concerns that some people have, this is an opportunity to bring them in with the understanding that even if you bring in some folks they may still not be satisfied at the end i think it's important for us to give them that opportunity and i do think that it's important that as we're defining the scope that we do check in with the advocate community to make sure that their points are taken into account. >> commissioner breed. >> yes i appreciate everyone's feedback and i'm actually very excited about this possibility and i think the time frame looks as if it could really work well for us. and i just wanted to get some clarity around the timeline specifically i know we're going to be approving next years

calendar and it looks like we have a meeting on the 24th of january and another meeting on february 28th and i think that miss miller it would take you roughly sixty days to maybe prepare this rfp and i was wondering if we would maybe be able to talk about a draft or look at a draft in order to solicit feedback from those who are interested so that we can incorporate that in the rfp before we hopefully are able to release it after we approve it maybe the february 28th meeting? >> yeah. i think the idea would be we'd start preparing -- i mean preparing the draft and then getting input from the various stakeholders that we've talked about today i think that it means we'd probably bring something back to at least

discuss in january hopefully and make sure we're going in the right direction. >> right. >> and then final i guess in february unless we've been able to really move and we've got something available in january that you are comfortable with to go with. >> okay. >> i think january for sure and february if we need to talk more about it meet more with people and flush out a little bit more. >> and also mr. brooks in public comment mentioned various scenarios -- i'm not sure of the time frame whether or not you could spell that out in the rfp, but i think that it is important to understand -- the goal, i think that i'm personally trying to get at is to provide the possibilities so i'd like to know a diverse

grouping of, you know, various layers of the situation and not just okay this is what we have to do but these are the possibilities but i don't know how that works within the time frame so maybe it's something to think about and let us know what your thoughts are on that so we can determine if it will work. >> so maybe an outline in january and you could give some feedback and i think we also need to think of resources and you know how much are we committing to this every endeavor and what's most important and where do we want to allocate because we could do a -- >> and this is something to think about because i know when i've met with mr. freid in the past about the budget many years we've given money back to the puc that we didn't use is

that not the case. >> we give it back to the general fund. >> so i'm hoping that we have enough money for the current fiscal year so we could not necessarily give that money back to the general fund and use that initially with the expectation that we'd have more money in the following fiscal year to help with this process ongoing so maybe we're able to kind of balance it out over fiscal years but it's something i know you guys have to look into and get back to on the details. >> yeah there's 2 different funds we draw money out of. we don't run that money. that's a bucket of money that's available to use from our mou and the general fund is not supposed to be use for cca but although we can change our minds but we have plenty of money right now. >> so why are we getting that money from the general fund if we can't use it for cca?

>> we get money from the sfpuc and that's separate from the general fund money and we've returned the general fund money because we haven't needed it because we have enough that we need from the sfpuc. >> so if we could have an understanding of what this is going to cost if we're going to do it, it's important we do it right and invest the necessary resources to making it happen. >> and we have to discuss with the sfpuc about the resource allocation. >> let me be clear i think at this point where we are we need a fresh pair of eyes and experts to look at this to bring all of our work together and look at it in a different way and i think it's important that we do away from the puc.

>> thank you to the staff for the work and the information you brought back to us it's really helpful and i'm actually very excited and opt imistic and so i really appreciate the work that everyone has invested in making this a possibility thank you. >> do we need to take a vote on item 3 c. >> i'd prefer if you direct staff to prepare an rfp for your consideration at least an outline at your next meeting along the lines of your discussion. >> so you want us to make a motion to approve this item? >> yes. >> so we have a motion by commissioner breed seconded by commissioner councilmember marcason mar.

>> thank you for your great work on this. >> before we move onto the next item -- i don't believe that we have taken a motion to excuse commissioner, chair avalos who could not be here so if we can have a motion by commissioner breed and if we can take that without objection. thank you. item number 4. >> 2014 lafco schedule. >> great. miss miller. >> the appropriate schedule is before you under our bye laws. >> okay so we have a motion before we take action on the motion why don't we open it up to public comment. seeing none

public comment is closed so we have a motion we can take that without objection. >> we can now go to the next item item number type of. >> executive officers report. >> there's no report at this time. >> no report is there any public comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. >> we can now go to item number 6. >> this is an opportunity for any members of the public to speak on any item that's not on the agenda. >> seeing no member of the public, public comment is closed. >> future agenda items. item number 7. >> is there anyone that would like to speak on any possible items? >> any member of the public?