with a lot of help, i should get this momentarily. so, since we last met jointly which was in july 9th, that's when the rate issue was brought before you and was -- [speaker not understood]. the commission has met and determined that based upon that meeting there were some concerns that were raised by commissioners and the public. and our commission determined that it would be a good idea in order to proceed to try to answer some of those questions. and the three main issues were the issues of jobs and local

economy. the issue of the shell contract itself, and whether or not that was a good contract, and then most importantly what was the build out. so, the rfp that ha been issued by lafco, tried to answer those three questions along with some other issues that came up. so, the rfp was prepared by lafco staff, but it relies heavily on documents that had either been approved by the board of supervisors or the draft cleanpowersf build out road map and strategies that was dated june 2013 and other reports that had been presented to the s.f.p.u.c. and to the lafco commission. the tasks that are asked for in the rfp follow almost directly

those that the sfpuc staff had identified approximately one year ago. so, the goal of the buildout obviously was to answer the questions and to provide a plan to improve electric power to the citizens and businesses he within san francisco. obviously the project objectives have not changed with cleanpowersf, that is to reduce energy costs, create higher renewable energy sources for the citizens of this city, to reduce exposure to fuel cost volatility. you will recall cca started because of the bankruptcy of pg&e and the unreliability of certain transmission issues. we're at the end of the transmission of the power grid, was to increase reliability and improve environmental quality. so, what we're looking at asking and what we're asking for is a consultant or

consultants to create a city-wide integrated clean energy and efficiency installation network. now, there's a number of components. the rfp has been attached to your packet. i wasn't going to go into all of those, but basically to tell you that the rfp -- runs parallel with the current program as devised with the shell, but it also asks for alternatives to the shell contract such as as you heard previously, what alternatives be they other power purchasers or sfpu staff itself. and it identifies financing and asks for an overall plan for implementation, both short term and long term. the critical issue, we've talked a lot today about revenue and revenue issues that the sfpuc is having. you will recall that cleanpowersf was a self-contained program. while it did rely on advance

funding from the sfpuc and it did rely on a reserve, the funding was to be repaid and the reserve was to be identified in reserves that are already currently occurring within the city. now, given what we have -- what has happened between our last meeting and today, we will obviously take that into consideration with our consultant and i'll pull up a slide that ms. hale went through in just a minute because we do want to make sure that our financing projections and plan is the most up to date possible. so, we will take into consideration the newer information that we have received from the sfpuc. the draft timelines [speaker not understood] is also a task that we've asked for consultants to provide to us. just so you also know that within the last year there have been a number of communities that have moved forward with cca steps, both the northern and southern california.

so, there are more consultants available than there is more data available for us to take a look at. so, with the financing task comes the comprehensive financing options for the program. and once again, these are to look at not just the program as designed, but a program that probably does not include the shell contract. an integral part of the r efficienttion p is to identify the local jobs and identify benefit of such a program. ~ i know in the program ms. hale had up about hetch hetchy power, showed basically a net zero gain to san francisco. there are potentially other gains to the city and county of san francisco and that's one of the issues of the rfp is to look at both in terms of jobs and impacts to the economy. and i will also say that even within our own cleanpowersf

program right now, some of those costs are discretionary in terms of local buildout. so, what we were looking for if our consultant is to talk to us a little about given the new financing projections from sfpuc, what kinds of rate structure could we look at in terms of dealing with hetch hetchy purchases that might provide zero or potentially some positive numbers. so, the important dates of the rfp was posted on february 20th. we will have a pre-proposal conference on march 12th. and the due date is march 27th. on term of the tasks, we don't yet have dates about when tasks are due because that will be a result of the proposals that we received from the consultants. some of our tasks are more timely than others and we will have a schedule of completion dates at a later time.

then i just wanted to go back to one slide that was put before you. so, if i could have the i-t folks move to the projections. thank you. so, here on the cleanpowersf that ms. hale -- you've got a wonderful staff at the sfpuc and we have worked well with them in the past. and this number here for cleanpowersf that shows the net margin at zero, the number just above which is local build and repayment is a discretionary number. i mean, that could be -- repayment could be extended. local buildout also be spended ~ extended if you so chose. those are policy issues that come before you. you could have a program that actually did provide some value to sfpuc in terms of the sale of hetch hetchy power.

