by filing an application during this year we'll be able to be rolled in to that rolling process. and you're right, historically they did have like a 3 year set time frame where there was a window you would get in and then you'd have to wait. >> and because, from our perspective, and the wonderful thing about bay run, as you know, commissioner mar, is that it's a proof of concept. in a way it's a pilot of what the kind of comprehensive programs can be. right now bay run is a very small amount of money. energy watch is about $7 million to bay run's $450, $350,000. so it's a very small window of what's possible but because we've already done it as soon as there's sort of that mental sufficient evidence of launch, you know, where we are very confident this is going to be real, then we're going to start planning. as you know for any program to launch there's a ton of planning that goes on first and we'll have a

little bit of that luxury of time to plan so that when we know the amount of money that's -- we'll have a menu of things we can do and depending on how much funding the cpuc allocates to the cca, there's a little bit of argument, as you can imagine, between pg&e and cca's between who gets the public good charge money and how much and that hasn't been settled yet. that's why barbara hale and i have a hard time planning our budgets for additional resources. we know what we have now and as kathleen said we're fully expected to keep going where we are now, but that additionality is tough and it's tough no know how much and when. whether it's legislative or not, the voice of this body needs to be heard at the california public utilities commission. i mean if you look at what's going on internationally now, there's tremendous understanding that green house gas production emissions happen at the city

level and we are fully equiped to make those happen if we have the freedom to do it right and that's the message we need to deliver to the california public utilities commission who i think, i believe share our same goals, i expect. >> i'm seeing a lot of opportunity as well. you mentioned other cca's that currently exist but there are also many in the making as well. so these are all places or people who are working on these to be able to be part of the effort to get the rules we want. okay, i think we have no more questions on this part of this agenda item. mr. fried, do you want to take us to our next agenda item? >> the next part would be the assistant general manager, barbara hale, presenting the cca update itself. >> thank you, mr. fried. so i have three things to talk

about today on cca first off is to announce that we have an acting director, i'm very happy about that personally, and that's mike heim, the gentleman to my left. mike had been an analyst with us years ago when we first began working on the cca project. he went off to new york, it was, and got his master's degree there in energy management and policy, worked as a researcher, university of columbia, and worked for the port authority as a senior energy analyst. then we wooed him back. actually, we didn't, he just loved california -- and he's been working with us as our regulatory and legislative affairs manager for some time now. so he has really deep understanding of the whole cpuc process and the rules of engagement on cca and will be leading our team toward the

finish line at least on an interim basis. and that brings me to my second topic, which is the schedule and sort of where we're at and our legislative reforms. the schedule had envisioned we'd be bringing legislative reforms to the board of supervisors and, in particular, the reforms we're looking for would give us authority to use standardized power purchase contracts for longer durations than we currently have authority for. we'll also be asking for the authority to enter into energy supply contracts for up to 20 years in duration. with a total contract cost that are greater than $10 million dollars and longer, as i said, 20 years, longer than 10. so the current charter requirements are to bring

contracts like that to the board of supervisors for approval. if they exceed 10 years in duration or 10 million dollars in expenditure. and so we're working with the city attorney on the delegation of authority because it is a charter delegation --. >> (inaudible) charter. >> it's taking a little bit longer for us to work out exactly what the boundaries would be, the parameters would be, of that delegation of authority. so we'll probably be coming to you in your board form in about two, three weeks with a proposed wltion. -- legislation. >> would that be a charter amendment? >> i understand that's happened a couple of times before, it's not completely unheard of, but it's taking a little longer for us to understand at the department

what that means and for the city attorney to work through what kind of parameters are helpful for us and comfortable for the city in its delegation of that authority. >> and there aren't any other examples of that delegation of authority already? >> not in this particular context. we have had waivers in the context of, waivers of admin code in the context of energy procurement, supply contracts, and that's a little easier to get our heads around. we have examples of that, we've done that before as a city, but not delegation of the charter authority with respect to supply agreements. >> and can i ask what is it about these power purchase agreements or these purchasing agreements that requires a change? what is the nature of them? >> so part of what we're trying to achieve with the change in allowing us to contract for more than 20 years is the ability to bring into

the cca program, into the city's portfolio of energy supply, projects that can be financed and built at a pace that allows us to meet the demands of the cca program. clearly an overall goe of the city for the cca program has been to have new generation, new renewables, not just purchases. we can have effective purchasing authority under the existing rules and with the ability to contract just a little bit longer term and that's what the waivers component of the legislative reform will bring to you, will allow us to do. but to really be able to say to you, we think the cca program will result in new generation being built, not just what we own, but also out there in the market place being built to serve us, we need to

