chairperson campos: for one year. >> one fiscal year. chairperson campos: great. any comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment? any member of the public would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed and colleagues can we get a motion to authorize that? a motion by commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner olague, if we can take that without objection. item no. 7, madam clerk? madam clerk: approve the extension of the mou with the san francisco public utilities commission for the c.c.a. program. chairperson campos: thank you and before we turn it over to ms. miller, mr. fried, congratulations i think are in order. ms. miller. >> this is similar to the previous item which is once again the mou. we thought the program would be launched by this time so the mou had a term date which we're beyond now so we want to extend it until june 2013. chairperson campos: great. thank you. another one-year extension. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion by commissioner avalos, seconded by commissioner

chairperson campos: ms. miller? >> i wanted to add to what barbara was saying. the first is the schedule. in addition to the proposed contract with shell that will be before the board, the sfpuc has also been working on hiring a marketing consultant to start the program, and that process has been ongoing, and i think the timing to select a consultant is within the next few months. they have been working on that as well. one other thing about the timing on the may 10. that date may slip. due to some of the issues that barbara was talking about. i just wanted to be aware of that. we will be in contact with you prior to that to talk about that, but it may. chairperson campos: ms. miller, i am also aware of the fact there is a conference going on may 10, where a number of advocates may not be available at that time? >> that is correct. also part of the process is sfpuc has set monthly meetings with a stake holder group, and that came out at the stakeholder groups, that there is a may 10 conference that many of t

chairperson campos: a question on that? vice chairperson avalos: so you are inferring that 65% threshold is more arbitrary? >> it does not exist anywhere else that i could find, any other major city across the country. i cannot say that it does not exist anywhere because there are a lot of elections and i have no ability to check every single one. vice chairperson avalos: so we are comparing the% of the general foote, 65% of the winner in the primary, is equal in almost all cases, except one, 1998, something much less than the majority? >> correct. vice chairperson avalos: so this whole idea about 65% being the sweet spot number that says something does not really say as much as it intends to? >> based on the city's primary system that has been in existence since 1990, i would say yes. some cities do something similar. some of our collections are down on off years, so voter turnout is different. -- some of our collections are done on off years, so voter turnout is different. let me get to that and that my answer part of your

supervisor chairperson campos:, wondering if you have some thoughts to the recent development we read in the paper, which is that pg&e is trying to provide new customers with the options of being greener. as i understand it, they are saying that move has nothing to do with what has