for a buildout. if you wanted to buildout all this stuff right away but you have prices that would be so high you wouldn't have customers to be participating in the program. >> i'm clear about the we be customers so that we have cash. i get that line. [multiple voices] >> i think everything that you guys are talking about here wanting to have the discussion about is what needs to be figured out over the next 6 to 8 months. we need to have rates in order to figure that out, though. if we don't have rates, there's no ability for us to say how much money is in the program and available for a buildout to do all of these things. so, you need to have a rate to do that. so, -- >> the rates are really important and they determine how much money there is for local buildout. >> correct. >> so that's really what's important on tuesday. >> correct. if we don't have a rate we can't figure out how to do the buildout. what ms. malcolm can't figure out now is because she doesn't have a rate to set it to. >> the decision on tuesday is very important. >> yes. >> commissioner, is that what you're trying to get at?

~ commissioner arce >> yes. >> okay, go ahead. >> as we speak, i'm trying to put together some thoughts. commissioner king. >> that was already. >> i'm sorry. commissioner wald. >> i'm just trying to figure out how important it is. it seems to me it's a mistake. it may be more important than i thought it was before, but it's also not -- it's not the be all and end all. we could get a rate. it could be 15 cents. it could be 30 cents. but that doesn't mean that people like eric and his colleague and you, chairman arce, in your day life, and the rest of us in our commission life can walk away. it is not the end of the battle.

and, so, i don't want us to overemphasize its importance because that will lull us into a false sense of security that we don't have more work to do together to get the program that we want. so, if we could say something like we would favor a rate that will maximize the amount of money that's available for local buildout while not being so high as -- i'm making this up and people who know me know you do not look to me for economics. [laughter] >> thank you, commissioner king. [laughter] >> cannot drive away the customers, which i regard as -- if that's the message, that's a simple message that we could come up with which might or

might not be useful. but that's a pretty simple message. >> i'm trying to distill that into something to commissioner king. in one second i'm going to propose something. >> so, we're going to do language, then we need to go ahead and do it. because if not, it's 8:35. i mean, in general we support affordable and competitive rates. anything that is not compatible with pg&e hurts the program's ability to be self-sustainable, hurts the program's ability to grow because it will not attract customers. furthermore be it resolved that we are about echo equity, that this program needs to provide

not only green energy, but also green economy for the area. and that that -- it should be in the form of making sure -- ensuring that there is organized labor that are in partnership with what we're doing. i think that seems to be -- that seems to be what we're saying here. it seems that number one, we've got to guarantee rate and that we have to make sure that, you know, we have to make sure that that's the case. we have to emphasize that at no point in time the recs are not -- recs are not the preferable method and, so, we want to understand, you know, what's the process to get off recs

very clearly. and that we want, you know -- because both of those things seem to contribute to our next goal, which is local power generation because it creates jobs. and those jobs need to be done by union. anything that does not lead to that we cannot be supportive of. >> i think we should be in the positive, not in the negative to be effective with our peers. >> [speaker not understood]. >> malcolm just recommended and make sure we have something in there supporting our greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. >> thank you. i'm sorry. i meant to say that. you know, and san francisco's, because that's another thing. there's not, you know, you know, if we don't have customers choosing this energy, if we don't have, you know,

in-city build, you know, that affects our ability to get to that goal as well. >> thank you, commissioner king. if i may take a crack. >> okay, lawyer. >> we've got a couple of us. we may have more of us commissioners. lots of good policy folks. >> [speaker not understood]. >> oh, okay. >> i'm giving you my wife's number so she knows i was really here. [laughter] >> to me it's two components. the one is probably pretty easy to kind of reach consensus around. the second, give it a shot. the first consensus is that whereas the san francisco public utilities commission is scheduled to consider adoption of rates for the clean power sf

program on august 13th, 2013. and clean power sf is a program that san francisco commission on the environment supported in a september 2012 resolution. so, if we're to piece together a statement, i would like to -- we don't have a deputy ca. i think i'd probably have to ask to entertain a motion to adopt that program as a start of a resolution and then look at a second.

