started using light green and dark green here. i do not think we're using the same definition that marin uses. we're using -- we're talking about 100% renewable in both the dark green and the light green option. correct? it's just the rec mix that will differentiate the light versus the dark. * >> so, correct. what we've presented were a series of 100% renewable portfolio. >> correct. >> and i think folks fell into the language of how do you describe the sort of premiumness of the green products that makeup that 100%. in order to express the differentiation between a heavily bucket 3 100% renewable program versus a less, a 5% bucket 3 versus an 85% bucket 3. >> which is different from marin, correct? >> very different from marin. >> i agree with the public commenters who said the definition of light and dark

green is different than how it's being used here today. >> i don't know if we need different language or what we need to do, but i think that's important to clarify. * >> we need different language. >> yes. >> so whatever it means, whatever our options are that we're talking about so there isn't this confusion because i think it is confusing. the other thing is when we do -- when you do come back, it would be good to see a column with the local power pricing to address these issues so that we can really have a comparison across the board of this different prices. * with an explanation of what that mix consists of so we can really see it. i don't know how you'll get to that resolution of what it is, but hopefully. >> before you -- so, the question i would ask is that, you know, they mentioned that shell would be 20 megawatts and hetchy would be 10, but you still have to shape it, right? >> you still have to shape it, you still have to firm it. you still have to hedge it in case of the dry year.

it's a couple points of clarification, also points of fact. so, i have personally with the finance staff and power staff walked through every single line item of their model. i can share with you exactly where the numbers are as i represented them. and, so, i know that you have the confidence in that. i have brought copies of the public model with me to walk them through, indeed the column that we have shown here and i want to make sure that the stakeholders also see is what lpi has proposed for the rec mix was as we show it here for that year one. you also asked us to unpack these key issues, whether or not we can provide the hetchy power and is it more affordable. or is changing the rec mix to the tradable recs which are less than a quarter of a penny versus the bundled recs that are 5 pennies, how much does that affect price. so, we do have a shared goal. so, i want to make sure that

the stakeholders as well as the viewing public knows that we all want to get the lowest price. it make our job harder to go out with a price premium at all. and if we were able to get cheaper greener power, we'd be the first ones to propose it to you. >> all right. when is your next meeting with lpi? >> my last one was last tuesday. we've traded e-mails as recently as today. i believe their next one is tomorrow? tomorrow afternoon. >> what time? >> 2 o'clock. >> where? >> it is in -- it's a teleconference and we'd be happy to share that with anybody that lets me know after the meeting. >> i'm [speaker not understood] now. will mr. brooks be in the call or is he being excluded? he >> these are staff check inses.

we have public stakeholders meetings as well as public technical meetings as well as commissioner meetings as well as lafco meetings. >> this meeting tomorrow is between staff and lpi? >> staff. >> and a teleconference? >> yes, it is. >> send me the details on that. commissioner moran? >> the next advocate's meeting is the 20th as well. so, that will be -- everybody will be invited to that as well on the 20th. >> a couple quick question. one is about the lpi proposal that there be 20 megawatts of shell and 18, i think it was, of hetchy. i have the same question of staff. the answer is that if hetchy power isn't cheaper than shell power, it doesn't matter what the mix is. it price ends up being the save. -- same. * that didn't mirror exactly what

the lpi was, the import was the same. with that said, i just urge that as we proceed down this road that we can focus on the numbers. there is liberty and freedom in the numbers and discipline in the numbers. the process we've gone through in the last few days, there is a chart that wasn't with us today that -- there was a memo that we got from l. wine rob saying we take issue with these three numbers. my question back to him was, what are your three numbers that go with that? his answer was, i don't know. * we need to focus on what those numbers are, that if we agree on numbers, let's check them off and say, okay, that one is done. if there are numbers we don't agree on, it is a quantitative

exercise. you can get there. even if you don't like each other. this is fine, folk. it works. so, i would just encourage that we focus on the objective. we get the concept. there is the old marketing thing about you bought the concept, now you have to buy the jeans. we're into buying the jeans phase. we got the concept. we need to be focused on objective analysis here and i think we can do that. and i think we'll all be better off if that was the focus. >> just one last thing. i just wanted to also say that as part of the survey, we are going to ask the question about local build out. are you willing to pay more for local build out? so, we're going to have actually a comparison question between, you know, clean power sf and pg&e where our program has a local build out. so, we do have that information

and we do feel that that's important. >> all right. vice president [speaker not understood]. >> thank you, president torres. i sense that there is a level of frustration. it's certainly understandable. my concern is if there's a perception that staff is not being totally available or providing enough opportunity to the stakeholders, then i would hope that we would be able to kind of rectify that. * courtney it causes us problems because then it seems like we're hearing two things. and i wrestle with it because, not to completely contradict what commissioner moran just said, but it's not always about the numbers. you know, there's human capital, and investing in communities, and investing in the community work force is

something that resonates with the people that live in our town. and i'm a little disappointed that we've kind of decoupled, to use the same term, because as i've been discussing this program, it has always been about a build out, which we have yet to assign a cost to, which now appears to be -- to go solar build out, which even causes me more confusion. and now we're going to talk about numbers. and my concern is it really over complicates things, with all due respect, because now we're talking about something that's completely different. i mean, there's nobody, you know, there was a reference to