the rfp and all attachment to the public are back to the powerpoint in san francisco's lafco website and the website is still available. i would say that one request that i have of staff is to work with the sfpuc if that's at all possible, to be on our interview panel with consultants, and also to be available to provide information when a consultant is selected in terms of questions because the number of the data and the information that they need has to come would be best coming from the sfpuc. >> that would be great if public utilities commissioners

could make that request of pu c staff. commissioner vietor, i know [speaker not understood] wants to get on. i think his stack is not working. commissioner vietor. >> [inaudible]. emerged in the last go around had to do with recs. does that come up, is that going to be part of the rfp, the rec balances? >> yes, it is there and one of the tasks which is what is the energy mix and what is the best energy mix because i know that recs were a question. and as you recall, the reason why the recs increase is because there was a question from the sfpuc commission to reduce the rate down. so, we am a balancing act there. that still continues to be the issue. >> okay, great. and the role of the puc for requesting an interview, is that something that would

continue to be a rate setting responsibility or what would happen? who would select? i imagine lafco would be the one to choose -- >> lafco would select the consultant, but that's what i'm requesting, that a member of the sfpuc staff be assigned to sit on the panel to assist in that selection. >> what about this rate setting function of the puc? >> that is a charter function. >> but would that still need to happen if we need into a new contract? if we went down the same road we did with shell -- >> yes. >> okay. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner moran. >> thank you. a couple questions. the rfp, do you have an estimate as to what the cost is going to be for that? >> i'm sorry? >> do you have an estimate of the cost of the rfp? >> to prepare it? >> no, for the actual -- if you enter into contract. >> no, i don't have an actual -- our budget was limited but i

don't have until we see the proposal. >> okay. the source of funding would be -- >> no memo from sfpuc, [speaker not understood] is the chair of that. >> thank you. i think you answered the one question i had, which is the rfp you said will be or any contract or revenues for that would be taken into account whether or not the 19 million is available. you talked about updating the financial projections [speaker not understood] was the issue there. >> yes. >> that is part of the consideration? >> yes. >> what about assumptions as to the availability of discount energy from hetchy? >> that we will ask them to take a look at. i don't think that we are discounting that. we would -- we are based on the slide that was shown today, i think what we're looking at is the 11.5 cents which is a net -- you don't lose any money selling hetch hetchy power to

cca customer, but you don't make any money was the point of that slide. so, you're looking at more lucrative customers to assist you, which is what i would understand, which we would ask the consultant to take a look at that issue. >> i think the cost would be an opportunity cost, if we can get more for it someplace else. >> that is true, but i also think cca had the potential of commerce customer hes ~ customers here in the city. granted you would be in competition with another provider. >> okay. i guess my only point, i think you've answered them satisfactorily. as i'm given the updated information we had since the commission last looked at the cca, i think you cannot assume that the 19 million will be there or that a discount energy from hetchy will be there. it may be there in part, but i

think you are correctly dealing with that, you can't assume that it will be there to the extent we have thought about it before. >> i think that's fair given what happened at that meeting. i think our assumptionses are along with what you're saying. >> okay, thank you. >> um-hm. >> thank you, commissioner vietor. >> yes, i have one more question. you know, i saw on the source for presentation you use some of these documents have already been improved or going through the city process. i remember when we set off on this journey many years ago and we moved forward with a program that is now showing quite a bit of success. and i'm wondering what the level of conversation was on really directly modeling the program or at least the rfp on what sonoma ha done. it's such a change to landscape from when the shell contract was negotiated. >> well, that's correct. and i think that's one of the opportunities of the rfp, is to

have the consultant take a look at that. in other words, don't assume the shell contract, what other types of program, programming element should he we be considering to take advantage of changes, budget issues, and that have just been new technology. >> and i do think it's important, i guess i didn't really quite understand. we are trying to be [speaker not understood] here on this journey. i do think it's important for the puc to participate in some way in this review process of these rfps that are coming in. so, you know, i'd like to direct our general manager to find somebody that can at least assist with the rfp review as per the request. >> so, i need to kind of understand exactly what the involvement is because i'm

having like kim, search for commercial customers because the way if you look at that chart, we need customer immediately so we can provide sometime, but we need to contain it. >> what is the time commitment? i appreciate that. >> it would be an interview panatumimabv. so, that would be half a day maybe half a day of energies. ~ panel in terms of brand information sharing, i'm assuming what they'll want to do is talk to somebody about how to get information and where it is. i mean, we talked today about providing some information. so, i don't see that as a big time thing, but maybe a day or two. >> yeah, that's fine. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and if it's more, we'll work that out, talk about it. >> i appreciate that. commissioner breed. >> i just wanted clarity on the

