mr. campbell. miss miller, anything to add to mr. campbell's presentation? >> i just want to add kind of the next steps and a couple of clarifying points. the next steps would be for mr. campbell to go to the sfpuc commission and seek authorization to begin negotiations. and those negotiations, what mike has been talking about, is the flexibility in some of the terms for our original c.c.a. implementation plan and those are in the four key areas that are potential to phase as opposed all in when we start the program. the only on obviously we're going to negotiate the rates and our original goal would meet or beat -- that's still our goal but based on what we've seen from these bidders, we h from these bidders, we have some negotiating to do in terms of that and there's some flexibility that we talked about in our last r.f. narks we would have flexibility in that area as well. the third is the risk allocation . obviously, if you go all in, it's very risky. if you phase, let's risk. there will be risk allocation discussions flexibility there. finally on the is

mr. campbell was talking about but other issues that are before the cpuc right now. so in terms of our next steps, our next steps are really the contract. we really -- and then the implementation of the program. we've completed a implementatio. we completed the prior steps under the ordinance in terms of the implement -- implementation plan, our agreement with pg&e, filing it with the cpuc2ca the next steps are really contract and implementation. commissioner campos: the only thing i would ask is that as we're moving forward to the extent we're talking about adjustment to the ordinance, that we have a proper vetting of some of the issues that have been raised. i think the joint meeting will be helpful in that endeavor. i think we need to make sure some of the concerns that have been highlighted are addressed. >> i agree. we will be doing that. i want to say that we will be in contact with you. i want to make sure that there is -- if there hasn't been before, that we make sure we have a lot of communication. our marketing efforts will be relying on the groups of the -

mr. campbell was looking for sfpuc direction on january 25. supervisor mirkarimi: is that a friday? >> it is a friday. the 27th is friday. so the 25th is wednesday. >> i have the 28th as friday. >> i am sorry, i'm looking at the wrong side. in that week potentially. supervisor mirkarimi: we are already months away -- why could we not have a meeting on the second friday, 3rd friday? >> according to the schedule, the interviews would not be conducted until the middle of january. so we would not have much to report. we could report who we are interviewing, but the idea of seeking direction, recommendation from the sfpuc, -- we would not have that information by the second week. supervisor mirkarimi: we do not have to nail this down now. i would rather not can see six more weeks before information we thought was going to be shared with us today, should at least be shared with us before january 5. if we can split the difference and have a joint meeting -- we seem to like friday. either on the 14th or 21st, that would be fine. if we can work that out with p c, that would be better. and yo

mr. campbell, then we can invite our guests up from marin and san joaquin valley. >> good morning. it is such a pleasure to be here. thank you for the invitation. i will give you an update on where marin energy authority is in our process, and i will talk about challenges we face along the way, lessons learned. supervisor mirkarimi: could you say your name? >> don weiss, interim director of the marin energy authority. we began serving customers in may of this year after many years of study and investigation and preparation. we are now serving approximately 9500 customers. we consider that to be our phase 1 rollout, about 20% of the load in our jurisdiction. we will be rolling out phase two over the next year or so -- we are targeting january 2012. i will be our remaining 70,000 customers. since our launch, we have also been able to get some programs off the ground which were a part of our original vision. first of all, we had developed and adopted a net energy metering carrot which allowed customers to be paid for any access to energy they produced at their own place of business, r

mr. campbell, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, chairman, commissioners. congratulations. my name is mike campbell. i'm the director of the community choice aggregation program, commonly referred to as clean power s.f. as miss miller noted i will give an update on where we stand and what we have for next steps. i'm really excited here to be able to note that we have some high-quality firm that's expressed interest and responded to our most recent solicitation. it's important to note many of the firms that responded were many of the same firm that's responded to mirren sa listtation. solicitation. as you all know, mirren is up and running with a program that is by all accounts successful. while we continue to look to the neighbors to the north and look at the contract marion struck with their supplier as a guide post moving forward, balances, what's commercially feasible with the interest of san franciscoans in particular. we're really interested in trying to get the program rolling and give san francisco residents and citizens a choice about their electric supply and their