>> josh, president, i love you. i love you dearly. we can't do this. [laughter] >> i'll be -- you know, and if we are -- even if we were, then i think that we have said -- stated what it is that we care about. and you in your infinite lawyer brain need to either spit this out and write it down or we need to, you know, or we can't do it like this. [multiple voices] >> right, we're a city and county commission. , and you know, we're about to -- i love you, man. we're about to approve a resolution that has not been out there, you know. i thought that we could approve

a statement that says our general feeling, you know, kind of a motion that, that, you know, conveys that, look, this is how we are. but to sit here and craft a motion, you know, we can't do that, brother. we can't do it, and i'm concerned -- i'm concerned that if we did do that and it was a motion -- it was a resolution that we crafted here that, you know, had not been brown acted or anything, i'm concerned how anybody would take it, you know, the legitimacy of it. so, like i said, and i'm concerned about the time, you know. you're brilliant, and even you are struggling to put everything together. and then when you do it, it's going to be -- and even when you do it, it's going to be on a tablet.

>> i have really good penmanship. >> not from where i sit. [laughter] >> but let me ask you, before we hear from other folks, i'm going to come back and ask what's our statement? any other thoughts from commission colleagues? are we satisfied with where the program is at in terms of meeting -- >> let me make a motion. i move that we encourage the puc to move on this item if the rates are competitive with pg&e

-- >> wait, don't. um-hm. >> is clear guidance about -- >> go again. i'm even writing in good handwriting. >> okay. >> really well. >> the rates are competitive with pg&e? >> right. >> if it's clear that the city -- that we do not want future dependency on recs. and that all roads lead to this program creating and funding

local living wage jobs that are unionized. and that's really all we're trying to say. >> that's what we want. >> that's what we want. the rates have to be competitive because if they're not competitive, nobody will buy it. if nobody buys it, there's no cash. if there's no cash, then none of this other stuff comes into being. >> right. >> who has the best notes to -- help us make this motion? >> i'll go after director [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. greenhouse gas emission and/or supporting renewable energy just to make sure that is in there somewhere. >> yes. well, i mean, once again, that's the part of the issue about the lack of dependency on

the recs because local, you know. so that our goal -- that our goal as a city in terms of renewable energy and our renewable energy policies. so, i take that as a friendly amendment. >> as a friendly amendment. >> although you're not a commissioner. >> i don't know where to put t. i have a friendly amendment that we don't say "all roads lead to." >> all road lead to -- >> that the puc makes a commitment to a program, so we're asking the puc to do three things. one, adopt a rate structure that has rates competitive with pg&e. two, to make clear that the city does not want to be -- does not want to be depend not on recs in the future. >> bingo. >> and that the program will

meet our greenhouse gas -- the city's greenhouse goals and that they will design a program that ensures local living wage jobs, or have a commitment to ensuring the program, local living wage jobs that are unionized. >> and local hire. that right there is as succinct as i've heard it. >> okay. so, it's a program that maximizes local jobs, right? >> yeah. union. >> and that -- and that has living wage -- >> if it's local living wage it's redundant f. we just say union that takes care of that. ~ if >> so that the program maximizes local union jobs.

>> there's a couple problems here. my wife is waving at me on tv. [laughter] >> what i'm going do ask is a friendly amendment after throwing out some thoughts here is that there also be the direction within the motion, if it can be accepted, the maker -- was there a second on the motion? >> there was a clarity. >> we don't have a motion yet. we're working on the motion. >> it's hard to do anything without the motion. here's the thing. i've got to say if the answer next week is we have a draft outline to have local renewable generation, not good. and, so, the thing that's here is talking about all roads leading to building and funding local renewable generation

coming into the sfpuc as a draft outline what are we saying? we said a few thing here tonight. we heard from the staff. the program has not gotten better since the fall in the comprehensive view of all these things. how do we get some direction to improve and increase this stuff, taking advantage of the opportunity we have before us and not continuing to reduce? >> and what i'm saying, through the chair, and what i'm saying to you is that if you want to truly answer that question or truly influence that question, that in a thoughtful manner with the full resources of our department that we could do that, that, you know, crafted wonderful thing is just not going to be done right now.