be able to contract with the counter party for 20 years at least because then they can finance that project and have it be built. so i think that's what's really motivating that aspect of the reforms we bring to you, is to try to be responsive to have that as part of the cca program sthoo sthoo so the idea would be that potentially one example would be that we contract with this one provider who is using some of the proceeds to finance the construction of generation facilities while they are providing us with some power. >> yes. i can imagine that with this authority we could go out to the market place through a request for offer asking the market place specifically who, at what price would you bring us newly constructed renewable power. and they would submit to us the price, location, characteristics of the project,

and we could engage in a letter of commitment, non-binding letter of commitment in response to that so we would know that were we to strike a deal with that contractor, with that counter party, they would be able to go out and finance it and build it, fresh and new, the idea. >> thank you. >> so that's the legislative reform packet that we think we'll be bringing 200in two, three weeks time. we're working through the details with city attorney, want to make sure we get this right. it's been impressed upon me that delegation of authority is something that -- well, we've done it before, we don't do it a lot, and we have to make sure we take the time to get it done right. we had anticipated bringing it 200earlier in the schedule. bringing it to you later in the schedule will not affect it

overall. in terms of what's out ahead of us besides the legislative reform, this month we'll be bringing to our rate fairness board the not to exceed rate we've proposed for both our basic cca service, if you will light green part, as well as the upscale, do more, be greener part of the program, the dark green aspect of the program. we'll be bringing those rates to the rate fairness board, they have agreed to meet on april 17th. that's earlier in the schedule as opposed to later so we were late on the ledge reform but we're early on the not to exceed rates, we heard a lot of interest in advancing that and we're responding to that by advancing the schedule to that. i'm not sure they'll be able

to vote on that, they'll be comfortable on voting on that the first time they hear it, but we will be prepared to bring it to our commission shortly after the rate fairness board adopts it, it will come to our commission. we are on april 14th bringing to our commission the policy, the program design and proposed not to exceed rates so that's at our next puc commission meeting. we'll be making that presentation and getting feedback from our commission before we take it to the rate fairness board. so that's, again, april 14th. >> i'm sorry, that's proposed --. >> program design. >> for light and dark? >> correct. >> and program design. >> right. and by program design i mean what's the portfolio of resources, what do we think we'll be able to offer our cca customers in terms of the product. and i think that kind of gets

us to, close to the next lafco meeting so i'll stop there and see if, jason, you had anything further. >> jason fried, executive officer. first off, as i mentioned, i want to thank them for being the interim director while we wait for the process to move forward. i've been working with mike for some time, i've been treating him as the interim even though he didn't have the title yet. i'm glad to see he will be working with us while they go through the process to get the permanent long-term cca director in place. as i said at the puc meeting i'm thankful they moved the not to exceed meeting up a little quicker. i am disappointed we're not geting the package of stuff changed as quickly as i can but i understand this is a very technical process. it means the board of supervisors will need to work quickly on it

to keep us on schedule so that will be on the board of supervisors supervisor's lap so we can remain on target and on time to get a program launched or get our rfo back so we can get those back and go through that part of the process. on that note, that is what i have, i know they are working very hard on multiple areas at the same time so i've been impressed with how well thefr been doing all this work and trying to stay task. i understand the one delay in this so far is because it's a very technical matter and they want to get it correct. >> i'm ready to talk to regulatory issues if you're read whiy for that, the third commission item. >> as a commission we want to welcome mr. highland, we look forward to working with you and already you have developed a relationship with mr. fried and

it's essential we all work well together. we have a huge interest to make sure we are on our timeline this year and we are very eager to get going here, so welcome and if you want to share anything? >> thank you very much, commissioner, i appreciate it. i just wanted to say it is an honor and a privilege to be able to help the sfpuc and the city get this program going. i'm really looking forward to it, i'm looking forward to working with you and the department of the environment and jason and the stake holders. thank you. >> great, thank you. miss hale >> there's been some activity at the california puc that we wanted to report on. you will recall i have reported a number of times now on their activities with respect to pg&e's green tariff application. they issued their decision, the cpuc, california puc, issued their decision in late january and that decision was forth the schedule for pg&e to file their advice letters, which are the implementation

