>> can we say all the goals? when you first crafted your original statement of concern, it was just the local hiring and the union jobs and the local buildout. is that accurate? >> yeah, i think that's fair. but technically, tom owen, if you're watching, if you can text monica, sound okay to me, but we don't have a second on the motion. >> i'll second the motion to get going. i think we should say something. >> and i would accept as a friendly amendment the idea of all goals -- >> it can't be all goals at the same time. you have to decide what the time period for meeting the goals. >> we didn't hear anything.

>> i'm sorry for this. i think it's -- i think we have to move the conversation to the place that we want it to go. and now is the time to do it. to marry the vision that's been articulated by the commission, by folks from the public, and get that to be exactly what the puc staff is saying. because there is some kind of disconnect. and this does that because the goals that we've articulated are our goals, goals of supporters, folks that have worked on this for a long time. i included myself in this. >> all right. so, how about -- >> i hear what you're saying. there is a second. we need to move it to a vote. >> are you calling the question, commissioner king? yes. director [speaker not understood]. >> i was wondering if the commission's by laws would allow electronic voting. >> they don.

~ do not. that's not in our by laws. >> is there any other discussion? bylaws ~ >> don't we have to have public comment? >> yes. public comment on the proposed action. jason freed, lafco staff. what i just heard read i think would be a big detriment to this program. i think that while there are some questions that still need to be answered, this is the wrong way to go about it. you are going to be derailing this program. it has a very sensitive start time. if we can get this thing started in the spring, all these things that we're talking about can occur. if we continue to wait, the things that shell is saying they can potentially do, those contracts they have available for us to get in-state labor, hydro, ghg free, start to go away because they're going to start selling those contracts to other vendors that they have, other people that want to buy that energy. and, so, we need to keep this thing moving forward. i understand, commissioner

arce, that you have some kaiserious concerns. those are concerns that have nothing to do with the not to exceed rate. they have other program designs and we can continue to have this discussion. you doughthv need a resolution to have that continued discussion. simply ask the puc staff, i am 100% willing to bet with anyone that ken malcolm and anyone else with the puc would be willing to come back and have those discussions with you here or if you want to have more sit-down meetings one on one with any of you that have questions, we can do all of this. i think what you're about to do is going to seriously harm this program and i would encourage you to volt no on that resolution at this time. thank you. ~ vote >> thank you. next speaker. well, what a night. derek burks, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization in our city. so, i want to scare you a little bit and reassure you a lot. the scare you part is that commissioner arce, you're absolutely right. they could set the not to

exceed rate next week. they could move forward with a shell program and no other program, which as i said is only less than 4% of what we envision. so, but with that said, the reason that advocates have recently voted and said to the sfpuc and to lafco we would like them to proceed with these not to exceed rates is because they are now competitive with pg&e. especially if you compare it to a pg&e green rate. and what ms. malcolm proposed to us tonight are rates that will probably be even more competitive, even competitive with pg&e's brown power rate. the issue with the shell contract is that whether we like it or not, the local buildout that we all want is no longer tied to the small phase 1 part of the program. it's no longer tied to the shell contract. so, the reality is now that the

shell contract is going to have competitive rates if the sfpuc sets competitive rates next week, now that it's going to have competitive rates, the advocates are not concerned that there is going to be a large opt out of the program. after the shell contract is underway, as long as there's no large opt out, that's when we start building this next phase. when you get into phase ii and we do the buildout. and as commissioner wald rightly points out, that buildout is not going to happen unless we -- you as a commission, you as a department, we as advocates, make sure that the sfpuc and the board of supervisors does it. and under ab 117, the 2002 law passed for community insurance aggregation, i want to reassure you, and this can be done, if the sfpuc ends up not doing the program we want, the board of supervisors is empowered by

that law, ab 117, to get advice from the local agency formation commission on how to build out that buildout program regardless whether the sfpuc wants to do or not. and you the department of environment because you have been involved in a lot of energy efficiency buildout would be the natural vehicle for that. so, the reality is we all need to make this happen. and if we find that the sfpuc is not getting it together, we can make it happen ourselves. is that a risk? yes. will stopping the not to exceed rate vote next week change much? the answer is no. and as mr. freed said, if we get this not to exceed rate thing out of the way, we see how much money we've got to work with the buildout, then we can get this second phase rolling. so, i agree with your expressing the concerns you've expressed. i wouldn't make it so leveraged on you better work with us or else. let's just express the concerns

