Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 10, 2012 8:30am-9:00am PDT

8:30 am
any other public comment sm >> eric brooks representing the green party and local roots organization, our city. i would concur with commissioner vitor and mr. pilpal that we need a plan. we need to see what the 1.4 million is used for. i confess i don't know anything about this company hired but apparently it's been used for a long time. i'm sure they have expertise. i would say this is very important. we have identified areas where people are interested in this. now we need to do marketing and outreach in a very professional way by using a firm that is used to that as its main job. we need to make sure we get hold of customers in those areas, showing them why
8:31 am
this is so great, why it is worth it for them to pay a little more to get clean energy. not because it is good for environment but long-term they will get a better economic deal out of this. there are things added at the board of supervisors and were already in the plan for reaching out to customers and proactively giving community choice clean power sf customers access to energy efficiency funds and renewable facility installation that is funded through the program so that actually will help bring down their long-term bill as well. because at the same time they are opting to pay more on their energy resource bill, they will also get an opportunity to get energy efficiency in the same place, which might make it possible for us to convince
8:32 am
some of the lower income folks to opt in at the beginning. there are all kind of possibilities there, we need a firm that knows how to do this. not only do research but take that research and reach out to customers to make this exciting to them. one thing that -- i don't know if this firm will do this or not. local power and buildout has been talking about -- looks like will it probably be part of the mix. offering people shares and clean power sf, just the way that the bill that didn't pass at the state level that was going to offer people an easier way to get solar shares. this would be shares for everything. solar, wind, efficiency. the whole clean power sf program. that is going to require specific outreach to customers to offer them the share idea so that they are opting into a program that definitely will save them long-term, because they are
8:33 am
becoming shareholders. that means even if they don't have a rooftop they can get involved or a wind source they can get involved. that is why this is so important. >> thank you, mr. brooks. any public comment? seeing none -- >> i have a comment. >> sorry, commissioner. >> i don't disagree with anything that's been said. somehow i feel there has to be a marriage with that map that we saw today. the studies we have already done before we go into a contract like this. i would like to see where we are. i would like to see what the plan is. i feel we are going off and we are getting a consultant, david --
8:34 am
without really having a plan within our institution that we agree with. i think we are capable of that. i would like to see that before we branch out. i would like to see what our vision is and what we have to do. >> could i do the -- so one of the things that as you may know, or may not know, it takes about six months to do a contract. so the purpose of this is we know we need expertise in doing outreach and campaigning and really getting the message out. we hired, we felt, the best firm at that time that can provide that service if this does pass. the thought is we engage them to identify what would be a robust plan that would guarantee success.
8:35 am
once we identify roles and responsibilities, then we can move forward quickly. if we waited to that time and hired a firm to do those gaps, it would take six months. that was sort of why we basically moved forward on this contract and try to get the team in place. if there are added expertise we need that's not on the team, we can always go through a process to add additional resources to the team to help us meet those needs. that is why i would like to maybe initially get them involved in working with all the stake holders and see what the best plan is. identify rolls and responsibility. then we can come back and say how much we will do, the department of environment will do, consultants will do and why. >> does that have an amount of money attached to it?
8:36 am
>> the total amount is 1.5 -- >> what i was wondering is -- you talked about using them really to come up with a more detailed scope. i'm wondering what portion of the total that would be. if it would be possible for contract to have -- or our provision that says after you have done initial work that you come back and approve the work going forward. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. i think given the dialogue here it makes sense to me, if you'd like for us to have a condition within your authorization that says after the plan is developed, we present it before we are authorized to keep going. i would expect that initial step to cost around $100,000. certainly not more than that. then we can engage with davis and associates. talk with them about how we
8:37 am
can knit our efforts together, the work of our partnering departments, the work we envision. then we can bring it as a package before we say yes you can keep going. like putting balance on reserve of the 1.4 million, if you are comfortable with that. >> in a perfect world that would be the best way to proceed. my way is timing. we are supposed to be -- you know, january, according to this time line, right, january is when we are supposed to begin notification of opt-out. i mean, that is -- what is that, two months away? so is it realistic we can get a plan, you know. $100,000 plan in the next month and say, okay. go ahead and do the work in the next two months. that would be my concern. i agree it would be great.