filings that the utilities make after the california commission tells them what they have authority to do. and that advice letter, pg&e will be providing more specificity around a number of the program's features including final rates for the program that they are planning to launch. the sdis, i spoke to some important issues but also deferred a number of issues. for example, the community outreach and strategy for engaging low income customers, i think that's an important issue for san francisco's interest. options for making the green tariff more affordable in particular and we're particularly interested in the fact that they have deferred consideration of how to incorporate smaller scale renewable projects into the portfolio that's going to be

serving the green tariff program. that's of particular interest to us because i think we have some within san francisco development opportunities that basically can't participate in the program because they have limited it at this point to 500 kilowatts or greater. the proposed schedule for the next phase of the green tariff that they are first going forward with has us hearing from the iou's on april 16th in workshops that will address their procurement, hearing from pg&e at a workshop on april 23rd to address customer site issues and marketing implementation. in particular we're interested in the fact that pg&e will need to address and that's saying how it will comply with the community choice aggregation code of conduct which requires independent marketing of the

program in cca areas. then on may 9th pg&e will be filing this advice letter that addresses the implementation specifics. and that's where they will be announcing their proposed final rates for the program. >> what was the date on that? >> that's may 9th. then on may 29th any comments or protests to that advice letter will be due at the california puc so that's update on the green tariff option issues as they have been filed. we're also following a case there, pg&e's energy resource recovery amount case in that context for cca we're particularly interested in the fact that a number of communities are collaborating

and seeking exemptions to the pcia charge that's part of the cca program for customers who qualify for low income rates. so there's an effort underway to have pg&e do what southern california edison and san diego gas and electric company have already done. they have already exempted their low income care program customers from having to pay a different adjustment that other customers have to pay when they switch from utility default service to cca service. so we're interested in seeing pg&e treat their care customers equally and exempt them here in the pg&e service territory. so that's an issue that's being addressed at the cpuc now. >> what is typically the charge? >> you mean the dollar amount? about a penny per kilowatt

hour. >> per kilowatt hour. >> yeah. so as we look at our program economics, our cca program economics, that's important to us because from the customer perspective the decision to move will have an economic impact, even if our supply is exactly the same cost as pg&e's supply, this will have that pcia cost that follows them as they leave pg&e, so we have to strive to have our program be a penny per kilowatt hour cheaper so that the customer is financially indifferent to make the change. what we are proposing here, or what parties are proposing here at the california puc is to make it so that low income qualified care customers don't have to pay that charge. >> what does pcia stand for? >> customer indifference adjustment. what's the p power. power cost indifference

adjustment. >> and that would be as long as the sunrises in the east and sets in the west or how long does that program actually --. >> that is what pg&e is striving to require, that all customers, whether they existed before a cca program or not, would continue to pay this charge. yes. >> thank you. >> ready to move on to the next proceeding? and that's electric vehicles, you've probably read in the newspaper that pg&e filed an application to receive about $800 million in rate payer funds to install 25,000 new electric vehicle charging stations and the related electric distribution equipment in its service territory over the next 5 years. they have indicated that they would intend to spend about 1 percent of those dollars in -- the dollars or of the charging

stations, mike? sorry, 1 percent of the charging stations would be located in dense urban areas. we're particularly interested in that aspect because we think we're one of those dense urban areas that pg&e is talking about. we're a little concerned in that 1 percent seems like a very small number, given the density of this urban area, and it's also a very small number given the fact that our collective rate payers have kupb trikted a lot of the money they are proposing to spend on this. so we think we're getting a small number of charging stations under pg&e's proposal although we're helping fund many. so that's a concern, issue, that we're watching. we're working with the department of environment staff on that collaborating with the city attorney's office to participate in that proceeding. and then finally the energy efficiency proceeding i mentioned commissioner cruz in response to your question earlier that the california puc

is moving toward a rolling portfolio approach to the allocation of those rate payer dollars towards energy efficiency with 10 years of funding authorization being part of that rolling portfolio. we're following that and participating there because we think at least in theory it should make it easier for cca's to apply to the cpuc to become administrators of those funds and at a time and pace that's constructive for cca's like ours. and that concludes my regulatory report. thank you. >> okay, thank you very much. seeing no -- commissioner cruz. >> is it possible to go back to item a? we've already move order to item b >> we're still on --. >> item 3. >> we can go to that section if you have a question about it. >> i just have a quick question. do we know how many

