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 go, we then publish the position as it's been approved and begin recruitment. and the recruitment process will stay open until we have a sufficient number of applicants to begin an interview process. this is a high priority for myself and the general manager. we talk about our need to get this position staffed. it is a leadership position. much of the work

that is described here in the timeline is performed boo i other staff. so we can continue to make progress, absent the leadership position, of course it's much preferred to have a leadership position filled having said that, but i do want to assure you that we will make progress regardless of the vacancy that we have in the leadership position. >> do you have a sense from dhr, department of hurm resources as to when the position will be posted? >> i don't have a sense for that. i don't. sorry. >> do you think we'll have it by our next lafco meeting? >> i'm not sure. >> if there has been no posting for the position by that point that as part of the presentation that we can maybe have someone from dhr come to

the lafco meeting and explain to us where that process is. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >>supervisor john avalos: great. any other thing to present. commissioner mar? no. okay. commissioner crews? >>cynthia crews: i have one more thing for ms. hale. in terms of basic communications, i know that the things in the timeline describe the types of notifications or the legal notifications. all the beautiful glossy brochures and things we can take to potential cleanpowersf, where does this fit in with this? >> let me address first the

statutory required. the second sheet, you see a row 7, activity which is prepare and finalize pg & e rate comparison. that is a required communication with potential customers. as well as the requirement rows in 32. the other thing you see in rows 25. education. we have an adopted education campaign dmoptd our prior program design. we are refreshing that. that's a multilingual multimedia campaign. we are as you noted we are

updating our and were looking at ways trying to project out as part of the program what we can community actively before we have the program design detail set. we are trying to time and shape our communications to establish a voice and an accurate representation of the program consistent with what the information that we have and the approvals we have. so much of the really wholehearted multimedia communication happens after we have this final rate set, after we have a good sense of what the full program offering is. but in advance of that, we do want to have some communications and we currently have some collateral material that is reflective of the old

program design and we are dusting that off and figuring out what we need to do to present a more accurate picture from what we are talking about from that two-thirds of the program we talked about at our january meeting. >> i think that's helpful. i think where programs communications and customer communication for the timeline maybe a little late for people to get as if we were, as commissioner mar would speak at community meetings. if we had collateral to take at this time. people are asking for details and whatever we could, even if it wasn't the final design, if we could have some collateral, i would love to see it just to toot your horn a little bit, i think the puc has

excellent communications in marketing department and i know they do a lot of it in-house. the water project they did and the commercials were hilarious. i look forward to see what comes out of the puc when it comes from cleanpowersf. >> you can bet they will exercise that talent on this program. >> does that mean you will change your name from sf water on twitter? it's worth asking. >>supervisor john avalos: okay. any other questions from the committee. we'll now take up public comment. anyone who would like to come forward, please do so. >> good afternoon. eric

brooks, clean power community. i would like to thank the sf puc staff for really stepping up to the plate and coming forward with a timeline with what reflects with the lafco commissioners and your commissioners requested in the last joint hearing and i think that's amazing and should be acknowledged. but there are a couple pieces missing in this that are very important to put in and i want to aim -- amplify what commissioner crews has said that right now there are advocate community meetings. we are getting asked about rates, we are getting asked about jobs, we are getting asked about low income customers. so and we are also reaching out to the labor unions and the labor communities and the building trade and they are really concerned about union jobs, local jobs, california jobs, things like

that. and this gets the heart of this is the not to exceed rate which we already know and the staff acknowledged in last week's or this week's sf puc hearing, we know what that rate is. it's the same and the pg & e brown power rate and it's essential that we set up the process in the not to exceed rate and ask the sf puc staff and sf puc to send it to the rate fairness board right now, not in may, but right now because then we have and then get the sf puc and board to adopt that as soon as possible because then we can take that to the community and say, this is it. it's on paper. this is the rate. right now we are only hearing it verbably in hearings and it's not good enough and for the jobs piece, we need this timeline and it's not in there and we need this is to start out sooner and we need another

rate set. >> commissioners, jed holsman. i want to thank the sf puc staff. we were at the hearing on tuesday and it's so gratifying to see this and to be able to see this a second time. it's like a movie that you want to see again. i would come here everyday to look at this timeline. we did hear from commissioner avalos and mr. fried that both hearings there seems to be like 1-2 months that we can shave on this. i guess without even getting too outside of the box. the piece

i would like to talk about on page two, we are at row no. 3 in february and row no. 6 when pg & e files their green tariff with the rates. as i said at the puc, we basically have a two 1/2 month period here to get this major step that we want them to take. we want them to take to publicity for that and we want there to be publicity for that but we don't want them to take away all the excitement and momentum that this great san francisco is making with our power program. so i would just hope that between now and may 10th we can do as much public work as possible and i think a great catalyst to that would be setting the not to exceed rate at the pg & e

brown power rate as soon as possible because it will give clearly the knowledge of that number. i would get that rate to the board as soon as possible to accelerate that portion of this public outreach. thank you. >> thank you very much. any is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>supervisor john avalos: i would like to get to what it means on expediting the rates. what like in 2013 with not to exceed rates at the end of the process. we are the not to exceed rates happening at the beginning. what was critical is that the public wants to know. having the public informed sooner will help to get

broader support. your talk about how to expedite that process. >> so the not to exceed rates and what has to happen in advance of it. the rate itself is known and well understood. when we presented to the rate fairness board last time. it was important to be able to describe to them for their consideration both the program design and the rates. sort of like what are we getting for that price. and so what you see in the schedule is meeting with stakeholders to discuss program design and policy guidelines, taking those program design guidelines and procurement reform issues to our commission and then taking it to the rate fairness board. so we will know as a staff that we've done some outreach within the community, we've informed, we have taken that into consideration, we've informed our commission as to what we recommend, we've taken that into consideration and then we

bring it to the rate fairness board for them to consider as a package, the program design as well as the not to exceed rate. then we go out, we do a lot of things, but one of the thing we do then is go out to the market and see if we can get resources to match that program design at that not to exceed price and we come back to the rate fairness board with the outcome of that in the october timeframe. so the activities that happen in the short period now and at the rate fairness board on may 1st on the schedule are the outreach activities and design activities and bring it to our commission. >> okay. thank you. okay, if there is no other comments or parts of the presentation, i believe this is an information item. there is no action to be taken. we can go on to our next item no. 5. city clerk: item nor 5,