8:38 am
we should have a plan and better understanding of what this rollout will look like, the different phased approach is, a preenrollment strategy and this and that. i also understand we are a bit under the gun here. >> tyrone chu, director of communications. we plan to come back to go over the plan. since this is a not to exceed we can go forward with the contract, show you plan and what we have proposed over the next year. at that point we continue to execute the contract and additional services. the additional work is going to be first coming up with that scope, coming up with communications engagement plan through the next year. >> you would anticipate coming back to us for that when? >> we could try three, four months. we will update what the strategy will be so we can have a plan at that time. >> next month. >> yes. commissioner caen. >> i think we should defer
8:39 am
this particular contract to a later date. the reason being, i have been working on this project eight years. i have seen a lot of things come over my desk. i would like my fellow commissioners to see the very studies that you have done. not you personally but that have been done. i think that map is something we've never seen before. if i recall, that map doesn't coincide with the studies that we have seen. i'm very curious about that. i want to see it all in a package. you will disagree with me, but i'm just going by memory. it seems to me that the people that were in favor of there were more in the -- on the western side of the city. not where the map is
8:40 am
showing them. i'm concerned about that. i'm concerned about, you know, bringing in people over a million to do studies and research and intellectual planning before we see what we know what it is all about. i don't get the feeling we know what it is all about. we know it is a great idea. but there has to be more than that. >> i mean, just how we are approaching the program is we have a goal of 30 megawatts, or 90,000 participants who accomplish that 30 megawatts. the plan would essentially be structured to accomplish those goals. that is what we would be coming up with. that engagement education strategy be to engage the public to enroll in this program when proposed to launch next year.
8:41 am
>> i do understand commissioner your thought process. only thing i would say if staff and program feels they need resource that have done marketing and planning to facilitate, we don't have it and we will just be doing what we have been doing before. one of the things we have brought up is why don't you approve an amount of 100,000 -- not to exceed 100,000 to come up with a plan. so that 100,000 would help us come up with a plan but 1.5 was not to do planning but go out and reach the people that would volunteer or be in the program in phase i. so that was part of what that cost would be.
8:42 am
>> that's fine. >> i'm manager of contractor administration bureau. in alignment with what mr. kelly is saying, the recommendation would be you either have to award contract for the full value. similar to all other professional service agreements is we issue on task order basis, we issue first task order and team can come back to the commission after that task order is completed, report upon the commission and not issue a further task order until a recommendation is made and agreed upon. >> what is the impact if you make the full award at later date you decide you don't want to do that amount? is there any liability the city has in terms of intended profit or anything like that?
8:43 am
>> the contract would have language allowing you to terminate for convenience. the fact this is coming down before it on things executed we can put language in that makes this condition clear so they are not prepurchasing or making expenditures towards the ultimate full scope of the contract so it would be a manageable situation, so you wouldn't have liability beyond the initial task order expenditure. if that is the will of the commission. >> we can reference that language in the task order itself as well. >> like to move that forward. >> okay. so you would like to move an amendment. >> there is a task order provision in the current contract and i don't know what the amendment actually says but there is a task order provision. >> i drafted some language trying to follow along so if you want i can read what
8:44 am
i wrote down. >> that would be helpful. >> so at the end of the cause everything would stay the same accept we would put provided however staff will return to commission for further authorization prior to issuing task orders beyond initial task order with expenditure of not to exceed $100,000. subject to returning to the commission with a plan of action for further expenditures. >> is there a time line on it? >> you tell me. >> if you would like to put a time line on it. >> 30 days. >> that be all right with you? >> is that doable? >> 30 days from which date? >> from execute of contract.
