crackers right so let's take a group picture and grace and everyone from chinese consolidated yeah. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good morning, today is february 27, 2015. my name is john avalos, the chair of lafco. lack -- the

clerk today is lisa. it's brought to you today by sf govtv staff. madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes, please silence your cell phones and any devices. >> >>clerk, please call the roll. >> commissioner avalos, present, commissioner breed, absent, campos present, crews present mar present. you have a quorum. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, let's go item no. 2. >> item no. 2 approval of the lafco minutes from the december 12th #shgs #34i regular meeting and the january 30, 2015, joint special meeting with

the san francisco public utilities commission. >> colleagues, any comment? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we have a motion on the minutes? the motion of supervisor mar and second by commissioner crews. we'll take that without objection. next item, please. >> city clerk: item no. 3, election of the chairperson and advice person for 2015. >> velgd. -- very good. this is the time we do the election for the chair and vice-chair. commissioner campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you. this is a very important role for the agency. and i would nominate chair avalos to continue in this chair. you have done a great job in that

capacity and moving that community choice aggregation forward but also other various initiatives. i know that it's very challenging role because it's not only do you have to you know work with the rest of us on this commission, but you have the san francisco public utilities commission and the supervisors office and the mayor's office. i would like to make a motion to nominate chair avalos to continue in that capacity. >> great. thank you for your support and i would like to continue on because i feel it's important to keep the leadership going special ly in this crucial year for cleanpowersf. your motion and second by commissioner mar. we should probably open

it up for public comment. public comment on the motion to reelect me for chair of lafco. and seeing no member of the public come forward on that we'll close public comment on that. part of this item and can we take that colleagues, without objection? okay. thank you, colleagues. i really appreciate keeping the leadership going the way it has been and your support and your support of the effort around keeping cleanpowersf going as well and all the other functions for lafr -- lafco. the second part of item no. 3 is electing a vice-chair for 2015 and i would like to nominate cynthia crews as our vice-chair and cynthia has come in just

recently middle of last year to serve on lafco and i really appreciated her studying closer to the issues and not just coming to the meetings but really taking the issue of clean power powersf out the community and being a strong voice in discussing how we can move cleanpowersf forward and different neighborhoods in san francisco and different committee bodies. i think it's a great leadership position for you to be able to take on as you have already shown great leadership. i would like to get a motion to support cynthia. we have a motion from commissioner mar and seconded by commissioner campos to support synthesis -- cynthia crews for our vice-chair. do you have any comments, cynthia? commissioner crews? >> i do. it means a lot to

me. i have been on lafco for such a short time, i think 9 months. i really dove in and everybody has been so supportive and helpful and helping me to understand the procedures and the unique situation that lafco is in as it pertains to cleanpowersf and you know that i like to wong out on the details and i would love to serve as vice-chair. i'm not sure we do much as vice-chair except for chair the meetings when you are not here. i will do that to the best of my ability. >> i'm sure you will do fine. we'll open up this part of item 3 for public comment. any member of the public would like to comment on the nomination for commissioner crews for lafco. we do have some public input.

>> i don't want to make the meeting take longer than necessary but i would like to take this opportunity, i'm jed holsman as a member of the public working with lafco for some time i would like to strongly support commissioner crews for this commission and she's been a great public feat on this commission which is a very important part of this commission and look forward to working with her and the rest of you going forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public to comment on item no. 3 and seeing none we'll close public comment. if we call to have a motion on the floor can we take that without objection? okay. commissioner crews is now vice-chair commissioner crews, congratulations. i look forward to working with you more

closely. >> chair, i would like to say that i think she's in a great vice-chair and not only because you walk out on things but you share the experience of what environmental groups bring to us and you do it in a very effective and articulate way. that's what i appreciate about your leadership. >> commissioner campos? >>supervisor david campos: to add on to that i think it's an excellent choice. i think it's really important to have someone who understands community and how community works. for this program to be successful that's going to be critical an i know that you take that very seriously. so i look forward to seeing you serve in that capacity. congratulations. >> congratulations. we'll go on to our next item, please. >> mr. chairman, you needed to be excused for the voting of yourself and chairperson. >> okay, we haven't quite that had