19 million that's in reserve. wouldn't the board of supervisors need to approve the release of that reserve? >> yes, i believe that i will defer to the money person here, but i believe that that is correct. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> so, i just wanted to point out, the only issue that i was bringing up is we were not planning on de-appropriating it. if we go into negative that it would be frozen. and, so, that's why i was just pointing out the severity of the financial challenge that we are facing. >> thank you, i appreciate that. it also said in your powerpoint that you won't go into the negative. [laughter] >> that's why i'm working on it. >> thank you. any other comments or questions from committee? okay, let's go on to public comment.

good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks, san francisco green party, our city and san francisco clean energy advocates. so, just wanted to first of all thank lafco and thank its staff for the incredible work to actually get this to happen. it's crucial. something that advocates -- this work has been -- advocates have been asking for for several years. it's finally going to be completed work. with regard to cca director malcolm's involvement with the rfp process, i don't want you all to push the envelope on that because we have to remember that ms. malcolm is being hired, was hired and being paid to work on cca. and that's her job. and we want her to come here and do her job and interact with the bidders for the rfp so that we're getting the best bang for the buck out of this

program that we can. again, because it will bring future revenue possibilities to the sfpuc. on the rfp itself, we want to make sure that -- we want to again thank staff for being very good about working with the community and really changing that rfp a lot so we reflected more what the community was looking for and the robustness for the kind of program we're working for. however, i would still say that the advocate community still wants something that pushes the envelope a little more than the rfp suggest, especially on selecting sites. we kind of got word from staff that we would downgrade the necessity of selecting sites beyond those that have already been identified by their sfpuc and sf environment. that wasn't what we were asking for. we were asking for a site selection -- for a site selection city-wide to be completed. that's going to need to be done if we're going to be able to do a proper program. so, let's, as we roll this rfp

process forward, let's make sure that we're pushing the envelope on getting something big enough that will get us 50% clean energy ~. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hi, i will start where mr. brooks left off, which is 50% clean energy, 50% of our energy load within 10 years. that was what was originally envisioned in the work that has been done and we believe that that is demonstrably possible. i would like to also echo lafco's staff, thanks to lafco's staff for working with us. it was definitely a collaborative process and track changes is never fun. i would like to -- i'll also mention that we did send both commissioners and staff some recommendations for folks that we think would be great experts for the review panel. and that did include both commissioner and staff from the sfpuc.

ultimately, having been to many of these puc meetings and having heard the concerns last august with the lack of approval of the rates, i think we heard largely about rates not being competitive to pg&e. we heard about shell and the problems with contracting with shell and a company like that. and we heard about a lack of demonstrable jobs. on the rates issue we are using old rates. i think everyone here knows that, marin and sonoma, especially sonoma recently putting out the bids, that double digit number of bids when we got effectively 0 to 1. i think if we reevaluate this, there is every reason to think that we are going to have a much better rates that will allow us to be launching a program totally comparable to pg&e. third issue, we heard from ms. malcolm and add infinitum that the puc can actually purchase this power in-house. this can actually provide more revenue opportunities for the puc and allow this 19 million

to conceivably be used for something else. lastly on jobs, we need the rfp to show the jobs. and, so, i would really hope that the puc commissioners and staff would be as supportive of this process as possible. this is to answer your concerns and to provide answer to your questions. so, to that end please involve ms. malcolm [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker, please. hello again, commissioners, jeff dorian, 350 bay area. i'm definitely the dummy in this group but i can see a few things i'd like to share. just from probably what any member of the public might be able to see, i think the little i do know, i was involved with the meeting last friday, the bay area air quality management, and was told by somebody there that last year there were three members at the community in the audience and this year there was standing room only. i can kind of anticipate the same thing happening with these meetings, especially as the climate issues become more and

more pressing. the thing that i can really see is just as a citizen, when you're talking about the money that people are spending on energy, of course, a new start up is going to be more expensive and that needs to be subsidized until that they can reach an economy of scale, which everybody knows economy of scale, the price goes down. and the other thing that i can see that's important in this issue is what everybody knows that's had any experience in business is diversification. we need to be diversified, especially with the climate issues, again, that we're facing, with the possible droughts that's causing everybody anxiety. and the other issues that are coming with climate change. and this clean energy is diversification and that's whatnot only the city needs, but the country needs. and i'm glad to be part of a community that's probably in the forefront of the country

and a model for the rest of the country. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any -- [speaker not understood] with the san francisco department of the environment. i just wanted to add that the department is standing ready to assist in the cleanpowersf program and move forward with an energy efficiency buildout. as some of you may know that we are already operating about a $7 million a year program. we have a team of now nine engineers who go out to buildings every day to provide preliminary assessments and do quality assurance checks on contractors' work. we have over 55 contractors working in our program and we believe that we're stimulating 150 to 200 full-time equivalent installation jobs on an annual basis with an additional back office coefficient to add to that. so, we stand ready to participate in this program and help out in any way that we can. thank you.