8:45 am
>> that is not necessarily possible just because i can't issue and we can't with the city process a notice to proceed that quickly. maybe a recommendation is 30 or 60 days, whichever you advise from issuance of the ntp. >> may i ask the time line. >> of the task order. >> do you want 30 days after we initiate the contract to come back with you with a plan. is that what you are trying to get to. i'm trying to figure out what -- >> i am not that interested in a time line, accept that i think we need one. >> okay. >> whatever we decide it to be. i am more interested in my fellow commissioners getting back material with the two different surveys we did about where those persons are that are
8:46 am
willing to take this on. i don't recall that it was anywhere in that map that i just saw today, so you can help me with that. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. you are spot-on commissioner, we did do two separate surveys going out to customers, asking them what their appetite is. the map that i showed you earlier is -- came from that survey work from the polling entity we hired to perform the work. it is consistent with the second poll's finding. it includes the new precincts that were recently implemented in san francisco. we would be happy by to sort of repaint the picture for you as a commission. refreshing everyone on the information that has been coming in over, gosh, three, four years as we have performed the
8:47 am
development work. >> the other point i would like to make is that at that juncture was it we were going to meet or be less than pg&e, or when those studies were done was it already assumed we would be paying more? i think that is very important. >> it is very important. yes, we did when we surveyed ask customers if they would be willing to pay more. not only did we ask if they would be willing to pay more, we told them knowing what we knew about those customer's energy consumption, we told them what their new bill would look like. and asked them even if it is this much more, you know, we asked them 40% more, 100% renewable portfolio. we did test those specific questions. having said that i think it is correct, commissioner, we do need to have another survey, another poll performed. you know, as we talked
8:48 am
earlier, some of the amendments we received through the legislative process increase what the premium will be. we need to go back out and ask customers again, a survey of customers again with this premium looking like this would you still be interested so we right-size the program. as president moran mentioned, this is a new business. we need a clear understanding of what our potential customers are willing to pay before we are willing to sign up for before we commit the city. >> very well put. isn't that the best thing to do first? >> well, i think the -- part of what we need to do is have the contract in capacity to conduct those studies. the firm that we had under contract before that contract expired, part of what we are trying to accomplish with this contract is give us tools to perform that kind of
8:49 am
work. the amendment that would allow us to come back to you with that knitting together of all these different, you know, polling and study work and what the going forward communications plan would be, that $100,000 task order would get us started. it would not fund additional survey work. additional survey work would take time -- >> sum -- >> the initial $100,000 task order would likely to the not be sufficient to fund both communications plan and additional survey. the $1.4 million before you in 8c, as in not exceed amount could include that additional survey work. >> a whole lot more. >> yes, yes. >> one more thing, then i
8:50 am
will be quiet. i think the important thing is to have another survey. i think it is very important where to find out where these customers are going to come from and look at that again and let them know exactly how much more they will be paying. not $8 to $20 -- like your house is this big and you probably be paying this amount of money. >> we could be more specific and we were in the prior to surveys, where we know how much the household historically consumes. we were able to calculate knowing what the new rate would be, the premium rate would be, exactly what their monthly bill would be. >> is their rate the same it was -- when did we take that survey, three years ago? >> it wasn't that long ago. i think the last was in the last year and a half.
