your meeting in early december for your meeting today, and i expect that we will be equally responsive and collaborative with him prior to the joint meeting so that we can get the commission good information to then give us guidance from. >> okay. thank you. mr. fried is there a reason why we chose to do the joint meetings, do a presentation with both the puc and lafco rather than separate presentations with feedback? >> it partly deals with costs of having their entire team here. also if you do a joint meeting questions that come up with one can be talked about with everyone in the room instead of one of us going first and one going second and having a joint discussion. at the end of the day if we can't get a joint meeting i will go down the dual path. i need to make sure

we have the money to do two presentations and very little is left. i haven't gotten last month's bill from them and to see how much is available but the goal is to get all together and have questions with one group and the other and not aligning properly. >> got it. and the last thing is how much time do you think it would take to make the revisions or the clarifications that the puc may have as it relates to their concerns with some of the issues in the report? >> not really i think in my opinion i think we addressed their concerns they gave us from the final draft, but if there are more clarifications i need to see what they were to find out that but it's a question do we want to keep things the way the city does the other reports or differently from the other projects at the city do at

least at the board level so not knowing the comments i couldn't give a exact time frame but if it's simple like the title of a line in a chart needs to be changed that could be something that is simple and done. if it's something more intense than that i would really need to know what it was. >> okay. when do you anticipate a joint meeting? >> we requested dates from the puc to coordinate schedules. i haven't got any dates at this point and i am continuing to try to work with ms. hale and the rest of the puc staff to find when joint dates can be established but i haven't gotten dates from them. >> okay. thank you. >> can i just ask for a clarification or make a suggestion? i don't want to really have a joint meeting where we're arguing over this kind of thing about the jobs and -- it probably makes sense to deal on a staff level with these types of questions. make sure that we know if there is a

difference of opinion we know exactly what it is because i have a sense that when we go for the joint meeting we want to be asking the commission to do something and that is to dedicate staff to bring back a program and to set rates. that program would potentially not include shell so they have to go design a different program than what was before them initially. we may want to ask them to design a program that includes this deep green and light green, you know, the two which hasn't been designed before. we would need to work with sf puc staff to do that to get it presented to their commission. i see this -- we have the report but the point of the report was to answer some questions about our last program, and i think we've gotten some answers. i think mr. fried wants to hear your feedback about what enernex is saying about recommendations,

which is what should the program be? should it include a shell? or is now our program something different? so i don't know how we would -- and i don't think we're going to get a joint meeting in january. i mean just knowing that we're already half through december and knowing how the sf puc calendaring goes. it's just very difficult. it's always difficult to schedule those. maybe if we have a budget we could bring enernex -- for you to have a discussion how you see the program given what enernex is telling us that when we have the joint meeting we're able to have some specific questions, and that maybe a board issue. the board may have direction there. >> i think that i appreciate that, and i do i would like to see on the staff level some sort of -- mr. fried to keep me at least -- i am sure other commissioners posted on the

resolution with the puc about the issues of the report, and whether or not there can or can't be a resolution; right? because there maybe items that are in the report that at this point can't be changed or there won't be an agreement in some instances, so i want to know when we get to a point of resolving whatever the issues are or not resolving them so we can move to the next faidz of having a presentation. i am open to doing it jointly or doing it separately, so that's where i am at. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner lindo. >> first i want to thank counsel for suggesting the plan and perhaps having a separate meeting. i think it's a good idea for us to have an action, a vote, to have a presentation that we can then give to the puc and say this is how we see this

plan working, and this is what we offer to you, and after having a discussion with enernex and a discussion internally to say what is it that we want? because if we start discussing it the way i see it with puc it starts changing before our eyes and i would like us to have something solid because there is room to move a little bit but at the end of the day this is what we're presenting and the way we would like to see it. i think there are staff issues to deal with before the discussion with enernex but a question i have for ms. hale i am assuming when this gets presented to the puc commission that staff will be providing a recommendation of some form, and i have heard that you're anxious and exciting to continue this discussion, but with all issues dealt with that you believe the staff may have are you telling us you're

recommending that puc accept the cleanpowersf? >> i'm unclear by what you mean "accept the cleanpowersf". >> adopt it. >> well, we have made presentations in the past to recommend the adoption and implementation of the program. the enernex report isn't making a recommendation for a new program and so what i am hoping to get out of the meeting is some guidance on what program elements the commission would like to see, and then we can do the good staff work to present to them what their idea would look like in terms of an overall program offering and the rates we would use to support that program would be. it would be that sort of a process i think that i would be looking forward to. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner campos. >> thank you mr. chair. just