the last general manager, what seemed like an hour ago at this point, there is' nobody that's more interested in jobs than our current general manager. * nobody. so, i'm pleading with staff to help us by making sure that the lines of communication are like just ridiculously 100% open. i'm going to ask also for some clear and concise information about the build out and about what now i believe is the go solar build out component because these things seem to be changing almost day to day [inaudible] getting my arms around it. thank you. >> any other comments? you have the lyrics to cum ba,

ya? >> i can't help you there. i just have some observations. i like the comment about liberty, freedom. i don't know how that work, but they're good notions. some observations not having been particularly involved in this, but seeing it from the edge. i think a lot of this has to do with the assumptions that various people have. i note that on slide 9 there is a section on the bottom for assumptions. i think this needs to be expanded in the future to explain these terms for those of us that understand and those that don't understand because there are a lot of concepts that are buried in those assumptions as to what means to what different people. one of those that i understand is this billion dollar bond to support local infrastructure build out. i'm not sure that that works and i think that's one of the struggles that i've understood from staff is that you need

that in order to build out what lpi and others want to see happen and that may not be liable or it may not be viable with the smaller year term program. so, understanding how that billion dollar bond works into it is i think pretty important. i mean, if i offer you all kinds of fantastic thing, sure, you can do great things and demonstrate success. but if that isn't available, then it's a totally different comparison. all right. some other comments. i don't know how this particular endeavor relates to the renegotiation of the pg&e interconnection agreement. and i know those are two entirely different things except the cost of wheeling transmission from power -- our commitments to the districts. i think there is a relationship there, and how much hetchy power might be available at

different times of the yearly during different weather scenarios. i'm having trouble seeing those in their two separate places without understanding how we work those together. and the time frame for those separate endeavors to the extent that they overlap. i'm also concerned about the risks to hetchy power customers, whether they're the district's, the municipal load, other customers by assigning possibly some amount of hetchy power to cca, which is a relatively new concept in the last few months that has come up. so, i come out at this point less supportive of using hetchy power, more supportive of the shell approach because it keeps things in separate places. ask overall, just concerned that this cca endeavor seems to

be coming more of a distraction and maybe that's too strong a word. * and but becomes a program that may be overwhelming our other core utility functions. and i want it to either succeed or exist in a way that doesn't overwhelm those other functions which we continue to have to perform. and we should, of course, try to have this discussion as civilly as possible. so, i don't know if any of those comments help, but thank you. >> i would argue, i would argue i think the conversation has been civil, there's just disagreement. >> which is fair. >> and we'll move from that point. >> and i agree with you on that. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> for civilly agreeing with me. any other public comments? i hope not. [laughter] >> all right. public comments on matters to be discussed in closed session. any public comments on matters to be discussed in closed session? yes, mr. [speaker not

understood]. david pilpow. on this point i am supportive of the staff's selection of emilio cruz as the next agm for infrastructure. i had some initial concerns about not emilio's background or performance, technical skills, but just a perception that, once again, a position has become not just a technical appointment, but a political appointment. and, so, i just want us to discuss and feel good about his skills and hoping that not every decision that infrastructure makes going forward will be looked at through a political lens and have questions follow in that way. i think we've done a good job of keeping the general manager

position both technical and political in a way that's useful and having all of the other staff positions be technical. >> >> i don't agree with you because i think the technical expertise is there -- i agree the technical -- i'm saying i agree with that. >> so i a political appointment means there are no qualifications of the candidate. i don't think that's the case. i think he has good skill sets in both ways. i just wanted to express those concerns, and we have agreed to meet and we will talk through that. but i think it's a fine selection and i now commend that to you. thank you. >> all right. any other comments? * >> commission members, on that particular item -- >> your name for the record. for the record, james bryant * . so, i'm here today to codify the fact that you are picking up a very professional employee.

[inaudible] anyway. so, emilio cruz is a prfessional. i worked with him while his tenure at municipal railway. he has a multitude of skills. he is bright enough to see things in whatever kind of political way you want to mention it. and i actually think david was thinking on the positive way. so, i hopefully recommend -- i willfully recommend that mr. cruz is brought on as a new member of this staff. i think he'll be a -- obviously he will be someone who will help this staff with not only knowledge from his public tenure, but from this his private tenure as well. so, i want to thank you all for

considering having mr. cruz on your [speaker not understood]. >> thank you, mr. bryant. appreciate t. is there a motion to go into private session? >> i'll move to assert attorney/client privilege. >> all right. >> second. >> so moved and seconded. all those signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the motion is carried. >> i will read the closed session items. number 14, conference with legal counsel - pursuant to california government code section 54956.9(c) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10(d) (2). item 15, conference with legal counsel - pursuant to california government code section 54956.9(a) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10(d). and item 16, pursuant to government code section 54957 and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (b), to consider public employee appointment/hiring for the position of assistant general manager for infrastructure of the san francisco public utilities commission; and pursuant to government code section 54954.5(f) and administrative code section 67.8 (a) (5).

>> people, please exit the room. as quickly as possible because we've gone well over our [inaudible]. >>please stand by - meeting in closed session