and i believe we disasgraoe with the city attorney's opinion or we have questions about it because the charter section gives the puc for the responsibility of establishing rates to meet financial needs of the system. any further delay will show that we are in a constitutional crisis caused by a city department failing, the board stands ready to approve these rates but nothing more can happen until you take action. therefore, if there is further delay, i have no choice but to request the city attorney to draft the charter or explore other options to provide the method to provide this stalemate, it is too important to allow this to die in the vine, it provides leadership and this will long be remembered for the action you take today. >> do you wish to respond, deputy city attorney?

to those comments? >> no, i think you just said they would request the city attorney to draft something, to that certainly would have been the supervisor's purview. >> well, he quoted on an ordinance which was in conflict of what she said earlier? >> in the charter which governs the rate setting process, it sits, one of the responsibilities of the puc is establishes rates to have financial needs of the system and we interpret that as the policy maker, the board of supervisors have provided the cleanpowersf system and it's your responsibility to set the rates for it, and if you do not set the rates, that could be an example of you not carrying out the charter mandate. >> established does not mean monday, does it. >> the statute says you should establish rates, i'm no lawyer, but i would say that sounds pretty clear to me. >> it would be clearer fw that's shall, not just

establish. >> of course we can leave it up to the lawyers to word smith it, i believe the intent of the voters -- >> it's not up to word smiting, thank you so much for being with us and give our best to supervisor avalos. >> thank you, i will. >> i would like to call on the environmental commission, rich varsay. >> thank you, president torres, commissioners, thanks for the invitation. joshua arsay, as my capacity as president of the environment commission where we had a long discussion about the proposal and what's before you today, it's obviously a big decision, it's something that a lot of people have been working on a long time, a lot of us in this room, a lot of us wearing different hats and capacities. what i wanted to share is that we had two or three hour discussion over the environment commission, at the end of which we couldn't come to a consensus position. we asked a lot of questions,

questions about the local build-out, the nature of the renewable energy credits that have increased nr the mix and what that impacts on the underlying goals of the program, both over at our shop and just generally speaking, questions around local hiring, the number of jobs and there was a lot of reveals, the big concerning thing i think that's safe to say for all of us, when it comes to local build-out, we're stuck at least from the staff the idea that there's a draft of an outline of a plan and that was something that was concerning i would say. it's not to say that we obviously all know where we want to go, it's that the concern i think from the environment commission is we're not there, we want to see concrete plans, we didn't get that. the other reveal i think was that the -- ms. malcolm talked about that we can actually maybe, something that was a big reveal, something issuing the solar bonds and doing a local build-out like now, yesterday,

our director from environment told us we're going backward on the program, we want to be going forward. it's safe to say if i was to distill where we're at, big concerns about how we fix all these things after you set rates, that's the big question, not to to* say there's a big leadership capacity, mayor's office, department of environment, but these are the questions that i have and i wish i had a position to tell you over at our shop, we don't have it. thanks. >> if i may, president torres, or vice chair commissioner anglo caen might have -- >> i need to call on commissioner vietor first. >> i had questions for you, i know we were eager to see the draft outline of the plan and the program, but i think as i said and just to reiterate, today's vote is on the not to exceed rate. until we approve what that rate is, we would not be able to determine what the program of the plan is and we have several

months before the launch date, how many days is it, 242 days i believe, once the rates are approved to figure out what those details are, so i just want to remind you and your commission of that because that is not what's before us today. >> we want to hear how you change that after the rates are changed. >> absolutely and we hope to have several conversations that will move us towards those answers in the several month, i would like to invite kim malcolm up to response, or barb. >> and if i may, just if it's helpful vietor, the vice chair of the commission, and i think there's probably not additional thoughts that could happen because as i say, we don't have a position, but vice-president caen could probably share some thoughts on this as well. >> either before or after of what was presented at the commission. >> i think it's best to call upon the witnesses that you prefer and then we'll have a

response from supervisor -- commissioner caen. >> kim malcolm, director of cleanpowersf, i was at the commission on the environment last week for about three and a half hours, we had a long discussion, the commissioners had a lot of questions. i was asked to go there to provide an overview and an update on the program and on the rate setting process, and i did give them a presentation that was a whole lot like the one you have before you today. i was not asked to provide a lot of detail about a build-out plan although there was some discussion about it. >> great, thank you very much. >> alright, i just want to announce that if people are outside and need a place to sit, we've made accommodations for room 416 until 5:00 p.m. because we have to exit this hearing room no later than 5:00 because the pedestrian safety commission will be meeting in this room, so we don't want to