quickly i think the main objectives should be to move this quickly, as quickly as possible, just to provide some context for why joint meetings have happened before to be honest is really to keep pressure on the public utilities commission. our experience with this project has been that unless we're in the same room hearing directly from them about what their concerns are the experience in the past has been that new set of concerns would come up, and so it was really about having both agencies in the room so that we could on the same page. if people feel there is no longer a need to do that i am open to do that but i am surprised to see if things have changed and we don't need that

anymore so i am open to what counsel said but i would also say this i would have a problem if we can't do a joint meeting in january. i don't see why we wouldn't be able to do a joint meeting in january. i don't think -- i think that if the puc is really committed to this and is making it a priority we will have a meeting in january. i guess if we don't it will show the level of -- the lack of commitment on the part of this agency but i think if the commitment is there a meeting in january shouldn't be a problem. >> thank you and i want to express that concern as well. i think there is a lot of urgency that we want to keep invected into all of this discussion and movement on cleanpowersf, so i actually like the idea of staff

getting together from lafco staff and puc staff getting together as soon as possible. i am around during the holidays and so if there's even a time to get together during the holidays i would like to participate and if my staff is available too as well in meetings and the goal should be how to get ready for the joint meeting so yeah we can actually have a very direct discussion to move the project forward and not get bogged down into the weeds but has events set up for us to move things to the next level of approval. >> if i may chair avalos. as i said in my opening comments at the beginning of this meeting we are ready to sit down with mr. fried and collaborate and put together a briefing paper that describes where we have agreement, where we don't, and what the enernex's report overall recommendations is and i am here over the holidays and i

am happy to do that. i don't think there is any issue on the puc side, reluctance whatsoever to do it. i committed on tuesday to do it for my commission and collaborate with him and put the information together. >> that's great. i would think if it's possible that ms. malcolm has the end of january is there any way she can participate. i'm not sure if that is official when she comes back or come back sooner it would be good to include her because she's done a lot of work on the clean power project so if there is a way to reach out if she can participate too that would be great. okay. that's part a of item 3 so we also have part b. could we have a presentation on that. . >> yes and part b is the topic whether we have update on the regulatory front for cleanpowersf and yes, i will say

that as i have reported at prior meetings we do have activity on the pg&e green tariff application before the california public utilities commission. the administrator law judge assigned to that case reopened the record to take in some additional information to reconcile that record with a recent california puc decision on renewable portfolio standards and the integration and the -- excuse me, the costs of integration of renewables into the utilities supply port folio. we had taken the position in the green tariff case that integration costs should be among the costs included in the option price so customers participating in that program are paying their fair share and customers not participating in the program are not paying for the program, and so -- >> could you explain what that

means? what does integration costs mean? >> the additional costs associated with bringing renewables online and having them work well with the other resources that are in the supply portfolio so for example a gas powered resource you could turn on and off and dial it up when demand is up and dial it back down when demand is low. the wind, renewable -- sorry, the wind and solar projects and those supplies vary based on mother nature and so there's a cost for how do you balance the supply and make sure that the very intermittent wind supply that is coming in and the solar supplies that ramps up quick in the mid-morning and stays high and tails off as the day wearos

how do you stack the resources up that totals the supply constantly that meets your customer's demand? so there is an art and science to integrating those different kinds of supply curves to meet your total demand, your total supply need, and it's those sorts of cost that's utility incurs that need to be factored into the overall cost structure. we had made that point many months ago in this proceeding, and now that the california puc spoke to that issue in another docket as to how to do that and how those costs should be bonn the administrative law assigned to this green tariff application that pg&e filed said let's bring that issue back and get a fresh look at it now that the commission has given direction and tell us how it should work within the green tariff option

so there's a short briefing period that the administrative law judge is providing for all parties for that issue. part of what that reopening of the record does is resets the clock -- well, a couple of thoughts on reading the tea leerves around that. the administrative law judges face a statutory requirement to give the decisions within the commission's within 90 days of the record being complete. we hit 90 days in this proceeding maybe two weeks ago. in fairness to the administrative law judge the original judge that heard the case retired and now a new judge is taking that record and reviewing it. the positive aspect of this development is that it appears