mr. campbell might have information. they were looking at quite high amounts in terms of the fees. fees really could not be justified in our opinion. it did depend on the size of the program. i don't know if mike has anything to add to that. >> sure. to clarify, like i was saying in my remarks, it is really the same item. there is a statutory requirement from ab117 that the cca post a bond, a performance bond, to cover the reentry fees. what was before the cpuc was this draft settlement from between parties involved in this issue. the mechanism that was before the commission, and why we're so glad to applaud the commission's actions in not making this the row for california, our estimates for a san francisco program covering the majority of the customers here, we need a bond capable of covering more than $200 million. it would be a major portion of annual revenues and could be a significant impediment to getting a cca off the ground. we are involved in this because, depending on what the rules, one of the big challenges is the mechanism proposed was based on whatever the market con

mr. campbell? >> i am very encouraged in your remarks today, that you're interested in revisiting city policy. there have been various times when that was looked at. there was a rfi that looked at policies and suggested some tweaks. even following that, there were a couple of things that i wanted to clarify and remind folks about. there was an awful lot of out reach that miss miller and i had done for the first rfp, and for the second, and at least in terms of expression measures, had done a lot. that is in large part of the cold call that i made to the origination from constellation, having conversations with potential suppliers, some who responded, some who did not to this rfp. in response to some of those, one reason i am encouraged by your remarks, i had some frank discussion with those suppliers. some had more or less misgivings with the ability to reach all the goals we were seeking. so out of that, our staff, following the issuance of the rfp, were working on the items that ms. hale describe

mr. campbell. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. campbell: i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding. you know, i came down here because i heard the opposition to this amendment decrying about the devastation that will occur to the country if this amendment were to pass and i'd like to make just two points. one, spending discretionary spending in this country has increased 38% in the last four years. 38%. as -- has american spending increased 38%? has american income increased 38%? no. all this government does -- amendment does is ask the government to spend what it spent two years ago. most americans would probably like to do that. why is that such a devastation? there's even a greater reason. we have a $1.5 trillion going to $1.6 trillion deficit if we don't get this debt under control. and fast. we will be making cuts of 50% overnight because of the debt crisis that will hit. when people stop buying our debt. madam speaker, this amendment does not threaten government services, it is actually a step toward saving them from

mr. campbell of california, amendment 246 by mr. broun of georgia, amendment number 263 by mr. broun of georgia, amendment 526 by mr. wu of oregon, amendment 527 of mr. markey of massachusetts, amendment 409 of mr. price of georgia, amendment 296 by mr. mcclintock of california, amendment number 99 of mr. mcdermott of washington, amendment number 177 by mr. herger of california, amendment number 523 of mr. blumenauer of oregon, amendment 566 mr. borrowen of oklahoma, 546 of mr. forse. amendment 46 by mr. polis of colorado, amendment number 498 by mr. johnson of amendment. amendment 467 by mrgoodlatte of virginia, amendment number 79 by mr. gardner of colorado. amendment number 151 of mr. neugebauer of texas, amendment number 13 of mr. rooney, amendment number 8 of mr. stearns of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 414 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, on which further

mr. campbell, for five minutes. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. speaker. the president today released his budget and it is a pretty ugly thing. we reach another record deficit next year in his projection and we have deficits that go on as far as the eye can see. we are rapidly heading toward the time when our national debt will equal the economy 100% of g.d.p. the last time that occurred, 1944 and 1945 when we were fighting world war ii. there's a big difference between now and then. then we were fighting a war. at some point that war would end and the spending would drop. in fact, it did. and after 1945, we didn't reach that level of spending again for 30 years. however, this time the spending is projected to increase every year as far as the eye can see. then we finance this debt with americans through war bonds. americans financed their own debt. today 45% of our debt is held by foreigners. we are giving them a power and control over us. almost more importantly back then we were fighting a world war to preserve freedom and our way of life. and that's wh