be -- >> wow, what a great escape. >> it's not an escape, it's a requirement under the law. room 416. commissioner caen, you wanted to make a comment. >> my name is anglo caen, i'm the member of the environment commission. >> congratulations. >> well, i we meet every other mother. i cast a vote against sending a statement here that night in lieu of coming here today, you know, my differences in terms of procedures and protocol didn't allow me to kind of vote my conscience that night. i have always been about making sure that the green initiative made both dollars and cents, i recall a few years ago watching president obama get grilled because people that weren't so green were saying, you know, this is not a priority, so i would go back to the commission

and say, hey, look, you need to make sure that the metrics of your program show the economic impact and show jobs to those people that are not connected to this, in this way, those people that don't drive priases, those are two group that is we need to bring together. i mean, truth be told, me and president arsy shared the same ideal that we always have to show the economic potential of these things, and jobs first. so, the ideal that -- the ideal that this program here and what we have now is a down grade from where the original stated goals were, when we originally looked at, we said there would be job in, in city generations and they said, we can't do that

because it's overpriced, if price was the only virtue we serve here in san francisco, why isn't wal-mart in the city, that's not the case, and if we're going to set rates, then we need to put some other things on the table, we need to make sure there is a bundle agreement, so we know the true cost of what we're doing before we set rates. it's important, so i'm here to tell you that i think i could speak for the majority of our commission to say that this needs to go back to the drawing board and we're here to work with you immediately to bring this back out so that we could tell both sides of the city, those people that have money and those people that do not have money that there'sing something in the great initiative for you. >> thank you very much, vice-president king. >> the representative from

bomont, ken, welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioner, ken cleveland, i also wear a hat as the treasure of sustainable growth. i have to agree with the commission on the environment, this proposal as it's being proposed is a down grade from what it was proposed a year and a half ago. i think we need to look at what jobs local, are we going to create enough jobs locally, are we going the have renewable power? this is just not the program that we deserve in san francisco, so on behalf of the building owner's association of san francisco and the alliance for jobs and sustainable growth which is a partnership of organized labor here in the city and the business community, we say stop, go back, get a better deal. thank you. >> commissioner vietor? >> i have a question, and it's not for you and i think the commissioners from the environment left, but it has to

deal with about what you said about agreeing with the commission on the environment. my question was there was not a resolution that was passed by that commission. >> i'm agreeing with the spokes people tonight. >> they said they felt like a majority f the commission but there was no action by that commission, correct? >> i don't know that for a fact. >> >> the environmental commission did not take a position on this issue, that should be the order. >> thank you. >> jamie tukey, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> representing marine energy authority. >> i aols also a resident of san francisco. >> you work in marine but also a resident of san francisco. it eats always the reverse. >> sometimes that's the case, i want to encourage you to exercise your leadership and give residences and businesses a choice in our power supply, now's ao time for change and now's your opportunity to make

this happen and start moving things forward to cleanpowersf, it will create jobs and local power, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it worked in the city of richmond where we serve 80% of the customer base, we reduced more than 30 thousand tons of greenhouse gas emission, we built local power, we have three more projects in the works, we're implementing energy efficiency programs and these are all creates local jobs and benefiting our local economy, if it worked in marine and richmond, i know it can work here as well. one thing i have to acknowledge here today is the shell shock campaign that we see. i was with the marine program before we launched service when pg&e spent 44 million dollars marketing against our program and trying to defeat this happening in marine. we know that the shell shock campaign is being led by the ibew and you can't ignore the

connections they have with pg&e, being with marine when we saw all of the marketing campaigns against our program there, it's clear that the same designer who did the campaign in marine against our program that was funded by pg&e is the same organization who's doing it ear in san francisco, do not be fooled by the misinformation that's being circulated -- >> the organization's name? >> jason freed knows the organization's name, and please don't lose site of the amazing changes that you guys can implement here in san francisco. thank you. >> shawn marshal representing lean energy usa. welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, thank you very much for having us here today. over the past several months as director kelly pointed out, the commission has asked for several things to go back to the drawing board and be

revisited. one was a recalibration of the program so that it could be more rate competitive, could be more affordable to folk ins tan san francisco, two, there would be more work done with the advocates on the build-out program and i know there's been progress to date on that score and three, discussions with the labor council and groups to come to some resolution around some of their key issues, all of these three requests have been met or are ongoing, those have been reported out. cleanpowersf was authorized almost a year ago, time is wasting, you have an opportunity to take advantage of some very good power rates in the marketplace right now but those don't last forever and all of this delay is making it potentially more expensive for your customers. you've also invested millions to date to get this program where it is today and as time goes on, time is money and it's costing your rate payers money, so we encourage you to follow

