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 with them, we receive funds once a year. we don't have a process to go back to the city and county and say, oops, we need supplemental funds. there isn't something in the process right now that allows us to occur.

so what does this mean for our budget. we currently have a annual budget of $297,303. that amount was established. we had different amounts in previous years but working with the clerk's office we determined that was our fiscally responsible number that we can be requesting. for the last 7 years we have been returning that full allocation, reserving our right to it as we spend down our reserves. early years of that was the big downturn in the economy where there were huge budget deficits. >> that went back to the clerk? >> it went back to the city and county of san francisco. i understand the city and county of san francisco deals with this item --. >> excuse me a second, if the people in the back of the room could keep their voices down, it's distracting. thank you. >> the city and county, from what i understand, has our budget as a line item under the

board of supervisors so that's how it works within the city and county's budget. from our perspective it's the city and county, it's not where the line item exists. and then outside of the general fund money that we have, we also have the mou with the sfpuc for our cca monitoring activities. that money also exists but that is not part of our budgeting process that is required by the act. on the screen in front of you you have our proposed budget. there are a few changes and they are all described in the memo that's in the packet, describes what all the changes are that we're looking at doing with the budget. first off, we were paying at one point one price for both our half clerk and a whole bunch of administrative items. i have broken them into two different items because i think it's important to distinguish between the work done here by our clerk and all the other work that is being done because

the work by the clerk is based on a union contract and salary, the other one is more set on a fee we are charged, so it's two different items. we also rolled some of those items into the clerk's administrative costs, they are rolled into line item 2 on your budget, line item 3, 4 and 5 as well as 8 all get rolled into it, the current budget into next year's budget, those will all be rolled into that one item. it makes it easier for the clerk's office and on us for monitoring the various costs. finally i broke out the lafco staff and benefits to our legal and consultant services. partly because we have had some changes in how lafco is operating over the last fiscal year and i wanted to reflect that. one of the key considerations, and i will get to this in a minute but i will mention this now, next year we are scheduled to launch the cca

program. there will still be some work for me to do over monitoring and oversight of that program after it gets laufrpked, -- launched, there will be a window on it, but if there's work still being done that will be under the general fund budget. so i have increased the amount of time staff will spend next fiscal year because of that change. it could be at some point, i'm not encouraging this discussion to happen today or right now, but there will be a need for a discussion on what does non-lafco work like look. we need to start thinking about this long-term picture of what does lafco look like and what are our staffing needs. is there a need for a full-time executive officer or do you go back to a part-time position or how dusz that all work. this next fiscal year i fully imagine we will need, if everything runs on schedule, we will need a full lafco staff to

help oversee the cca project and other projects we are working on. you will note that the budget that we had for the current year and the budget going next year is slightly different. that gets back to us trying to finalize what the exact amount we are properly entitled to under the chpf of 2000. so one of the things i've been working on with chair avalos over the last several months is making sure we have steps in place for a proper budget that ensures that we're taking care of our needs and being respectful to the city and county since we are start to go request money again that we're in a place where we can stand by what we're asking for and that we're not doing stuff that's duplicative or not needed. several things we've already done this year is bring the executive officer duties in house. you will remember miss mueller used to be our executive officer. i anticipate this fiscal year we will save about $40,000 by bringing that work in house and having me do it. some of those

savings are spread between the cca and the general fund account but it is still savings we are seeing from a general fund perspective. >> those savings would be accounted under legal and consulting services, that $40,000 is part of that 104? >> correct. that's where those savings would now be seen. the current budget doesn't separate out the two, next year's budget does. in the current budget, if you looked at the current budget line items, it's actually staff, legal services and consulting is the current line item as it stands on the budget. next year's budget i'm looking to change. >> the current year is 196810, they will be separated, then for our consultant services, miss mueller provides, she will probably be doing less of that work than she was doing the consultant services and the executive interim executive officer and she will still continue to do consultant work but we could have funding to do

other consulting work. >> some of that money is actually coming from the cca fund and not from this account. it's a little difficult when you are starting to talk about two different funding sources, it's not 40,000 from one, most of it is from the cca side, but as we transition off cca work, that savings, if we had made that change, we would have to have 40,000 more than we're asking for on the non-cca side as we transition from cca work to non-cca work as next year's program gets launched. >> commissioner breed. >> thank you. so i guess i have some questions about the specifics of this particular budget, if we can go back to that slide. clerk of the board, admin support costs, i don't understand what part of previous item means. >> line item 1 and line item 2 in our current budget, if you were not looking at this year's

budget memo but looking at last year's budget memo, you would see it would be one line item in our budget. i am taking that and breaking it into two line items. when it says part of last year that means the current item in the 14 budget is considered one year. in next year's budget what i'm saying is we should split those two items up and have one line item that is just our committee clerk's work, then a second line item that is all the administrative support work they do. when you add those two numbers up, it comes up to 91,957, there's a slight increase because of the union contracts, all staff get paid a little bit more. you see the change going down in the third column, that's because we've taken several other items and merged them into the administrative cost line. we are actually seeing a savings

by doing it all together. >> does that mean we're paying for half of their salary, period? so explain to me how that works because we meet once a month and i don't understand the need to pay half her salary. i don't understand how har a clerk's salary is necessary for lafco. >> that is a very good question. i have not specifically asked how they determined half. i know miss mueller when she was executive officer a few years ago had that conversation with the clerk's office and that's been where it's at. i have