and express that you want the not to exceed rates to be competitive with pg&e. thanks. oh, and you can leave out the rec thing because if you insist that we do the local buildout that's envisioned by all the laws and resolution that the board passed, then that means we will get away from recs right away. so, you don't really need to get into that territory. >> thank you, mr. brookes. next speaker. hello, commissioners, judd holtz man again from 350 bay area. i won't take too much time just to point out that mr. brookes and the advocate coalition and lafco would be the two entities who have worked the longest and the hardest on making this program what i understand the commission also wants it to be. and i would urge the commission to look at the representative of lafco and the representative of the advocates and listen very closely to what they are urging you to do as folk who

didn't last check in on this in september, but have been doing this day in and day out. i also would just support commissioner wald's comments that it's all of our responsibilities as citizens, as advocacy organizations and certainly as the commission on the environment to make sure that this happens and that convincing ourselves that this could be a one-top check box everything is going to be okay and then we stop paying attention is both unrealistic and will probably result in negative program outcomes going forward. thanks. >> thank you. other speakers? [speaker not understood] for ibew1245. just a brief comment. we'll be supportive of the resolution. it would be an addition that the program goals that tonight did not set -- the resolution

be revised it does not meet all goals and does not comply with state's environmental laws. as was discussed earlier today. the decision on the rate structure will determine the scope of the program including its environmental impact. and the sfpuc was required to conduct environmental review before it makes a decision on the program in accordance with c-e-q-a. thank you. >> thank you. any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> commissioner king. >> call the question. >> the question has been called. and if we could perhaps get one final read with the amendment from commissioner josefowitz, if you would mind to do us the honor, commissioner wald, unless our director has a more succinct expression. >> do you have a better version? >> i don't know if i do. what do you have? >> okay. the program as we heard it

described tonight does not meet all -- that's your amendment, right -- goals. >> the original goals. >> oh, all the original goals. and we encourage the puc to work with the department of the environment to craft a program that is acceptable to the san francisco environment commission. is that what you got, ellen? >> the program as we heard it described tonight does not meet all of the original goals -- >> goals. i assume. >> i want to say commission. the program as we heard it described tonight does not meet all of the commission's original goals and we encourage

the sfpuc to work with the department of the environment to craft a program that is acceptable to the environment commission. [speaker not understood]. >> we can amend it now because we called the question, right? >> right. that's the question. all those in favor please say aye. actually, you want to do a roll call vote, may be easier at this point. he called the question, which -- >> do roll call. >> can we just have it read again? it was back and forth. >> the program as we heard it described tonight does not meet all of the commission's original goals, and we encourage the puc to work with the department of the environment to craft a program acceptable to the san francisco environment commission. >> so, and the commission there is what, is us? it doesn't meet all our

original goals? >> yes, that's what josh is saying. >> okay. so, we're not including the second bit that angelo said? i just want to under that. >> that's what it is. >> would you mind rescinding your motion to have a brief discussion, commissioner king? >> [speaker not understood]. >> you were calling my language which was your language. >> and this is to be conveyed in a letter to the puc or are you sending me in? >> [inaudible]. >> i don't think we need to decide how to deliver it till we decide what it is, if anything, we're delivering. >> right. >> [speaker not understood] he would really set us straight on this stuff. proceed to roll call vote if we can, monica.

>> [speaker not understood]? >> aye. >> commissioner king? >> aye. >> commissioner josefowitz? >> no. >> commissioner wald? >> no. >> commissioner wan? >> no. >> [speaker not understood]. >> aye. >> so, commissioner arce was aye. commissioner king was no. commissioner josefowitz was -- what was your vote, commissioner josefowitz? >> yes. >> aye, okay. commissioner wald was no. so, that's -- commissioner wan was aye. it doesn't pass. >> see you next week, vice president courtney. if we can call the next item before doing that. if we can, we've kept a lot of folks. can we make our presentation to

our labor folks? we have to stay here very briefly. >> i've got to go. [multiple voices] >> if we come at 4:00, we can have a quorum. >> [speaker not understood]. i don't know how many people you would have. i would like to say now that we've decided there is something we're going to

>> good morning today's july 30th, 2013, well, to the transportation authority i'm supervisor avalos the