vote yet. why don't we, do i have to have a motion to recuse myself? >> yes. you have to have someone recuse you. >> i vote we excuse chair avalos from the voting on the chair vote. >> the same motion also excuse commissioner crews, vice-chair crews. >> okay. so that we'll amend your motion. >> mr. chairman, these are two separate votes. for the excuse alf you for the chairperson. do i have a second? who was the second. >> commissioner crews. >> the chairperson for avalos is without objection and for the excuse alf commissioner crews for vice-chair. >> i will second that and commissioner campos. >> without objection. we are

okay. >> thank you. >> okay so we are going to move forward, please. >> item no. 4. community choice aggregation activities report. status of daept on the cleanpowersf program and tim line for program launch. b, status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. >> we have barbara hale and you will be sharing on the timeline? >> yes. you and director fried came to the public utilities commission on tuesday and talked about how the timeline can be sped indicted and -- expedited and i'm wondering if there are any changes that you are proposing based on our ideas and input

>> barbara hale, manager for clean powersf. we built the schedule with the comments we received at our january 30th, lafco joint puc meeting in mind. we think this is a realistic schedule and our general manager feels we should keep this schedule . some of the discussions with chair avalos and if those presentations and opportunities present themselves we'll definitely pursue them and where you can help make those opportunities present themselves, we would definitely welcome that help. at this point in time we aren't proposing to make additional changes to, we didn't come in the door here with changes to the timeline relative to what we presented to our own commission and you will see that what this

timeline does is sort of the basic bottom line of this timeline is, we will be serving san francisco customers through a cleanpowersf program in january of 2016 under this schedule. we will be setting not to exceed rates early in the schedule. we will set the actual rates in october after we have procured resources to serve this new customer group. in order to begin to serve customers in january of 2016, in order to serve customers in january 2016, we will go through the statutorily required output process recalls that that involves two notifications of customers in advance of service and two notifications to

customers after they have begun service. the complete opt out process, the launch and enrollment program aspect phase doesn't end until march, but customers are served prior to that timeline. some of the feedback we got on tuesday that we were able to act on we heard an interest in making sure the cleanpowersf website is up and running and that all the links are active. we've been taking care of that. including the link that allows residents to sign up and identify themselves as people who want to be part of the program from day one. that's been react elevated and some of that soft communication with our possible customers has begun again. i'm happy to report on that. i think you've had an opportunity working with your executive officer to review the timeline and i'm happy to take any questions you may have about

it. >>supervisor john avalos: great. thank you. jason fried? >> yes. over all i'm very pleased with the timeline they have presented an they put together a realistic timeline on what needs to be done. there is one area i'm in disagreement and one area that i agree with what they did. i will touch own those two. one is they have a 90-day window to go to the board of supervisors to get the mayor's approval for the procurement process changing some of the rules around that and i don't disagree with it taking traditionally 90 days. i do believe that the board of supervisors if they wish to to expedite that process. i'm fine with the schedule but this she be prepared for that action to take only 60 days

and be prepared to move forward should the board take action very quickly. i'm assuming that some of you may know from the board of supervisors. >> would that require waving the 30-day rule? >> it would require waving the 30-day rule and assigned to a committee and whatever committee is assigned to has a hearing coming up whenever there is room on the agenda to do it. it's doing a little bit of early coordination to make sure the committee knows this is going to be coming and it's going to be assigned to you. save a slot at this meeting because that's where we would like to have it done so we are not extending it beyond where we need to. i will work with the board of supervisors to make sure that works in an sped expedited manner. a rough estimate that it could take 60 days. the one area where i'm still going to