additional people have enrolled in clean power sf >> i know that we have the sign-up active on our web site. i have not checked it recently so i can come back to you with that answer. >> okay, next month -- i don't know if it's possible to just, as more people are hearing about clean power sf and the web site is up and active and the sign up is working, if we could just get an update if we have people that are signing up as well. >> you're right, commissioner, we can make that part of our regular report. >> thank you. >> okay, this item we can open up for public comment. any public who would like to comment, please come forward. . >> good afternoon, commissioners, eric brooks, san francisco green party local

organization our city and san francisco clean energy advocates. first want to thank sfpuc staff for accelerating the rate, the not to exceed rate setting. that's really important because, as you heard, pg&e is going to put out its green power rates on the 7th. that's going to be sort of a competing program with community choice so we need to get our rates out and reported in the papers before then so the board needs to be able to take action before then. that also gets to the legislation you were discussing about the charter and other things. we need the board to go ahead, someone on the board to go ahead and move the legislation to committee so that by the time the sfpuc is done doing its work the legislation will be ready to move forward instead of getting a delay. our timeline can't afford any delays when we've got a competitor like pg&e breathing down our necks. so in my final minute i want

to talk about the energy efficiency and the relationship with san francisco department of environment. this is a crucial relationship and this really gets to what the advocates have been asking for the entire decade or more we've been working on this, is that the type of things that in their solar shares program and their efficiency program that the department of the environment have been working on are the type of build out that we have been asking for all this time. it's very important for the board to give direction to the sfpuc and sf environment to maximize the local build out of these behind the meter resources and the one thing i heard that's a bit of concern is that everyone seems to be depending on staff on the funds we get from pg&e. we want funding to come directly from the program for energy efficiency, not just the pg&e funds. that will open it up a lot more. we need the lafco and the board to give direction on that as well.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners, jed holtman, 350 san francisco. i would also like to thank staff for making this move forward. it's really great to have all of these dates when actual important things are going to happen. i would really like to thank the puc staff for monitoring all of the regulatory action because i know that pretty much no one else is and the cpuc is really opaque to almost all parties. obviously what goes on there really circumstance um scribes the boundaries of what clean power sf will eventually be able to do and a lot of those things are happening in 3 and 4 letter acronymic proceedings that none of us are participating in, so i hope that they are fighting for us over there. i would like to point out that at the most recent sfpuc

meeting the commission was very firm about this timeline. if you haven't had a chance to see the meeting, commissioners were very robust on sticking to this timeline, so i think we have support from the commission over there which is great. part of that original presentation of the timeline was that i think commissioner avalos and maybe mr. fried had talked about accelerating the timeline by up to 30 days in this power procurement reform process. since we're going to be getting the legislation late, i think that would be now waiving the 30 days would be almost required to stay on schedule, so just to flag that. and, lastly, i think not only these programs (inaudible) the department of the environment their basic function is going out into the population talking to communities, doing outreach,

trying to get folks to live more sustainablely and i think they have a very natural role to play in the kind of behavior change and program adoption elements that we're going to be trying to transition san francisco to over the first few years of this program, especially related to behind the meter resources, not only efficiency but also hopefully behind the meter generation. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public who would like to comment? and seeing none, we'll close public comment and this is an information item so i don't think we have, we don't have any votes and we can go on to our next item, item no. 4. >> item no. 4, consideration and approval of the proposed lafco budget for fiscal year

2015-2016. >> jason fried, lafco staff. if we can have the overhead? so we have our proposed budget coming up for this year. i have actually this year decided, normally we do a very quick overview of the budget because we have had a very robust large reserve. we have finally sfepbt that reserve down and we're going to needing to go back to the city and county of san francisco. we have a couple new commissioners but also, b, we have a new way of approaching things. so the budget process for us is actually dictated by the court knox local government recognition act. that budget process actually has a 3-step process. it starts off with a proposed budget which needs to be presented by may 1st.

today's hearing was properly noticed and can fall into that category so we are counting today's hearing as our required budget hearing. we then transmit it to the proper groups which in our case is just the city and county of san francisco. every year we do this, i will let the clerk of the board know we held a budget, in past years we haven't requested any money and that was noted in there. we have to have a final budget completed by june 15th. it is staff's plan to use the april meeting to present and have our final budget taken care of. beyond that, we have the -- lafco is separate from any of the funding bodies, as most people would be considered in san francisco, so although we do contract with the city and county of san francisco to do a lot of our back office services and our clerking we contract