8:51 am
that is just based upon recollection, i could be wrong. that is where the most recent maps came from. april 2011 and 2012. >> thank you. >> i'm done. >> how long does it take to get another supersede out. two to four weeks. my recommendation is task order be three to six months. if they complete sooner, they can return sooner to the commission. >> i am -- the way i'm processing those numbers, sounds to me as though there is a real schedule problem here. first of all, we don't know exactly what the rollout is going to be. and we don't have a plan for doing it. it is going to take six weeks or so to get somebody on board, it will take
8:52 am
sometime to plan and roll out and do the outreach we are talking about. i think there are very challenging expectations, at least as far as how quickly this can move. that would be where it would be very helpful to have the kind of schedule we had talked about earlier, laying out exactly how this will happen. not assuming everybody is on board and ready to go but understanding contracts take time to let and supersede and work takes time. that said i think there is some value as as you are putting together the plan for us to work with, that you have somebody with that kind of expertise to help you do that planning. i guess i would be supportive of the amendment that was suggested. i'm not sure how to do the time frame because we
8:53 am
haven't figured out how long that will take them to go not sure how to do a realistic time line. i guess i'm comfortable there is a lot of pressure to move things as quickly as they can possibly go. and that the $100,000 is it until you come back. so my guess is we will see them pretty quickly. >> my understanding that they can't do the survey with 100,000. >> i don't know they know what survey to do yet. quite frankly, they don't know what the rate also be yet. we don't know where there's decisions that haven't been made, the board has suggested go solar. is restricted to san francisco customers. that is something that i don't know if we need to do anything to make that real. changes the nature of what survey may have to be. if you have access to go solar program would you be likely to sign up? i don't know if we know how
8:54 am
to ask the questions yet. >> thank you, commissioner. we envisioned the subsequent surveys to be much like the prior surveys. talking to folks about what their actual bill premium would be if they stayed with the program. asking them whether they would stay with the program knowing that bill premium. the two prior survey, polling surveys we performed, those were the sort of questions asked of the customers. we did not poll them on ther services that would be provided through the clean power sf program, like go solar sf, like all the energy efficiency services that are available to them. and we hadn't planned on including those more detailed questions in the
8:55 am
survey. those would be components of the program that would definitely make it more attractive to customers, but in a conservative formation of the business plan, we weren't talking to them about that detailed -- that level of detail and those enhancements. we are sticking to the message of here is what the program would offer you. here is what it would mean to your pocketbook. would you stay with the program. >> so this survey would still not be down to the recruiting level. >> no. it is really just testing the market appetite. >> you would be presuming a rate structure. >> yes. given the indicative rates we have been provided for the wholesale power costs by shell, we have run that through our pro forma and we know what it would mean to the generation rate and to overall bill impacts for customers. we know that already.
8:56 am
we've already factored in the collection of reserve in the rates as we were directed by the board in their action on september 18th, so we know an indicative rate. >> okay. what we will get is an update on the prior surveys. >> correct. >> no more extensive -- this is a question. >> that was our plan. if you'd like us to do more or different we can, but our plan was to frame -- reframe question, same questions. go out to the customer base again with fresh data on costs and premiums and in recognition of the fact that san francisco has vacancy turnover, that kind of stuff. >> if you were to put into the planning effort as far as the survey, any idea what that would cost?
8:57 am
$200,000 total. >> what would the cost be if we went back to the initial people that did the two surveys. would we know that? >> i think the cost would be about the same. the timing would be the problem, then, because we don't have that firm under contract at this time. if we -- if we authorize the contract that's before you on item 8c, we could sub that portion of the work to a firm. but i think that would be the quickest way to procure that service. >> that would be quicker -- >> than a new contracting
8:58 am
process to procure that service separately. >> not quite clear. in other words, 8c would be faster than going back to old -- >> right. the farm we used before is no longer under contract to us, so we would have to either have a new contracting process that would result in a new contractor performing the work, potentially the same -- perform the work in the past. or under the contract that's before you as item 8c we could ask that the -- that survey work be subcontracted to the firm we identify. a firm. sorry. >> davis and associates do their own survey work? >> i don't know. do we know?
8:59 am
no. i'm told. >> they would have to subcontract, in any event. >> it is my understanding they would have to subcontract in any event, yes. >> can i -- i just want to make sure i understand. so we talked about coming up with a plan, right? now i'm sort of hearing you would like for us to do a new survey before we come up with the plan to help inform the plan. is that what -- >> that is what i'm saying. >> it would take longer to roll the program out, to do that. i think what we wanted is come up with a plan with different options, which will include that as well. and as mayor mentioned that he really wanted us to come up with a very robust plan before we do anything. i think he


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on