. >> good afternoon, today is october 24th, 2014, and giants are in the world series playing in san francisco. we're very excited about that and we will have to make some special announce. about them later on in our lafco meeting but we are in the lafco, local area formation commission. to my immediate left is commissioner cynthia crews and eric mar. madam clerk, could you call the next item. >> item 22, approval of the lafco mibts from the september 12, 20 foerb special meeting. >> colleagues, have you approved the minutes and can we get any comments or questions and seeing none we will go on to public comment is open for

minutes from our last lafco meeting. seeing none, we will go forward. motion to approve from commissioner crews and secretary lindo >> item 3, community choice aggregation activities report, a, status update on clean power sf program and b, status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. >> jason creed, lafco staff. yesterday we got the final staff version from the build out that is available to look at on the web site under the what's new section. at this point it's a very low bust large report, it's 190 pages in length but there is a nice shorter executive summary. i encourage everyone to look at it and get any comments or

feedback to it. at this point we're trying to correct any errors in it, the consultants have put some of their feedback into it. i have a position of not intervening with the consultants' opinion, their opinion will be their opinion by the end of the day. i would like to get comments back by november 7 so we can bring it back to you in the december meeting which will be the final final, but i think pretty much what we have in the report will be in the final. the biggest problem and issue you will find is they have a hard time trying to figure out what an energy efficiency program looks like without knowing what the rates of the program look like and without having more information about an actual real program so one of the things you will probably end up finding is we should probably do what we were scheduled to do last august

2013 and that is set rates so we can move a program forward and learn even more about how jobs can be created

even more but they did do a good analysis on items that sf puc identified last time. we have more customers in the system like cca customers, for example, you would actually have that customer base to then justify building out more of these programs that are available through already-identified projects that the puc could do, but doesn't need to right now. >> i understand the puc was looking to increase their wholesale base and was going to build to do that. you are saying instead of that we could actually support energy generation for cca customers. >> you could use that, you could build out for either. you could build out for a new market of large commercial like is being discussed, as well as cca when you look at the report you will actually find there is more than enough energy through that to cover both customer bases, not that you would necessarily, those would be the only things you would build, but there's definitely enough to have more commercial, there's some legislation sitting in front of the board of supervisors to do or also having cca, so you have both of them available to do. i'm just saying cca is one place where you can do that and fund the sources as well. one thing i wanted to mention --. >> you want to make sure you have comments by november 7? >> it is a large report so if someone comes back to see and says, hey, we need a few extra days, it's not hard set but that's what i am

proposing. i have already started getting some comments back from folks and it's only been out for a day. a lot of the report while it's large is similar to what was done in the first draft that you saw a month or so ago, so that part you can almost skim over. if you didn't have comments on it before you will probably not have comments on it again. it should be a quick read at least for the people who reviewed it the first time. it should be a quick read the second time. >> is there going to be any review and comments from city departments like the public utilities commission or the department of the environment, is that part of the process that we'll be hearing from those departments? >> yes, we already sent and the puc has a copy of it and they have started to look at it. the department of environment, i sent a copy to carl broomhead who has been my point of contact over there and sent it to carl egan to see if it jives with what the city is going to do and if

there's anything to let us know. those three are the three big ones and waech -- we've also sent to the general public for their review as well. >> any comments from these areas will be optional or are we expecting there to be some kind of correspondence or --. >> it really depends on knowing what the comment is i can't address that directly. if it's something where you just disagree with an opinion of an expert i'm going to say it's an opinion and they have their right to have their separate opinion and you can have your own and we can incorporate that into a broader discussion but if there's an error in the report itself we're definitely going to get that corrected. it definitely depends what avenue it goes under. >> did you say what errors could be? >> i've already noticed in one spot they referred to the department of the environment as the department of energy. >> little minor things.

>> hopefully it's minor stuff but there are new sections to this. mostly it was a copy of what was in the first one but the analysis has come up. if there's something that someone misbe understood what was said by the puc and they mistranslated it in their report, and puc comes back and says, i get what you meant but this is what we actually said, then we can get that corrected in the report. >> so we're talking about slight inaccuracies. >> hopefully it's slight inaccuracies, that would be my hope. >> commissioner lindo >> thank you so much for the report. barring some of the errors and the puc, sounds like there will have to be that discuss, what are the next steps once the puc comes back with their comments, we agree, what are we going to do next? >> the goal is to take

everyone's comments, collaborate them all at the same time, i will sit down with internex and their folks, have a discussion, figure out what comments make sense, what comments are, oh, yes, we will fix that or they are making a comment about an opinion, we will do it -- if there's something they are making a comment on that we just fundamentally don't agree with i myself and working with internex would come up with some kind of responses here's why we're not going to include that in the report. it's either outside the scope or it's something that cannot be done at this time because rates haven't been set or whatever it is, then the goal is to have that report final and then try to get a joint meeting between lafco and the puc we were hoping if everything stays on its current timeline that perhaps we can figure out how to do something in january after the holidays. we do that joint