through on your investment and keep going with the program. i think it's important for you even though you xwies are in a vice grip, i've been a mayor, i'm the current vice-mayor of the city of middle valley, i know it's hard to be in opposition of the politics of the mayor's office, we know that's what's going on here. >> no, it's not, the mayor has not spoken to me once on that issue, and i'm smart snuff to make my own due diligence and make my mind up, please done put that on our shoulders. >> thank you, sir, i appreciate the feedback, but what's asking you to do is take the long view on this issue so that it's really not about shell, it's not about rec, it's not about the ibew or the politics of staff. what it really is about is about the local long term opportunity for local build-out that is not supported by taxpayer revenue or general obligation bonds, please take

the long view, i apologize for any insult. thank you. >> mr. hunter stern. >> ibew1045, thank you, mr. president, commissioners, hunter's chair, ibew1245, we represent workers at 28 different utilities here in central california, we also through stop the shell shock have over 12 thousand people who have signed on the petition saying no to shell energy. three things very quickly, we certainly talked a lot about these issues, the first is our members work generate electricity, we want to continue to have them work generating electricity here in central northern california, secondly and probably most importantly, we've looked very hard at the issues around build-out opportunities, we've

worked very hard statewide in partnership with our brothers and sisters in the building trades through two different coalitions, we will continue to do that. this is the goal. more renewable energy for the city and county of san francisco, more renewable energy for the state of california, but we need to be sure that that work is here and it's in front of us, and we will continue to work with our colleagues, brothers and sisters both in the building trades and here in the city and county of san francisco through a variety of community based organizations to get people back to work. finally, we've had -- i've been fortunate to participate in some discussions around the labor council resolution. that is a resolution that represents all of labor, ibw1245 wholly supports that resolution, we were the author, we support the intent, we and the council want to work out an

understanding and approach that makes good for everyone. we've had some good conversation, we'll continue to have those conversations but the contract and the structure of the program as it is today is not satisfactory. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. stern. rob black, ggra. >> good afternoon, commissioner, it's a pleasure to be here n a previous life, i am the executive director to have golden gate restaurant association, in a previous life, i was the staffer for supervisor alley yoda peer, when it was first proposed and came through the board of supervisors and i want to reference back to the earlier promises that were made when we voted through the board of supervisors on this. there were a couple of key aspects that were important.

a cc frap is set at as a bidding requirement, they must include within its proposed rate including all costs including renewable resources compromised of at least 31 megawatts of..[reading].. and 170 megawatts of local energy efficiency conservation measures as well as investment of 150 megawatts of a wind turbine farm, the supplier must bid generation rate that is will current pg&e generation rates for each rate class, that's not what we have before us today. what was proposed, what was initially voted on, what the board initially supported is a very different program, so while i think staff has made strong strides to get to that, that's not where this initially started and we do feel that there has been a bit of a bait

and switch on that, we are concerned about moving forward with a plan that doesn't respond to the earlier requirements of local generation. in addition, i think it's important to note enrdc does a report on the top energy providers in the country and they categorize that by pollution and by megawatt hour, pg&e is the cleanest for c02 of any investor of utility in the country, it seems strange it's doing all this effort to move away from that. thank you. >> commissioner vaoet -- vietor, you had a comment? >> i wonder if you could just respond to that earlier goals and the initial comments that mr. [inaudible]. er >> were you here at the time that jason was here as well? >> no, i wasn't but i studied and read all the original

ordinances that i can tell you what was in there, it states those were goals but we are to study those items and should there need to be changes, changes are allowed to occur and that's what's occurred over the last several careers, we've studied this and made the changes and that's why you have the program today. >> i had a question about the rfp that was issued, how many respondents was there to that original rfp? >> i would yield to your staff on how many people did that? >> yeah, because if i remember, there was an iterative process around the rfp's that went back and forth to the board that needed to adjust if need be for the ground of a successful power. >> brash ra hale, we had a number of rounds of issuance of rfp's, the first round i believe we found no responsive bidders or we found -- i apologize, the first round we had a responsive bidder, we

went into negotiations but found that bidder to not be able to perform tuned financial crepts of the program, they were asking us to put too much of a financial commitment on bemaf of the city towards the program and that had been one of the criteria for the bid not to do that. >> [inaudible]. >> no, the program, the legislation that mr. black referred to was ising dewed in 2004. >> long before i arrived here, okay. >> yes, and this first rfp was probably if memory serves me around 2006. >> so, a lot of things have changed in 7 year, haven't they? >> yes. did i respond to all of your questions? >> yes, thank you. >> will cangus, solar 1. welcome. >> thank you. what we're having here is a conversation on whether or not