be arguing and pushing for is in here once the board of supervisors has approved the rfo change process in the procurement contract thaeshths where they start arguing the rfo's. i think they should do that concurrently with going with the board process. that will be the only time in the timeline from step by step perspective that it would change so when it's gone through the mayor's office process that they are able to issue it out to the general public an getting the proposals shortly there after. that would be the one thing and if you take that and that's 30 days, you can move everything else up along that change 30 days sooner and if the board were to complete the process quicker than 90 days you would take that same amount and move those items up more. you have the potential to move the time on the rfo process and

get the rfo issued and sign 2 months earlier if it went according to the regular schedule. the rest of the agenda, third time i'm actually fine with and believe they have put together a very solid timeline. i agree i don't want to put something there and say we can shave 3 days off here. let's give them the time they need and i think they have done a great job. this is one item that i would like to see changed. >> in terms of moving up the reform process to expedite the offerings, what are your thoughts? >> that's the sort of opportunity if it presents itself we would be happy to advance the schedule. the days in the schedule are intended to show the sequencing where sequencing is necessary, parallel where that's an at some point. if we are able to

shorn -- short en the amount of time for the process itself, great, that means all that are related to the activity will move up to and we'll stay in step. we won't pencils down waiting until date on the schedule says we are going to be working on it. we'll stay in step. if we are able to see through the reform process that the reforms we are asking for are being welcomed and we have a pretty good read that those reforms will be adopted, then that will be a sign to us that we can begin our request for offer drafting process earlier. i just don't want to draft an rfo and having to redraft it if the legislation puts forth something before the board. it's just those sorts of opportunities as they present themselves that we'll be

happy to advance the schedule and move forward faster oovment >> great. i would like to suggest that to move closely with my office on the board of supervisors president breed 's office to coordinate and expedite the process here with lafco that we are willing to work with you on that. >> thank you, i appreciate that. >> i know commissioner crews has a question but i have one more i want to ask. we are talking about reforming the power purchase process. what do those reforms like like being proposed and that could be, you if you don't have the answers now, perhaps at the next meeting. if there is legislation that we need to approve. is that what we are doing to work closely on the reform process. >> yes, at this point we are working at the staff level to identify what those road blocks have been in the past that have slowed us down

and have been difficult to get the bidding community to agree to which increases cost. so we are identifying those issues today. right now we have authority that the board granted us to commit to power purchase contracts, power purchase agreements as a 5-year duration. utilizing the standard contract that's used in the electric in the wholesale power market in the west today. so, we are hoping to build upon that authority as we come to you. we are also hoping to identify some of the hurdles we are having for procuring some of the basic transaction tools that participants in the power market utilize and hoping to identify where there might be opportunities to stream line procurement of energy

efficiencies supportive tools and programs. so those of the general areas that we are looking for sort of stream lining of the process. and once we identify those and discuss them with city attorney further we'll be in a position to have more dialogue with your staff your board staff as well as the lafco staff. >> would that involve legislation with the puc and board of supervisors? >> my understanding what we are looking for will require an ordinance. >> vice-chair crews? >> thank you, >>cynthia crews: i think the timeline is very helpful and certainly looking at the more expanding page

2-3 version is helpful. there are some areas though that i wasn't sure if they would fall on this timeline or maybe a business plan timeline, but i was thinking specifically in regards to the behind the meters in terms of efficiencies that i met with cal brin from the department of environment and he talked about programs and opportunities for cleanpowersf and i wasn't sure if the puc had engaged the department of environment just yet or if it part of this timeline. can you let me know on that? >> sure, we weren't including interactions within the city family in this timeline so much. we certainly asked mr. broom head to provide us and department head rafael to provide us on their thinking and the program they are currently operating can

