from 11.9 to 11.5. >> correct. i am making the comments on how we got to that rate. >> the public comment is on the reduction. >> correct. >> the public comment is on this amended price, this amended rate which we received the director from lafco by a resolution that 11.5 should be the rate that we consider at the pec and that was the recommendation and so in response to that, and we are introducing and i am introducing an amendment to amend the resolution to not-to-exceed rate of 11.5. >> thank you. >> public comment? >> now, we are going to restrict our comments to what you didn't say before, correct? >> because i know that all of you are coming forward testified at length, so your comments are going to be geared

towards the reduction from 11.9, 011.5. >> would you like two minutes? >> yes, two minutes, yes. >> commissioners? today, we had a lengthy presentation and discussion on this matter. and the purpose of this amendment is to tell pg&e that sfpuc can bring this number to the same number that pg&e proposes. >> which is nine. >> so, that is the only purpose. that sfpuc is on the equal footing or has the resources or can deliver a product the same

as pg&e. and in my humble opinion, we cannot. this is a moving target. we cannot. there are 105 years of experience and we have none. that is the only purpose. and that presentation of the many, many, many, loop holes, so with this rate, we are also need to know, what is the quality, what is the unit quality of the entity? we need the critical data. not just reduce the amount, we want to know. the public needs to know. so, (inaudible) lies, can be thrown out there to (inaudible), we want to know that if you give something back to the unit, that particular

unit, and you know and i know that when that day comes, where the six months from now or a year from now, we cannot fight the battle. that is all that i got to say. >> thank you. >> welcome back. >> thank you, president, and commissioners. and i did just wanted to briefly speak. i know that i spoke earlier. and commissioner, vice president was not here, but, i do support this amendment and there were statements made by lafco commissioner earlier that thinking about it from a consumer perspective, matching, or beating pg&e, the proposed would be just really simple from a rate pair perspective and the city is doing something for the same price as pg&e and why not stay with the city.

11.9 to 11.5 is a small change. but we are consumers and when we are comparing prices we are going to go for the lower price for the same thing and so i think that reducing it to 11.5 or lower, is both critical to buy-in, and also, an easy step to take, thank you. >> next? >> good afternoon, from the san francisco bay chapter of the sierra club and i wanted to again, express our support for lowering the not-to-exceed rate to 11.5 cents, i have a letter from community advocates, that states that we support this lower rate, and that it is reasonably affordable and competitive and i wanted to make sure that the general manager, kelley and commissioner courtney got a copy of these because i know that everybody else got a copy in the earlier meeting. >> mr. kelley was here earlier as well you just did not see him.

>> right. >> mr. brooks, welcome. >> but before i can ask you a procedural question. we will be able to speak on the next item and the reason that i bring that up is that the commissioner... >> if there is a second to the next item. >> because commissioner courtney did not get to hear any of that. >> you can talk to him in private. >> since this is my only opportunity to speak, i will say, and i am sure that you have heard from many of us that the contrary to what the first speaker said, there have been no shanangans from the staff and they have done the (inaudible) work to listen to us and work with us and to look at the numbers and see what is happening in the market and lower the rate. and the lower it goes, the better. and 1.5 is a good start. and but i wanted to elaborate o and the reason that i was not at the first hearing today, to speak, is that at that time, some of us were meeting with,

the labor council representative and discussed? the letter and discussing the issues, and we were able to make clear, that the importance of getting this thing going, now that we have got a competitive rate and we can go ahead and the importance of that is that we can get enough customer buy-in that we will be able to build and it will only be a 20 percent and at most we will be able to build a city wide program as has been envisioned and we will be able to finance with that level and this gets to the key issue of project labor agreements. that one of the interesting things about the letter that specifically mentioned energy efficiency project labor agreements and i will disagree with the staff on this one, their response was that we can't do that. and i would say, nonsense, you can do that. if you build a big enough, city wide energy efficiency program that we specifically put this forward to the labor council representative today and you do