>> i think there's -- >> i think it makes a strong statement, though. >> i think the start -- i think it's important because otherwise it says at the end of this i'm going to suggest that we do this in the form of a letter that goes out. because otherwise, what did we do? it's not like we have a sfpuc commissioner here with us tonight. >> i think that if we're going to do something, we start with what commissioner wald has. i think that's by far the most succinct that i've heard it. and then if there's something you need to add to it, president arce, then i think that you should take a look at the starting point of that note and add to it. and then i think we need to call it a motion and then we need to vote it up or down. >> right. >> and could i just say i would

-- if we can come up with something tonight, i would like to propose, josh, that you go to the puc meeting -- whatever day it was, i scratched that out -- and stand up and read it on behalf of this commission. [laughter] >> the thing is that -- that's so easy. that's the easy part. but what are we saying? because i don't think we're saying -- [multiple voices] >> go ahead. >> in response to what you are saying, i think what you're complaining about is that they're not moving fast enough. >> i'm just saying -- we need a vision. we've articulated a vision at the environment commission. and advocates have worked on this for a long time. i started working on this in 2008 when we needed a solution to move the last minute with in-city renewable generation and jobs to close potrero power

plant without new dirty peaker power plants. there's a lot of time invested in getting to something. the complaint is the vision is still there. there is still the true believers. there is still the talent, i think, to do that and the expertise as a city. but the presentation was not it. and there is a draft outline and there is a new thing now about buying the hydro power and there's all this new stuff that i don't even know what it is. all i know is that i think theretion' -- i would like to express we have concerns. >> and i'm cool. >> here's where we are, that's fine. if that's the case and you want to add that, at this point in time, it needs to be added to this thing because you're saying we have concerns. what are the concerns? >> we have concerns about the progress of the program as it is before the sfpuc commission toward the environment

commission's local renewable energy generation and job training and placement goals. therefore. >> therefore? >> whatever you said. >> okay. i've got to say since 2008, you guys have accomplished a hell of a lot and i don't want to sound like an old lady, but some people have been working on things that are similar for decades and you're making a lot of progress. so, i don't want you to -- >> well, i mean, there's other stuff. there's good programs that do a lot of this stuff. we're fighting for funding every year like go solar sf. >> [speaker not understood]. >> just in terms of the valuation of local renewable generation and the jobs and the community-driven pieces, we have to constantly keep putting. it can't be next week that there's a conversation about a checklist or whatever it was, a

draft outline to have local and renewable generation. it has to be what, you hear from sfp, you hear from the advocate. it has to be concrete because there's a little bit of deception otherwise. can i say it? it becomes a little bit of deception about we're going to do all these things, and then all of us follow on this path, but then it doesn't happen. we lose that leverage to layout that path and to do it now. i really do believe a great deal of that dissipates after rates are set on the program. >> [speaker not understood]. >> but i'm telling you that if you -- it's your responsibility, it's all of our responsibilities, it's their responsibilities to not let it dissipate. you just cannot pack everything that you want and all of the bad experiences that you've had -- even if we had days i would advise you not to pack all of

that into this statement to lead to the or present to the puc for the hearing that they're going to have next week. that is not [inaudible]. as an advocate, i mean, we can talk about additional stuff, but don't make this the vehicle for everything that you want. they are going to talk about rates. they are going to talk about this program. let's give them some -- let's give them some relevant, strategic, targeted values or ideas. >> okay. so, i respect everybody's opinion. at this point in time, either we're crafting or we're dropping. so, i would like to say that, you know, towards the beginning of the statement that you were crafting, commissioner wald, i don't see there is necessarily a problem to say, you know, we will be monitoring or we have