that administrative law judge has completed review and has identified one issue that needs additional work so that is good. sounds like the judge has done their homework. identified one issue that needs more work. gave a short period of time for the parties to speak to that issue and then hopefully we're in a position to issue a decision pretty quickly thereafter. sort of the down side is by reopening the record that reset the 90 day clock i referred to, so the optimists in me says they're close to a decision once the last set of issues are vetted and understood they're be a position -- the judge will propose a decision soon thereafter. the pessimists in me says they reset the clock and have another 90 days. i'm not sure which road we're on but i think the expect aigdz that the administrative law judge

reviewed the record is solid and hopefully we're on that optimistic path. >> so they're determining the cost of the program will be. >> correct. hopefully soon we will have a good sense of what pg&e 100% renewable portfolio product that the cleanpowersf program would be competing against will cost. >> great. and so guesstimation final? >> yeah, there is a short window here where the record has been reopened. once the administrative law judge issues the proposed decision it has to sit for not less than 30 days before the commission can act on it, so we're probably looking at march, april. >> okay. >> okay. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> i see no other questions from commissioners so we could go on to public comment. just to say i have -- would we have

quorum if i had to go at 3:30 o'clock? that's my time. >> [inaudible] >> you only need two? okay. public comment is now open. >> okay at last good afternoon commissioners. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and our city and representatives here of san francisco clean energy advocates. our message today is this report is clear and decisive evidence that we can now move forward. all of the issues that were brought up by staff and i have read all their comments on the red line document are as you say talking about clarity. none of them in any way question the findings of this report so what we have now is two different -- over the last couple of years two different consultant reports

that show 9,000, 10,000 jobs, huges amounts of megawatt energy at the same or lower rate than pg&e the way it's looking like now and we resolved the issues that sf puc came up last year around jobs creation. we might want to remember that the controller last year said there might be negative 100 jobs. now we have ted egan saying this is right and we're claiming thousands of jobs and where exactly the jobs are and the exact number is not as important as moving the program forward. we see that it's more sensible idea to do what sonoma and marin have done and do 50%, 100% or the break down, light green, dark green can be. we see that the sf puc can do the purchasing instead of shell. all these issues were brought up by the commission, the sf puc and now

they're resolved so we staff to work on the things in the background to clarify but we believe by the i understand of january the sf puc able to bring back kim malcolm and start working on developing a final plan to move this forward and with a lot of behind the meter assets -- >> thank you. any other speakers? >> good afternoon. bruce wolf, haight-ashbury neighborhood council and san francisco clean advocates. yeah, there will be jobs and time to move the program forward. let's not waste anymore time and if you encounter as you anticipate any obstacles or barriers about overcome them positively and rapidly. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker

please. >> hello commissioners. jud holtman with 350 bay area, 350 san francisco. so i know we've all been working on this issue for at least a couple of years and we have heard a lot of questions over the last year with the program design with the issue of shell, the issue of jobs, the issue of excessive reliance on renewable energy certificates if we're trying to serve 100% renewable energy from day one. this report answers all of the questions. eric spoke to some of that so i won't go into that but i hope your staffs and yourself will get the opportunity to go over the report because i think it's pretty great. we heard there would be no jobs conceivably. no jobs and now we're talking about breaking down model sets of jobs and that's definitely the right direction. the job

estimates use a standard methodology and indirect jobs are normal to count. i think if we can get that clarification too it would be great to move forward and not hold up the commission for an hour. also to point out these job estimates do not include any energy efficiency or behind the meter jobs that was mentioned at the meeting. that would be used to create substantially more jobs. that wasn't included because this report is based on a list of proposed projects that were scoped and suggested by the sf puc. we gave that list -- the city and county gave that list to enernex as a way of saying without going all crazy into the behind the meter stuff these are projects that the puc looked at. why don't you look at these potential projects and this list is from those projects. as was said we might not do all of the

projects. >> >> by the end of january we want to see the updated rate setting and plan creation under -- >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to speak. i am jess ackerman and the conservation manager for the sierra club and excited to see the enernex report and resolves the issues that we had and excited to move forward. we would like to see director malcolm come back to the puc and actually start looking at what the rates would be for a program that wouldn't include the shell contract and that's pretty much it so thanks so much for all of your work on this and we look forward to having you continue to push this forward and really putting pressure on everyone to move the program forward. thank you. >> thank you. any other public that would like to

