san francisco. >> yes, let me assure you the $19 million is on reserve and unspendable by the sfpuc. it's waiting in a bank account waiting for direction. >>supervisor london breed: but there has been communication to me that those revenues are going to be used for another purpose. i want to make sure that if there are talks that we are not aware of, that we are made an aware of any relations to that or any other plan that might be to lafco. >> it seems this is the perfect venue to bring all of that out. >>supervisor john avalos: just to apropos to on the lafco side of the meeting on a brief path way to make clean power go forward under the current

situation that the power program is in and i'm hoping that mr. freed can touch on that. >> sure, jason freed, lafco staff. at the workshop they had about a week or two, this subject was brought and they did a full presentation. one thing i brought up at the comment period is that there are two ways that cca can actually help alleviate the budget short fall and that is if you were to rearrange the cc program so that all the things that were in the contract for shell to do to brought in house, perhaps there could be some savings on the operational side because the power side is on cca. if you are adding 30 mega watts of power, i don't think it would be that much of a load and you can shift to the cca

the money for the cost and reducing the cost to shell. and there is a fund that everyone pays into their bill that puc can apply for it. i'm not convinced that puc would give it because there is not an operational program but there is money to give to the program. >>supervisor john avalos: so if shell is no longer involved, who is creating the energy? >> sfpuc has the staff and able to do that and when the rim fire went on they were able to replace the energy and this staff is able to do that as well for scheduling and there might be some part that shell would do but you rearrange the contract to cover that. >>supervisor john avalos: we can meet with puc staff to

talk about this idea and then bring it to the joint meeting as well? okay. >> miss miller? >> i would like to add that i appreciate miss mchale's comments. we designed this program to be a self sufficient program that it was going to run itself that they were not going to take other resources and apply it. in the financials which i would like to make sure that we talk about at the joint meeting, i do believe that there were provisions for paying back all the money advanced at the program and the financials handled that over a period of time and we strecht that out at one point but the plan itself, the cca program paid for itself. i don't really understand the idea if there is a budget cut because of increased capital cost on hetch hetchy side and power

supply. i understand that is a real problem. but cca wouldn't contribute to that problem. that correlation which is how does capital cost would initiate. your sufficient program that we had designed. >> yes. so we had a couple of areas that we wanted to update you on. we arrest actively continuing to participate in pg & e's green tariff filing and opportunities for customers to choose hundred percent renewable gas portfolios. we are participating there to make sure the pg & e is compliant

with the legislation that was adopted last september by the legislature in sacramento. in particular we are asking the california public utilities commission to enhance a community renewal program. that's part of what's required in sb 43. pg & e has not included that in their proposal. we are asking the c puc provide a mechanism in it's green tariff proposal from a small distributed renewable project. a mega watt or smaller located in disadvantaged communities. that is another aspect of 343 in making sure we are included. if the california puc required pg & e to put that

in their proposal. and we are asking the california puc to require pg & e to ensure that all green tariff cost are born only by participating customers so that their green tariff proposal is not subsidized by non-participants. in the california puc's energy efficiency funding and we'll continue to stay involved protecting not only the city's interest but also the particular concerns of how to take advantage for the community choice aggregators. thank you. >> okay. also we have presentation on the rfp.

>> yes. staff was directed at the last meeting to address the local energy build out program. some of the issues that staff was directed also included a marketing approach. that's not in this particular rfp and we were under the impression that that did not need to be under this particular draft. but if that is not the direction of the commission just let us know. what this rfp deals with is a build out program to find an independent consultant to issue criteria that the commission has developed which is obviously maintained energy efficiency and increase local

control and maximize job creation and maintain affordable electric rates to support environmental justice and provide and describe the economic opportunities. this was a criticism that we heard both from the mayor's office and sfpuc commission when the sfpuc prepared the program, the cca program for the rate approval was that there was some confusion or not enough clarity on the local build out program and commissioner breed had requested at the last meeting that we spend some time, spend some resources to take a look at that and specify a plan and provide a more cohesive plan as to what the local energy build out would be. the draft talks about, there has been a number of reports. we don't want to reinvent the wheel. so what the draft does is mention the reports that have been done and acknowledge there is a

bit of a difference between some of the reports. we have a program that is throwing off approximately $6 million a year. and we have reports by a local power that is more like $100 million a year in terms of expenses. we are trying to craft a program that is manageable, affordable and reachable within the context of our goals. the a draft at this point because we needed some feedback. we want to make sure that we have the principals correct and that we are doing what you would like us to do. i would like sfpuc staff to comment and assist with this. i know that they have been directed at this point not to do that because the budget issues and directions. i have always enjoyed my working relationship with the sfpuc

and they bring a lot of issues to the table. they have a staff and i think it makes a lot of sense to have their input. i know that barb can't really address this, miss hale can. i'm going to keep working behind-the-scenes to make sure that happens. i think it's really important. we have the program all put together. one thing this rfp does not do is it does not, it acknowledges the shell contract. so that is one thing that we would want direction on. if you do not want a consultant to assume the shell contract exist and to think of other things. that is not in this rfp. it assumes the program is designed and voted on and then it assumes the local build out and asks for a creative and imaginative praj -- program with specificity. i'm available