meeting, they can come present and you can ask them all the technical questions you would like to ask of them, we can have a discussion between us and the puc, figure out what makes sense, what is it that now lafco and the board of supervisors would want to see the puc do and are they willing to do that. that can all be part of that joint meeting and see if we can get this program being worked on again on a more robust level than is being done now. >> thank you. commissioner crews? >> thank you. i just have a question for mr. freed. so if we have the joint meeting in january with the puc is it at that time that the report will be finalized and then there will be action at that meeting, or is that something that the puc would then have action sort of next steps or setting the rates or whatever

those next steps would be at that meeting? >> lafco can take whatever action it wants. puc i will yield to miss hale to see what they might do at a january meeting. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power at the sf puc so we just spoke today, director freed and i, about having a meeting in january. i have asked the commission secretary to consult with the commission president on their calendar about calendaring such a meeting. the way our process works, commissioner, the agenda is set for our commission by our commissioner president in consultation with our general manager and the commission will take actions based on staff recommendations. we have only just received the report so i really don't have a sense of what sort of recommendations we might have but we

definitely committed to director freed this morning to have our comments and thoughts to him prior to the next lafco meeting. >> great. i wonder also if the citizens advisory committee for the puc would get a copy of this report. >> we'd be happy to make sure that they receive a copy of the report and we engage with them on a regular basis. we actually have a number of topics scheduled prior to january already in the queue for the citizens advisory power subcommittee. perhaps we can queue this in, take this item out of order and i'll suggest that to the committee chair. subcommittee chair, rather. >> thank you. >> the one thing i would add, there might be a discussion about waiting to present the report to them until the final report just in case there's any

changes that do need to be made i don't want any confusion to occur but once the final report is made that might be a better time to get it to the citizen advisory committee and get any discussion if they show desire. i have worked with the chair of that body, one of the other items i was going to update on the cca, lafco has a good working relationship with them and i'll be sure they would be happy to entertain when it was a little more appropriate than it is right now, wait till that final report before we submit. >> if i could add to that thought, our desire is to present to our power subcommittee before we present to our commission. so we're trying to engage with the citizen's advisory committee before we go to our commission so they can have some input if they wish. so i'd just like to have that kept in mind as we schedule forward. >> i think that's actually a

great idea because i think that a numb er of individuals in the public actually engage with that body more than the puc thank you. >> so the only thing which i kind of hit on was the sf puc citizens vezry committee under chair aragon passed a resolution overwhelmly about getting a rate set and moving forward. we are grateful for the hard work of chair aragan there and hope that will be one more thing to help move the cca program forward, especially now we have a report when it becomes final that shows jobs can be created if we have a program created and have customers to sell energy to. and i will yeed to miss hale >> barbara hale, assistant manage for power at the sf puc we really

don't be have much abdomen activity at the puc on the various issues i've been presenting to you over the last several issues. in particular the green tariff option has captured a lot of interest but we're still waiting for the california public utilities commission to propose a decision on the application that pg&e filed. i think that my expectation would be that president peevy would like to have a decision issued so it could be available for adoption prior to his termination of his term at the california public utilities commission. so i would guess that there's probably some effort to meet that. so i'm optimistic that we'll see something before the end of the year that indicates whether pg&e will have the authority to move forward with the

green tariff option. our commission, the san francisco puc, did request a report from staff on the green tariff option much as i've been reporting to you. my colleague, mike himes, who is here today made that presentation to the commission in my absence on october 14th. it's definitely something we're paying attention to here and we're hoping the california public utilities commission pays some attention to it before the end of this calendar year. that's all i have, thank you. >> thank you. if there are no other questions from the commission we'll go on to public comment. any member of the public who would like to comment, please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners, eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass roots organization, our city. so just i'll keep it to the internex report for the most part. i did read the

executive summary last night and it looks like, just based on reading that summary, there are some really exciting thing about reading the report, there are some things that raise questions. what's really exciting is that the report really nails down what the previous report started to say, which was that this program can be handled in house by the san francisco public utilities commission with regard to purchasing energy and running the program and even conceivably doing customer service. makes clear that the sf puc cannot only serve that role but can make its own income from this so it can be beneficial to the sf public utilities commission 's budget. another thing that's nailed down really well in the report it shows a lot of actual projects can be built and it shows what advocates and consultants have been saying for almost a decade now, which is we can get a thousand or more jobs a year for the next

10 years by building a lot of stuff for a clean power program. the things that looked like, the thing that looked like it was most lacking in the report is that it emphasized building large solar and wind and hydro projects and things like that, but really seemed to deemphasize a lot the idea of small solar and behind the meter efficiency throughout businesses and residences throughout the city and clean energy is headed in that direction. we're not just trying to get clean energy, we're trying to get decentralized energy that's owned by the city and owned by the customers. even though that other stuff is low hanging fruit that's cost effective, we need this to be more balanced and do a lot of --. >> thank you.