appears to be done in a robust way with respect to the methodology and i would like to see the numbers unpacked a little bit. what we're seeing is a total and i am asking what the pieces that get you to the total so we can better understand it and benchmark it against our own experience like at sunset. >> sure. are these same numbers ever requested in pg&e jobs? >> i don't have first hand knowledge of that. i don't know . yeah, i don't know. i don't think it's requested in the context of the california public utilities commission review of pg&e expenditures. i don't believe it is in that setting. it maybe in some other though. >> sure. >> [inaudible] >> i want to make sure we're talking apples to apples when we talk about jobs creation as far

as city projects goes, city and county and then also on a state wide level just so that we're holding cleanpowersf accountable to the state -- or the enernex report as to pertains to cleanpowersf in the same method and reporting standards that we do for all others. >> and i think mr. fried referred that the enernex methodology and the actual model that the city controller's office uses, the controller ted eagon uses when he puts together information they're not the same model but they have similar methodologies and i don't know if mr. eagon was considered whether he considers it apples to apples or mixing up of fruit there. >> yeah, in my discussions with mr. eagon said they're slightly different models but

basically the same depending on the category of the work that you're doing the jobs will come out slightly different but they should be pretty lose and they use similar methodologies how they do it. you talk about the jobs on site, how much money is spent into the economy and translates to more jobs down the line so it uses similar methodology but a different model so the output various slightly but you should be close and pretty close if they run it through the city model with the numbers of ours and close but not exactly the same to the city's models and enernex's models. >> thank you for clarifying. i am less concerned about the methodology -- especially with ted eagon's comments and more concerned whether we're holding enernex to some additional hurdles, so that the puc understands just what's included

in terms of jobs creation. i want to be sure that when you said we want to get the message right that we're not skewing that, the message that the puc wants to use to perhaps stall or halt this project. >> so i am just -- at the staff level we're just looking for understanding how the total number that's listed there under a heading construction jobs breaks down. we're just looking for more transparency on the math. i think the methodology provides this information but the way it's shared in the report doesn't disclose that information, and so i'm just asking for more disclosure on that so i can say okay in san francisco our experience at sunset per million dollars spent was about half of a person.

that's an actual construction job and not indirect or induce the i don't have a way to do that because it doesn't list that job component of the total. that's all i am asking for and i think the data is all there. it's not in the report so i think it's easy for enernex to sit down with us and show us how they got to the total and then we'll have that information. how it's presented in the report -- if san francisco typically calls all jobs construction jobs i'm not sure that's what happened in the examples that were given like america's cup because i didn't read those reports, not in my wheel house to do that but if it's the city's practice to do that then fine. i think you know when you read about it in

the trade press or in the newspaper those folks need to understand what that number is. it's not just a construction job number. >> sure. i actually watched the sf puc's meeting so i am familiar with your report out to the commissioners and to me i didn't see a lot of concern on that side in terms of the commissioners on those types of concerns, so i think it's perhaps coming from the staff's side. >> yeah. that's what i have been saying at the staff level because that's what i am referring to. we provided staff level comments on the report and i summarized those on the report to my commission on tuesday. >> okay. great. just sort of moving on are there -- i always talk about going forward. are there plans to bring back kim

malcolm now that we have some sort of forward looking documents? >> so kim malcolm took leave. it was at her request. we granted it and it expires on january 31. >> okay great. and then if either ms. malcolm or someone else was engaged or some preliminary weights can be set as -- you know, a suggestion to the commission to the puc that they can start to begin to think how these would compare in these areas for cleanpowersf so that we can just start moving forward. i mean it sounds like the enernex report is a path forward and i want to see we're

not stalling things with waiting on a meeting. i think on the staff side creating some of the suggested rates or preliminary rates could be a way that we could move the ball. >> so the enernex report provides good information. it does not describe a new program. >> i understand that -- but it's also set out -- said in the report some of the things can't be done until the sf puc sets the rates. >> and we can't set the rates or we can't propose rates to our commission until we know resource mix, costs, size of the program. we put all that data together with the policy guidance we got from the commission for 100% renewable programs, 20-30-megawatts in size, that kind of information

was known to us and we put the program together. now, we're seeing enernex's report suggesting that the same sort of approach that sonoma clean power and others have taken that renewable content among 100% renewable. we haven't taken that question back to our commission. i am hopeful as enernex presents their thoughts at this joint meeting we will feedback from the commission to do that work on. >> great. remind me again when the next commission meetings are. we just had the december meeting but what about in the new year. >> the second and fourth tuesdays of every month. >> okay great. >> okay. >> and i think that concludes my questions and i want to thank staff -- or thank the commissioners for bearing with