for questions. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, commissioner breed. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, miss miller for putting this together so quickly. i do of course want there to be a little bit more time for input and i'm sure you got feedback that there are some other organizations that want to take the time to review it and provide input. i would like to make sure that we have the time to do that before we finalize the rfp and i wanted to get a sense of how my colleagues as well as how members of the public feel about how we move forward with shell. because there have been some challenges and i don't feel that they have been the best community partner in this community effort and there has been a challenge around communication and miscommunication. i'm not completely certain about how i

feel about acknowledging that relationship or retaining that relationship. but i would like to hear from, especially from people who have been actively engaged in this process and whether or not we allow this particular project, whether we use it from a context of explaining the history of how we got to this point which of course makes censor -- or do we continue that relationship. it would be important for me to understand from my colleagues on lafco as well as others actively involved in this effort to understand what their perspective is on moving that forward in the rfp process. >>supervisor john avalos: commissioner campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mr. chair. my

thinking with being open and flexible with the rfp is i want to get to as many options as possible. one approach would be to include information with shell in the picture but also to include information with shell out of the picture so we have some comparison point. what i have said about shell is that i don't think for anyone of us who voted for this that shell was always the ideal partner, was always the best response. so as presented at that particular time. if there are options out there that are better that we have a responsibility to explore them. maybe one approach to have in the rfp to have flexibility to look at both to have as much information as we can. i don't know if you are open to that but that would

be my thinking. >> okay. it's really up to your direction. i know when we had the meeting with the advocates there were some that wanted that flexibility. since it wasn't clear is why i brought it up. i just want to make sure how you want to approach that. i don't think -- i think it's possibility to do it. it may draw a cost because we talk about what would be the option if there were no shell, but that's certainly doable. >>supervisor john avalos: the option being flexible to have one that includes shell and one that doesn't? >> right. along the line of what the commissioners have been saying. >>supervisor john avalos: okay. i think that's the right approach. and in the meantime, what was the timeframe for this rfp? >> well, the timeframe was to

try to get enough comments and good robust comments to be able to feel that we heard everyone and we had incorporated or figured out why we were not incorporating what everyone was saying. in terms, that would include from my point of view the sfpuc. i don't know if we want to wait on a joint hearing or go forward. we have gone forward in the past with out sfpuc involved. it's up to your direction. i have not had a conversation with the general manager. i have with mchale, very professional but they are not in a position to assist. we also wanted to meet with the advocates. we had a phone conversation, but we would like to have that, a couple more rounds of that. so i think we could, two options: i bring it back, maybe bring

it to the joint meetings, bring it back to you and tell you of the conversation or go forward and tell you the vice-chair approved the rfp. it's a matter of timing and whether or not you feel like going quickly. >>supervisor john avalos: do you have any preferences on that? >>supervisor london breed: yeah, i think that given the fact that we do have a draft and there will be input and changes made in order to get us where we need to go, that we shouldn't have to wait until the next lafco meeting in order to move this rfp forward. i do think that as much as we want involvement from puc at this point, we as lafco should take the leadership on putting out there to the public exactly what we are looking for because ultimately we want a comprehensive plan. i think

we should maybe allow the chair to give the final say that this is good and we can put it out there once we get our feedback and make the appropriate changes to get it where we need it to go. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you. okay. item b within this item. is that miss miller? >> this item will be dropped from the agenda. our mou goes to the end of fiscal year 14-15. we have another year 1/2 on the mou. that was my fault. we don't need to hear that item. >>supervisor john avalos: great. if there are no other comments from the panel. we'll go to public comment. >> good afternoon commissioners, eric brooks local green party for the

city. first once again thank you for the lafco for taking out the bold steps. we have had a couple moments like this in history where things got caught up and glad to see it moving forward. some quick technical notes. i think one thing that will really and we discussed it a little bit, i completely concur with exploring all possible actions with shell and without shell and other contractors like shell or do it in house which i think the advocates are most supportive of that. one thing that i have noticed is that we have not heard from the sfpuc or from any other source that i know of exactly what is going on right now with the shell contract. that was put on holdback in august and we have not heard. i think we

should ask sfpuc to clarify what's going on with that. as far as the whole thing, i think the key here is that even if the sfpuc gets considerably more involved and starts doing it own work on build out and cleanpowersf and gets back in the game. i think back where we let them take the ball back. this is the moment where we need to lafco stay the drive of this. this is politics. the key with the sfpuc is that as an enterprise agency that is in charge of rate payers and keeping the system secure, they are mandated to be secure about this. lafco can really push the envelope in developing an rfp that will face the compliment crisis and we need to you keep this in-house.