be helpful to the cca set of customers that we are envisioning. we are on their radar and we had those initial conversations and they are putting together some thoughts that they will offer to us. when you look at the timeline, some of the behind the meter type activities fall both within our procurement program planning steps and with our programs support sefrtsdz contracting. we will also be bringing to the rate fairness board some of our thoughts on programs that are like net energy metering programs. we are still trying to try and decide to get legal advice on whether those sorts of program offerings need to go to the

rate service board to a more wholesale transaction. like a metering program would go to the board like a fit program wouldn't because it's a transaction. we'll also be engaging with them as appropriate onseting the program parameters. you can see us presenting items to the rate fairness board on the third page detail sheet as row 6. >> from what i understand that there are unique opportunities that cleanpowersf gives us that customers could have efficiencies, say for example instead of just doing efficiencies where it comes down to changing out something that is electrical that they can change out that we can bundle these

within clean powersf and we are offer something where they are doing water, wastewater, electrical and gas efficiencies that the customer can get a lot more savings and a lot more impact in terms of greenhouse gas thaen they were if they were to do in traditional programs offered today through pg & e. i would just encourage you to look at some of those opportunities and i would say even if we wanted to have maybe we can talk about it when we get to item 7 to have mr. broom head or someone from the department of the environment come talk to us about those programs as well just as how they might play into cleanpowersf. the last two things that i will say are that today i signed up for cleanpowersf as a customer so thank you very much for fixing that part of the website. i did take a

quick minute and the old excuse me but i am a project manager in communication. it says it launched in 2013 and i was excited about that then i realized it was a typo. if you can have your team take one more look at that website. i just wanted to ask because i'm interested in whether or not you posted the requisition for the director position? >> yes. the director position is moving it's way through the city process. so it's moving, but it has not been posted yet. >> great. thank you. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you, commissioner mar. >> >>supervisor eric mar: i'm very pleased that the timeline has been discussed at the puc and that mr. fried suggestions for

expediting the timeline sounds like there is openness to the time process. i like speeding up the process and that makes a lot of sense and concurrent scheduling and beginning the drafting of the rfo's make sense to me as well. i have been getting good letters from people well informed in my district and people around the city. i would like to read a question from herb rossman, a senior because he's saying something about improving the rates quickly and how we can expedite the rates setting. i notice there is a gap between the deadline for the board of supervisors supporting or potentially rejecting the not to exceed rates by june 12th, and then there is 3-month period until the final program rates are presented to the puc that's beginning

on september 30th. there is a 3-month gap in that period of time. i'm just wondering why there is that gap. >> yes, if you look at the third sheet which is the most detailed of these timelines, you will see what you just described on row 4 where the final program rates are prepared and presented to the puc. that step is related if you look down because there is an arrow into that box. it's related to row 18 where the puc approves the executed power purchase agreement. >> i'm sorry, can i interrupt quickly. it's page two in our pocket, not page 3. make sure you are looking at the correct lines. >> the row numbers should be the same across all of these. it's just where, how much detail is provided in the sheet. so you will see that there is a relationship between row 18 where we

are signing power purchase agreements and row 4 where the final program rates are prepared and presented. and that's because we need to know what our wholesale cost is before we can set the final rate. that's the activity occurring in the 3-month period going out to the market, sooner -- soliciting the market and going out for approval. >> that makes sense. where they are advocating that we need time to really educate and to counter the propaganda that is out there and will be out there quickly to know what cleanpowersf is and my hope is that we work closely with community base groups so multi-outreach is done as

well. >> thank you. >> commissioner campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mitch, -- mr. chairman, just a quick question. i would like to thank the puc for taking comments to heart. i appreciate the very expedited way in which you try to approach this in the openness also to hear comments from our staff, from our executive officer. in terms of the cca program director position, i know it hasn't been posted. i want to thank vice-chair crews for asking about that. what is the timing of when you think you will have someone hired? now, that's very difficult to predict. so, the physician right now is going through the requisition approval process. typically once we have an approved requisition, we then