comment? >> hello commissioners. i am tiffany from the sierra club and i am also in agreement with everyone in this room that i am looking forward to seeing cleanpowersf being moved forward and also i am happy to see that we're addressing the fact we shouldn't be fixated on what type of jobs and more on the issue of climate change and how san francisco can work to combat that so thank you for having us here today and i am excited to see this program move forward. >> great. thank you so much and seeing no other member of the public come forward we will close public comment. [gavel] and this is just an information item, right, so we will go on to our next item, item number 5. >> sorry. >> item number 5 status update regarding the study on the implementation and opportunities for undergrounding of wires in

san francisco. >> jason fried lafco. i was trying to keep the meeting moving forward quickly. as i mentioned last meeting this is an update to where we're at with the study. it's a verbal acknowledgment that we have been doing a lot of research. luckily i found amazing research intern amy brendan who is here and doing a lot of the research because the enernex report has been sucking up my time and i have been doing that. she is helping with the research. the one thing we found out since the last meeting it urn its out that the budget analyst office was looked into a portion of what we were supposed to be doing here so in consultation with both the chair and supervisor tang's office we have modifying slightly what we're doing so we don't repeat the work of the analyst office. they're looking at the cost break down to do and

cost in other places so we're leaving that work to them and working in coordination with them and we're going to take over the next steps how to get the program moving forward. how do we potentially find other funding sources based on the research we're both doing and part of the work is done by the budget legislative analyst and we will take over the rest. we did a good portion and drafted a little bit of the language for the undergrounding side of things. we haven't gotten to the fire things and we -- fiber things and we need more research. hopefully in january we will have a written report but depending on the other items could be pushed back to february for a draft report done. >> okay. that's very good. thank you for the report. i just want to make sure you're working closely with president tang so that she feels she's is getting what she wanted out of it. i think we're in agreement and wanted to see the

undergrounding happening as well but she called for it so you're working closely with her office? >> yes. i am informing her staff. >> okay. this item is open for public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment? >> eric brooks san francisco green party and local organization and our net and we worked in the mid2000's of making sure we keep the internet systems public and not sell them to private corporations anymore and along those lines we think this study work could be used as a launch pad to get to the bigger discussion of revamping the ammiano study done several years ago so it's up-to-date so we can start talking about city wide broadband for everybody in the community through partly fiber and other methods, and i know you've heard this before. i think the next step now for the commission is that i would

strongly urge you commissioners to go online and look up in chattanooga tennessee, the gig. that's the first city wide major public brand ban network for the citizen reef the community. it gives us the picture of where we need to goally. >> >> and this report doesn't encompass but but it's the launch point to get there right away so i urge you to look up the gig in chattanooga and check it out what is possible because it's an amazing situation where they're getting enough revenue from the system that it's not really costing a lot to taxpayers or ratepayers. this is a program that's cheaper than what we already pay for over a gig wat of connection speed so please read that before jason gives the final report so we're ready to go on the next step of

getting community public brand ban to the -- broad ban to the entirety of san francisco. this is the same as eisenhower's highway system. it's the public internet system, instead of private internet system so please be check it out. thanks. >> okay. i look forward to that. any other member of the public to comment? okay. we will close public. [gavel] and go to the next item. >> chair avalos can i thank gene cleanon and one of the activists in the district that have been urging us to take on the issue and i wanted to thank them and the other residents for bringing this to us. thank you. >> thank you. madam clerk. >> item 6 executive officer's report. >> would you also like to call future agenda items with this because my report will meld into that. >> okay. let's call item 7

as well. >> item 8 is future agenda items. >> thank you. first all i wanted to start off by saying in january there will be the chair and vice chair will be up for reelection again so keep that in mind as we move to the january meeting that the elections are coming as we always traditionally do in the first meeting of the year have the elections for chair and vice chair for the 2015 year. >> just a question. >> yeah. >> can chairs -- do they have to be members -- any commissioner could be a chair? >> any commissioner could be a chair. the alternate cannot be chair. although i would have to talk with legal counsel, with supervisor mar not having anyone in the regular seat he fills in as a alternate seat member until that is filled in but the alternates from my understanding shouldn't be elected as chair or vice chair but any of the other