-- what we're going to do, the fact that the environment is collapsing around us, and in this room is all the people whose lives are being affected by this. should we have a feed-in tariff which most of the cities in the world have, especially europe or should we have cc a, where does the cc a create the jobs? i don't see it, i've read their literature since it began. where -- are they able to do what's being done in europe with creation of jobs and income for the government? i don't see it and i want an explanation from them. i asked them, i don't get an explanation. the environment is collapsing. i think what we need is a feed-in tariff law that the city can pass t city of lancaster, california just passed all homes built in lancaster be 100% solar power,

los angeles county has passed a feed-in tariff for harvesting it under the grid, this is exactly what's going on all over the globe and we need to do it here in san francisco. it's a law that requires pg&e to pay the home owners for harvesting solar energy, it's not government subsidy, contrary to what everything is media says, it's simply a market, so i think that we should look at what's going on in the world with a feed-in tariff instead of cc a. i think ralph said it's designed to fail and i agree with him, germany has created 4 hou, thousand jobs just in the last couple of years, 400 billion dollars in cash flow, these are things we need to have a conversation about before we make more decision, time is short. >> thank you, john rizzo, sierra club.

then elizabeth clevner. >> thank you, president torres and commissioners. the sierra club has been critical before you and critical before lafco in the past when having this rate discussion, however, we feel that the rate set before you are fair and the pricing structure that the staff is talking about is reasonable and within the realm of meeting pg&e's rates in a competitive way, especially when you factor in the rate increases that pg&e is planning. the power is clean, every environmental group, every major environmental group backs the state of california's definition of what clean energy is and this is what is being provided in the short term,

what shell would provide, so you know, that is certified by the state of california. i want to address a little bit what was misrepresented from the commission on environment, it is public record that president arsy's motion failed, that he was speaking for the minority of the commission on environment, the majority of the commission on environment had another take. i think the main thing is what commissioner vietor said several times is that we cannot create the final plan, the details of where the jobs are going to come from, the details of where we're going to build the local power, we cannot do that until we set the rates, that is a fact. this is why we're urging you to pass this today so that we can move on. it is also a fact that the city of san francisco cannot meet its greenhouse gas goals

without this program and there's lots of talk and there's lots of pride about san francisco and its greenhouse goals but we need to do something to accomplish them and that starts with passing these rates today. thank you. >> thank you, mr. rizzo. >> elizabeth? >> celbanner, good afternoon, elizabeth, i wish to address the commission today on the city's environmental compliance obligations related to today's action. the commission may not approve a not to exceed rate for cleanpowersf until it provides an environmental impact report. today's action is not limited to an adoption of a not to exceed rate, today the commission chooses shell energy north america for a segment of san francisco customers, the commission today also can convince the city to purchasing

a product that consists almost entirely of renewable energy credits, these decisions are subject to ceqa because they will result in a reasonable foreseeable effects on the environment. as we explain in our letters, today action may increase the city's reliance on ghg emitting and toxic air pollutant emitting by switching to shell, the city wishes to [inaudible] resource portfolio, shell's portfolio that has a higher of known fossil fuel projection than pg&e, shell's non-fuel resource mix [inaudible] credits. today's action may also result in changed rates of air pollutant emissions from existing fossil fuel facilities, by switching to shell, the city changes the source of generation for sf customers from facilities that serve pg&e's load to facilities that serve shell's load, that different facility may be

operating on the margin to facilitate the city's demand, this changes the rate of air pollutant emission from the facilities, if the program is a success and increases demand enough to cause corruption of non-renewable generation in its new phase, they will result in new impacts such as conversion of agricultural demands [inaudible] staff's proposal until an eir has been prepared, thank you. >> thank you very much, david mcord, sierra club. >> welcome. >> david mcord and i'm the chair of the sierra club bay

chapter energy committee. we've got before you now a not to exceed rate that has been brought to be competitive with pg&e's rates, we -- the staff is working on more specific plans for a build-out as we speak and passage of these rates today is essential to these plans. we want to build. >> thank you very much, terry hakakuchi. >> my name's jerry takayuchi, most of my work is here in