>>supervisor john avalos: thank you. >> hello commissioners. chad hose skin. we didn't hear too much about the cleanpowersf program. i was at the january 14th puc hearing and i strongly urge you to checkout the power enterprise budget information presented. a memo was available which i believe was the 14-15 two year planning cycle and indicated i think in one sentence that no work would be done on cleanpowersf by power enterprise. the focus seems to be on new high revenue customers and not on engagement. definitely a lot of information in those

documents in terms of what the puc is thinking going forward and i don't think it do have dove tails what the lafco board is expecting. in-house scheduling is a comment that someone made earlier is something we heard the puc staff say they can do. and as mr. freed indicated that could actually not only not add to, but maybe even alleviate some of the funding issues that the puc is having. going to the rfp, we did as a group of advocates send a letter to the lafco staff and urged you to check that out and looking forward working on the lafco rfp going forward and assuming the shell contract is going forward seems questionable, but also maybe might not even matter that much. 20-30 mega

watts for four 1/2 years while substantial may not purely maintain a plan this scope in scale. thank you very much. >>supervisor john avalos: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. there was a question that was raised in public comment. i want to ask puc about that and that is the status of the shell contract. i can speculate probably accurately but i want to hear from you. >> barbara hale from power. we have not engaged with shell. our department let us believe that we are not going forward with the cca program as was conceived since we did not get authority though go forward. we have not been engaging with shell. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. seems like a land

with a big thud. okay, i thought the puc, the commissioners just did not approve not to exceed rates. but have they made an occasion that cleanpowersf is dead and gone? that wasn't my understanding. they just didn't approve not to exceed rates. >> i think it's accurate to say there has been no formal vote on the status of the program. the general manager and the commission have engaged in public dialogue about the program. we've been given direction at the staff level to focus our efforts on the need to get our financial house back in order. so that's where our focus has been. >>supervisor john avalos:

okay. we'll have a presentation on that at our joint meeting. hopefully it won't be difficult to schedule. okay. commissioner campos. >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mr. chair, i think it's the fact that rates were not approved doesn't necessarily mean that the puc still doesn't have an obligation to continue to do work on the program because as much as that issue on rates remains open, you still have a board of supervisors decision to proceed. and i think it's interesting that the proposed budget does not include any money for clean power because i think it's an interesting thing to see an agency

introduce a proposed budget that has to be approved by the body that approved a program that they are leaving out of the budget. so, i think the board of supervisors certainly will have an opportunity at the budget committee when the budget of the puc is reviewed to make sure that the budget of that agency reflects the priorities that have been set out by the legislative body of the city, the board of supervisors. and i think that there will be a number of supervises who will expect that there will be an allocation of funding to continue with community choice aggregation. >> if i can clarify, you may recall in the past two or three budgets we have not included additional funds for cleanpowersf. we have funds available in the programmatic

account that is set aside to fund cleanpowersf. as i mentioned earlier, that's on the operating side. we have the $19.5 million on reserve that remains on reserve. on the budget as it's proposed, though funds stay where they are. i would characterize that more as in stand still. i think last time we brought a budget to you it did not include additional funds just like this budget won't include additional funds because there was no perceived needs for additional funds. that doesn't mean there are funds that are a part waiting for cca and further direction. hopefully through the joint meeting process we'll get some additional direction. >> i guess my question had to do more for instance with the work on the rfp. >> i understand what miss

hale is saying but i think there are funds that are available, remaining available for cca. she indicated which is sort of contrary to the direction that's been given, i think internally to staff to not work on any longer. >>supervisor john avalos: if that's the issue, then it's a version of the question that i posed earlier because if the puc expects it's budget to be approved, i would imagine that it would allow it's staff to do work that the legislative body in this case anticipates or expects that will be done on this program. >> i think that's true. the item that we drop, the mou which talks about working cooperatively with one another on developing the program and particularly dealing with issues that are a contention.

which i recall when there was a no vote on the rate, there were a number of issues that were expressed as the reasons why. part of the rfp is to explore answers to many of those questions. >> >>supervisor david campos: i would hope the general manager reconsider working with staff on this. >> i do too. >>supervisor john avalos: i was hoping that they would work with them through sfpuc and we have funding as well and next year is what should be in line. is there currently staff that can be helpful and that are budgeted in our budget to do this work? >> the cleanpowersf program is funded as a program. staff can charge to it as they work on

it in that program index code. so those funds are sitting there, staff is not working on it. they will continue to sit there. so to the extent we are given direction to do particular community choice aggregation, clean four sf work, we have the financial resources to perform that work. that's the point i was trying to make. >>supervisor john avalos: okay, the system of the rfp could do that work? >> where we are direct to do that work yes. >> by your staff, by your commission? >> yes. and through the joint meeting process, perhaps that's the venue to discuss these items and to come to some sort of agreement as to what the going forward efforts should be. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. seems like a road we've been on before. experiencing

a yogi bear moment. okay. we can go to our next item. >> item no. 5. executive officers report. i have no report. oh, i'm sorry, there is an announcement for our public seats are vacant. there will be applications available online, they are available right now on the lafco website for the sitting member and the alternate. we'll be posting a notice on our website. we have it up, right? the information is available. thank you. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, colleagues can probably do some help with the outreach to fill those vacancies and get the applications in for the seats. let's go to public comment on