some concerns about the things that you mentioned. and then say the things that, you know, and then the list of things that came after that. i see no problem with saying that there are some -- you know, there are some concerns about some things. we are watching some things. we are evaluating some things because that gives us a foothold to come back to those things. if there is an issue in the future. so, i see no problem with that. what i'm asking everybody is u the next person that speaks, we are either crafting this thing or not ~. so, i say i like where commissioner wald's thing was at, with the addition of all policy goals as a board. and i say toward the beginning of that -- the message that you were saying, something to the effect that we have, you know, the san francisco environment

commission has concerns regarding x. and, you know, and then mention, look, but these are the things that we see that are -- these are the things that we are concerned about. this, this, this and this. and these things are present and we keep moving on this place, then we will -- rather, we will continue to evaluate these things. and as these are vital to meeting all of the goals and aspirations of the original program that was passed by the board of supervisors. >> and that we have supported in the past. >> we had supported in the past? >> yeah, we supported it. that's why we supported the program in the past. >> so, we're expressing that we have concerns about the current design of the program and its progress toward the commission's local renewable energy generation and local job

training and placement goals. if we put this out there, if you have really good penmanship, then maybe you can read it as a motion. >> i can read it and i'll spend time with monica. we have concerns about the current design of the program and the progress -- >> and its progress toward the commission on the environment's local renewable energy generation and local job training and placement goals. >> wait. no, we have to be more general than that because they may not care what our goals are. we need to say that we think they're the city's goals or the agreed upon goals. >> fair enough. the city's local renewable energy generation and local job training placement goals. >> may i ask a question?

i wasn't asked to come tonight to give a presentation on our plan for buildout and i'd like to at least get you a copy of what i provided to the advocate who supports the direction we're going in. [speaker not understood]. i just want you to know what we've been collaborating about and the analysis we've done so far. >> okay, thanks. >> okay. so, can i read what we have so far? >> yes. >> that we, the san francisco commission on the environment, encourage the san francisco public utilities commission to, one, adopt a rate structure for clean power sf that has rates competitive with pg&e.

two, make it clear that the city and the sfpuc do not want a future that is dependent on recs. three -- i'm making it separate, melanie. four, is commit today achieving the city's -- using the program to achieve the city's greenhouse gas goals. or clean power. to achieve the city's greenhouse gas goals. and four, commit to a program that maximizes local unionized jobs.

our commission has concerns about the current design of the program and the progress being made towards realizing the city's local renewable energy generation and job training goals. and we are committed -- which are -- which are vital parts of the program originally adopted by the board and supported by this commission. we -- we are committed to following the development of this program and to, whatever. >> it's just all over the place. i mean, what is the competitive

pg&e? if it's easier and we can get through it, we can say that we have concerns about the current design of the program and its progress towards the city's local and renewable energy generation and local job training and placement goals. and if need be, you know, it's no mystery we have the vice president of the commission with us tonight. he's heard all of this. everything can be conveyed. i can be at the commission. and if they want to endorse some of this stuff, i can lay it and some of the stuff we're looking for. but all this stuff, you know, what is the future dependency on recs? do we want to have a conversation about how long we've got to get off recs? what is the future dependency, a week? you know what i mean, we're selling the weeds on all this stuff. the road to having certain of these things. >> sir, in all honesty, i won't

do this another 10 minutes. i will not. as a representative of this city and of people that i think are represented on this thing, i would rather just go there and express myself as a commissioner. we are on television. and i will not do this another 10 minutes. as i said, this kind of work, this kind of work is not -- it's not generally done. i've never seen it done at a commission. we are attempting to do more than just a statement. we are attempting to write a resolution which is something i said i did not want to do. and i have sat here and labored while we tried to put something together. but it's very clear to me at this very second that there are a bunch of sentiments that we