a big, city-wide expansion into the energy efficiency into all kinds of homes and businesses. that is big enough that you can put the union labor to work, and i hope that two weeks from now if not today we can put this to bed and get on to fight from that build out. >> and i want to put it to bed as well. >> thank you, mr. brooks. next? >> hi, again, i'm (inaudible) of the local clean energy alliance and i am here to speak in support of the most competitive program possible and in bringing down the rate cap to 11.5, moves us to being more competitive and so we support that and we are very happy to see it come down from where it was at 14.5, and really we want to thank the sfpc staff for working with advocates to do that and like i mentioned this morning it is a victory for the staff and for the advocate groups that we are looking at a proposal of 11.5

today. and you know, this morning, i want to remind you that this is not-to-exceed and this is the cap that protects the consumers from price increases and the actual rate can be much lower and as we look around regionally, we are seeing the power and launching for the plan for the early 2014, where they got 11 bidders for the rfp and four finalists and looking at ranges in the 78 cents and the pg&e and offering 11 percent clean option to the residents and the priority for the local build and i think that we can really see that. going forward we still have negotiating to do to continue to minimize the influence on the rates and build into the program, all of the efficiency, and all of the metering and behind the meter projects and i think that there is a financial workshop that we are looking at seeing, what has happened to see how do we really fund this and make it real, so we look

forward to work with all of you to really make that happen and make sure that the wages and the labor agreements that we want to see there, thank you. >> next? >> good afternoon, ben, and live and work in san francisco. with respect to the reduction from 11.9, to 11.5, we ought to understand that that is a cap and a range. the public and the press do not always understand that and the number that will go out and the public and some of the press will see that as a rate. the lower that we can get that, the better that perception, the greater the difference between that and what pg&e are saying and the greater that it hurts the program at the start. so i strongly support that it be in a fairly and reasonable range that you accept the proposed motion and reduce the 11.9 do 11.5 percent to make the messages clear as possible that you are being aggressive and that you are pursuing this

actively and that you are also keeping track of changing trends in the market and you going to keep after that and not get pg&e get out of reach. >> thank you for your service as a classroom teacher. >> welcome. >> chairman, and commissioners and i am sorry that i missed the events of the morning, but i am very pleased to hear what lafco was and it is encouraging to us that the sierra club and the bay chapter and, i think that we are on our way, finally getting towards, where we need to be in terms of addressing the climate change and the potential that this world is facing. and i understand that you are not going to vote to on the issue itself. so sorry you are not doing that but i urge you to get to it as soon as possible. i know that you want to. and every delay and you know this is moving quickly, climate change is surprising all of the

scientists as far as i can tell and how rapidly the changes are happening around the world and we are seeing it this year and auful large number of weather, extreme worthy vents weather, events that we are not used to seeing. i just, my grand daughter broke her wrist and there are generations down the road that are going to be in serious trouble not from broken wrists but from a world that will not have sufficient food because agriculture will be threatened and something that we can anticipate and unless we have a wall like new orleans that is 20 feet high and we are not going to see a bay and we are going to see a wall, things are changing and we have got to address it, and i hope that you... and i am sure that you will adopt the 11.5, it will be really disappointing if you don't and hope that you get to

approve the whole program so we can get going and do our bit. >> i hope that your grand daughter gets better >> any more comments? >> commissioner moran? >> on the motion to amend, i don't have any comments. >> okay. >> i am sorry. >> all right. >> all signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> opposed? >> no opposition, vote to reduce the amount from 11.9 to 11.5. >> all right. >> you had a comment? >> well, i have a motion and that is that given the discussion that we had this morning, that we continue this item to return to this commission, no later than august 13th, if we can get it back around the 23rd that will be great but the motion will be no later than august 23. >> and to extend to the general manager and staff to sit down

with the labor representatives? >> yes. >> thank you. >> second? >> all right. >> any public comment? >> yes, so, i just want to make a quick comment to fill in, first of all the thing that i was saying about the energy efficiency and the other thing that the staff said in its memo and it was back to the labor is that you did not expect that energy efficiency was provided enough of its own revenue source that it can be done without leveraging the existing programs, and that is another thing that i think that we strongly disagree with. people don't realize that energy efficiency can be its own revenue stream just like solar and wind and it is important for people to learn this aspect and it is really crucial that when you, if the program builds energy efficiency in homes and businesses, and pays the up front cost, then that business