>> thank you very much. commissioner mar. >> chair avalos, can i just ask mr. bloom head, if you could comment, we had a short discussion of potential cpuc funding to the tune of 800 million statewide for energy efficiency use and a letter coming from the board of supervisors to urge access to those funds. do you have any suggestions of what we as a city could do to access more of those funds? well, cleanpowersf is a way of accessing those funds. there's a tremendous amount of money that is devoted to -- that is generated from san francisco rate payers. we're currently getting, as i said, about $7 million a year of that. we believe we could get a substantial amount larger and do more work here in the city. >> thank you. other than that, we participate in the regular proceedings at the cpuc which if any of you know what that regulatory process is about, it's very tedious and complex

and ever more complex. the other thing is that we're not compensated for that work and so we get that money out of our overhead and a little bit out of the puc work order and it's a very difficult task, but we've been very successful at working with local governments across the state, and particularly in the nine bay area counties more recently in leveraging these funds. >> thank you. any other member of the public would like to comment? and seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> commissioner breed. >> i just wanted to thank the advocates and thank barbara hale for putting this rfp together and you, too, jason. i see you. [chuckling] >> yes, i apologize. i'm looking dead at you, too. [laughter] >> but thank you all so much for putting this together so

quickly. i think the point of this, as had been mentioned, is to make sure that a lot of the concerns that have been brought up by both the commissioners and the puc staff, we wanted to make sure that we try to address those concerns and put together a comprehensive plan that could actually effectively be implemented and work for the city. so, we're looking at, of course, the bigger picture in the long term and how do we do this and how do we do this thing right and address those did herxctionv. ~ concerns. i, too, got many of the complaints about shell and complaints about how this might impact the city as a whole. we listened and heard those complaints. i think if we continue to work together, we can continue to provide clean power and do it in a cost-effective way for the residents of the city. i think we owe it to san franciscans to go this route. i think we owe it to future generations to go this route.

if the folks at hetch hetchy would have stopped when they were told to stop with hetch hetchy, we wouldn't have this incredible water system that we have now. and at that time it was unpopular and costly. and, so, i think we need to look at the future and look at what this means for future generations. it's an important program, and i hope we can put it together in a way that effectively can be delivered and cost-effectively more importantly can be delivered, and hopefully as has been stated by many of the folk here today, be something that could assist with some of the financial needs of the puc. so, thank you, everyone, again and sorry, ms. miller, for that comment, and look forward to moving forward with this. thanks. >> thank you, commissioner breed. and thank you for your leadership on the rfp. it was your office that pushed this forward, so, appreciate it.

thank you. okay. so, colleagues, we can go on to our next item which is i think is general public comment. >> yes. item number 7, general public comment. >> so, the microphone and the podium are available for any member of the public who would like to comment on any item related to lafco and the public utilities commission. thank you. sorry for keeping you an extra two minutes. i just wanted to provide a little bit of context for those not on the board of supervisors who maybe don't have me talking to them as often. my background is i am a trained environmental scientist. i got a master's degree from the yale school of forestry in environmental studies. originally was working on species conservation and essentially as the data came in, it became clear that we no longer necessarily have time for species conservation except conceivably for our own species. mr. dorian who had to leave mentioned the bay area air

quality. ~. and i know some sit [speaker not understood]. that the the agency with binding regulatory control in the nine bay area qualities, that includes greenhouse gases and 350 bay area along with some other advocacy organizations have successfully gotten the air district's board of directors to commit to lowering greenhouse gases below 89% by 20 50 which is the internationally agreed upon goal necessary to provide, you know, time for our society to adapt a climate change, et cetera. what this means for you guys is that as the air district works on implementing that goal and that's not just a goal, but actually a him. so, there is rule making process he already underway. over the next couple years working out their clean air plan, rules are going to be issued which will bear on these two bodies. and, so, essentially as time goes on, the hammer is going to be coming down and we are all

going to need to be kicking in and committing to reducing emissions where we can. so, we are coming here to you as kind of the vanguard of this, but eventually this will be a very mundane and tedious rule making process pushing you to have more clean power, have more local power and reduce emissions. we're trying to get this started sooner than later [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks. so, i just wanted to encourage the lafco in any energy endeavors that it goes forward with to definitely -- since he spoke today, you probably know that one of the recommendationses we made to you folks is to use department of environment staff as well. we've seen that they have been ready to go on program like cleanpowersf and doing other renewable energy projects and efficiency projects and their involvement will be key.