mr. campbell. >> thank you. some things in economics are a cyclical and some are structural. you mentioned you felt unemployment would remain elevated for an extended amount of time. how much of our current high unemployment is cyclical and how much is structural? >> i don't have a precise number but we have done a lot of work looking at this. i would say the bulk of its is still cyclical. the risk is if it goes on long enough it will become structural as people lose their connection to the labour force. >> is it fair to say you have control over monetary policy and not fiscal policy, and to the extent of unemployment is structural, that is something out of your purvey to deal with? >> that is correct. >> i would like to talk about this thing about spending and investment. lots of talk about what we need to grow the economy is government spending. there is a great distinction that the term investment is thrown around a great deal but investment means someone puts money to work expecting a return. that is very different than spending. in order to achieve long-term growth, stab

mr. campbell. >> thank you chairman ryan and chairman bernanke.something's economics are typical ends somethings are structural. you mentioned earlier today that you thought that unemployment are. no, the other point would remain elevated for an extended period of time. how much of our current high unemployment in your view is cyclical and how much is structural? >> i don't have a precise number but we have done a lot of work looking at this and i would say that the bulk of it is still cyclical. risk is that if it goes on long enough and it will start becoming structural as people lose their skills and their connection to the labor force. >> is it fair to say that you control only over monetary policy, not fiscal policy and government policy, and that it to the extent that unemployment is structural and that is something truly out of your per day to deal with, qe2 or any other form of monetary policy? >> that's correct. >> i'd like to talk what mr. ryan refer to a minute ago about this spending and investing a lot of talk these days about what we

mr. campbell. >> thank you chairman ryan and chairman bernanke. something's economics are typical ends somethings are structural. you mentioned earlier today that you thought that unemployment are. no, the other point would remain elevated for an extended period of time. how much of our current high unemployment in your view is cyclical and how much is structural? >> i don't have a precise number but we have done a lot of work looking at this and i would say that the bulk of it is still cyclical. risk is that if it goes on long enough and it will start becoming structural as people lose their skills and their connection to the labor force. >> is it fair to say that you control only over monetary policy, not fiscal policy and government policy, and that it to the extent that unemployment is structural and that is something truly out of your per day to deal with, qe2 or any other form of monetary policy? >> that's correct. >> i'd like to talk what mr. ryan refer to a minute ago about this spending and investing a lot of talk these days about what we

mr. campbell: and he can save money. the greatest threat to the national security of this country today is our debt. the secretary of defense has said that. he said certainly it is a national security threat, as has the secretary of state. and so we need to get this debt down. we need to get this deficit down. we need to do it in every single area of the budget. and i think that the gentleman's amendment, the gentleman from arizona, is very proper and very appropriate one and i support it and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. manzullo: to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. manzullo: i rise to oppose the underlying bill and support the flake amendment and the drastic cuts that will devastate the most vulnerable citizens in our nation. just

mr. akin: so i think your point is, paul, that in our debate this week, first of all, almost all of the discussion is centered right over in this, looks like campbell's tomato soup here on my chart, in this section. mr. gosar: it is. mr. akin: and it's ignoring all of this, which is equal to the entire revenue of the federal government. so you can see that you could cut this to zero and you still aren't going to fix the problem. on the other hand, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for savings and cutting everything we can but you're putting in perspective this whole week, i think that's tremendously helpful. i think, as i recall, there's about $16 billion being taken out of defense, which is not as deep a cut as what nondefense discretionary is getting, is that correct? mr. gosar: that's correct. and the savings we're making here extrapolates over the next 10 years at a great discount to the american people in our budget and what we have to come up with in the in the future. that's what is so wonderful at least for the first five weeks of this congress, zero implications on raising debt. mr. akin: what we're doing, what you're seeing is a very

mr. smith: in response to a couple of questions from members of congress, the last from john campbell, a resident of california, the director of the c.b.o. said in response to a question, is it going to cost 800,000 jobs, his one-word answer was, yes. so those are fresh figures, they are accurate figures and i think we need to be very acutely aware of just how many jobs the new health care plan is going to cost. madam speaker, i'd now like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, who is also a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. griffin: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.res. 72 because i believe that a number of regulations issued by the federal agencies are stifling job creation and from the sound of it, president oba maw agrees. on january 18 of this year, president obama issued an executive order stating that, quote, our regulatory system must promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation. i agree with the president on all those poi