and that home has energy efficiency in the home, and it is saving money on their bill right away. so let's say that a customer saves $30. well, the thing is that you have put it on there for them, and what you are going to ask them to do is to pay back the cost. so what you do is you save them $30, but you charge them like $25 or 27.50, so they are still getting at least a little savings, they are still getting a better deal but you are putting resources, revenue back into the program. and so that is the financial mechanism by which we can get a city wide energy efficiency that is new, not just existing programs set up. and so this is very viable and it is not just efficiency, it is the whole, you know the whole nine yards of this thing, it is the same sort of way as long as you get enough customer buy-in and as to the labor council meeting is what we had it was the first one that we had and we don't know if it is

going to get to the food chain yet. but hopefully by two weeks from now we can get enough communication going that you will realize that it is okay to go forward with this. >> thanks. >> thank you, mr. brooks. >> you just love... >> yes, i do. >> thank you very much. i just wanted to... >> you represent 6,000 members? >> yes, i do, i am here representing 6,000 san francisco club members and member more supporters in addition to that. i just wanted to remind the president torres of the comment that you made this morning in the lafco meeting that he wanted to wait on passing the not-to-exceed rates so that we can have a few more weeks of conversation with labor and if we can't come to the agreement. >> then, well, we want to have a very healthy discussion and hope that we can all come to a place where we work forward together and i am glad to see that the advocates and the staff are pushing for ward at this point for the same goal. but i would love to see the

advocates for the program of labor do the same and i just want to remind you that you wanted to have a couple weeks to have a discussion. >> i am reminded of what i said. i know what i said. >> i want to put it in the public record. >> i just did when i said it. >> if we can't come to an agreement we will move forward with with the not exceed rates that is what i will hold you to. >> come back i want to make sure that you understand where my position is. >> i would like some clarification. >> number one, i am in favor of this program. number two, i want to see it happen. number three, i want to participate. but i am also sensitive to the needs of labor and i believe that their voices should be heard before we move forward, if they can't come up with a compromise and an agreement, we are schedule to have a vote on the project. >> great. >> great, to hear it. thank you, so much. >> i thought that you heard it earlier.

>> you have a question? >> i will reserve, thank you. >> all right. >> on this item. >> we should have some... here, when i said (inaudible) and i was referring to one entity. not the staff. okay? let me make that very clear. they come here and say, they represent all of san francisco, i don't know what that means. i know that i have been involved in this matter since 1998. i know that i was involved with cac matters, since the year 2001. what i heard from the labor 1, labor representative addressing the chair was that it is high time that when you make

statements we respect. if you make statements where you want to like shove things down people's throat you will never get anywhere. so as much as some people is paying, because that commissioners, or because, you know, they have some connections with the politics, that that allows them to speak for all of san francisco and the world, that is sadly mistaken. we know some things about climate change and we don't want our carbon footprint to increase, but by increasing it, but as i told you this morning, but by building all of this concrete buildings, they are not addressing the same landfills so they are just looking at it from our own perspective and crying, wolf wolf wolf. and so my thing is, we need the

labor's union at the table as equals thank you very much. >> all right. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am peter with (inaudible) for green energy. and it is a group that we are trying to bring in (inaudible) digester into the city to convert it to renewable energy and compost and so we look up to san francisco and your efforts here. and i just wanted to mention that our city, a few months ago, we decided to go, carbon neutral on electricity and we just signed off on three solar contracts that were surprisingly cheap. and i think that it just like a quarter of a cent bump in our electricity which is lower than pg&e, i come here and talk about water but i get to hear about what is happening with energy issues and i think that it is exciting and i know that there are challenges but i appreciate all of the work that

you are putting into it. >> thank you for your work and effort. >> any further comments on this motion? >> all right. all of those in favor, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> no. >> four ayes and one no. all right the motion carries. >> i believe that we don't need a private session? correct? >> no closed session required today. >> all right. >> so will move forward to any other new business? >> and a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> seconded. >> all of those in favor, signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> thank you. >>