me as i ask a lot. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner mar. >> i wanted to thank commissioner crews for reviewing the puc commission's meeting because that helps us to understand that it's staff lack of clarity on enernex, some of the data, and i agree with my colleagues, others that have said there is so much urgency with the climate crisis in front of us to move cleanpowersf forward and if we're only talking about redefining the construction jobs or something that seems tiny to the broader overall picture of what we're trying to accomplish and i think this plan set forth by enernex and i know we hear community input on this is setting a manager, available, and achievable plan for san francisco's future. i wanted to say that the enernex report doesn't talk about the soon to

be established san francisco energy efficiency task force. that say community driven body with groups from the grass-roots environmental justice movement and emerald cities and other groups working with the department of the environment that that can be another body that is helping to move the build out and the local efficiency projects forward so my hope is that we integrate that community driven body in addition to what we're doing suggested by the report and i wanted to thank jason fried and barbara hale and others and like my colleagues i have anxiety how slow this has been and i don't want to see anymore barriers and delays. >> thank you commissioner mar. commissioner breed. >> thank you. i just wanted to some clarity from ms. hale. it seems like the only concern with the puc is the lack of

clarity around the job component in terms of the local build out and how that whole formula has come together. is that correct? >> barbara hale, assistant general manager at the sf puc. i used that as an example of the sort of thing i know already we're looking for better clarity on now that we received what is referred to as the final report. >> okay. is there a list of questions or a way to coordinate a meeting with you and enernex and mr. fried in order to address some of the issues in order to be all on the same page especially when we have our joint meeting about this particular report? >> yes, as i mentioned it's my intention to collaborate with mr. fried to go through the report and understand the various issues, have an opportunity to document -- write something up in a summary way.

my commission asked for that prior to the joint meeting. we received this report on the afternoon of monday of this week. >> okay. >> okay. >> got it. >> prior to that we provided a multi-page comments on the prior version. i'm looking for a little time here to work with mr. fried to identify any outstanding issues that we may still have and to summarize that for my commission. >> and i appreciate that, i guess it just feels like there's more excuses and that's been a bit frustrating because part of it is it just feels as though any excuse to try to prevent us from moving forward in this direction, and i do appreciate the fact that you just received it on monday. you need the time. i totally understand that. i have actually received two drafts before i got the final report and there's not a significant difference that i could tell. i know that folks

from the advocate community have provided feedback on their suggestions that we have been able to incorporate, so i guess you know, yes, i respect the fact that you need time, but i think our patience is run out, mostly because the rates haven't been set. we have done this report. we are just providing information in order to make it easier for the puc when in fact the puc if they have this information they should be moving forward with a plan for clean power directly themselves, so i think i'm just -- you know, my patience is left the building a little bit, and i am sorry to express frustration here today, but we as members of this body doing everything we can to try and make it easier, and it's just not happening, and that is a very frustrating thing to see, and it's clear from my

perspective because puc hadn't set rates that the puc doesn't have the will to do this and i want to figure out a way to get them to do this, and this report is not a report that's meant to get the puc going as much as it's a report to be a road map to explain what the options are, what we have available and so some of the details that you're looking for that you're concerned about are not necessarily details that should derail us from moving forward in this process, so i just want to see us move forward. i am frustrated. this is a long time coming. the excuses are just -- you know, not working for me anymore, and so i'm just hoping we can move this thing forward a lot more quicker than we have.

>> so if i may. i am not standing before you today providing excuses. that is not my intention. i apologize if that's how how i am presenting to you today. that's not my intention. my intention was merely to give an example of the kind of thing that we commented on the prior draft that i think still needs additional work in order to accurately represent what this cleanpowersf program could provide to san francisco. >> thank you. >> could provide to the region, could provide beyond the region. >> thank you for that clarity. >> that's so that's an example. >> so if this report is with your feedback if the report is solid what then? what's the next step? because that's what we're ready to do, is the next step. >> so i understand the next step to be that our commissions

are jointly be presented the report's findings. at the staff level i am looking forward to hearing the responses of my commission from what they learned from the enernex report and the dialogue they can have you at the public setting in the joint meeting. i think that is an opportunity for us at the staff level to get additional guidance what work we should be performing to be responsible to our commissioner's needs so that's whaooking for at the staff level as a next step. i do want to say i believe we're among the first of the commenters on the prior draft providing feedback to mr. fried on the 20th of november and in advance of the commitment for 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