do is clear up a major misconception that i'm seeing this evening that will help you understand what we're talking about with renewable energy credits, with the shell contract, and how we're going to get to the buildout, the green new deal and union labor. and you may know that i'm sure all of you got the sierra club letter that said we are going to insist that this program be anchored to maximize union labor through project labor agreements, et cetera. you should know that the entire grassroots coalition that's working for clean power sf also recently voted to adopt that same position. this must be a local jobs union green new deal project with thousands of jobs available. the misconception that i want to make sure that we correct here is the idea that the shell program, the shell contract is the program. it is not. the shell contract is 4%, less than 4% of the energy that will

end up being provided under clean power sf after the next decade goes by. the shell contract is just priming the water pump, if you remember the old water pumps. and the idea here is that we need to use the renewable energy credits to make it cheap enough to compete with pg&e, to get that first small 30 megawatts out of the eventual hundreds of megawatts that we're going to build locally so that we can kick start the program successfully and still compete with pg&e. >> what was your type of concluding thought around? so, here's the deal. ms. malcolm is getting us half of the goal. the thing that's going to get us to the green new deal and make sure that it happens right away is to show that the vision that you all saw from local power of about a billion dollar project over the next 10 years, that's what brings us the green new deal and the union jobs, so show that that can happen.

sfpuc is making great progress and is starting to show hundreds of jobs. we can show thousands. and the key to that is that the advocates community has called upon the local agency formation commission to create -- to hold a workshop, a financial workshop in which we will bring experts around california into the financial workshop to look at the local power work and show how that billion dollars over 10 years can happen. and what you can do as a commission that would help us more than anything else is send the communication to the local agency formation commission that you support the idea that works and would like the lafco to work very closely and cooperatively with the advocates to make sure that workshop is successful. thank you. >> thank you. ~ workshop next speaker. >> could i just observe that i'm extraordinarily moved and

impressed by eric burks' comments. i remember sitting in the ground floor of the old sfe offices. yes. >> in the dark. [laughter] >> on really uncomfortable chairs. i remember. >> and hearing eric excoriate the puc? don't you love that word? i never get to use it. >> i was like wow. >> i mean, he was really as hard on them as i have been on federal agencies in my career, and that is saying something. and to have him come here and say that the program that we're talking about -- that they're talking about is, in fact, better for the things that we care about than it used to be is really impactful for me. i have to say that. thank you.

>> thank you. thanks. >> it's hard to say when things -- it's harder to say when things are going well than it is to say when they're really rotten. >> next speaker. hi, my name is jed hooks man, i'm a long-time san franciscoes are department and also here representing 350 bay area which is a volunteer-led client advocacy group. as an environmental scientist i definitely would like a green new deal as well. i'd like to point out that affordability was one of the goals given to the puc when putting together this program. the representative we heard from ibew was advocating for an alternative with less recs than this, of course a higher rate to the customer. when the rate was recently 14.5 cents, everyone was up in arms about that. in fact, ibew1245 to this day is still using the shell shot campaign some extremely high rates which are no longer even what the puc staff is

considering just to inflame people against the program. so, they're using these old high rates to convince people that their bills are going to be absurdly high so they won't join the program. so, i want to point out that affordability is important and that i'm not sure that ibew can have it both ways in calling for both lower rates and higher rates. really briefly, lower price, more buy in from customers, more buy in, more revenue for the puc, more revenue more buildout. more buildout more jobs and less recs. high rates, no buy in, program dead. this is very important to keep in mind. so, when thinking about ideological purity versus pragmatic reality, which i'm not always the best at, i will admit. [laughter] my goal as an advocate for this program is to get shell and recs out as soon as possible to have a

extraordinarily robust local buildout that brings in tons of local unionized jobs. i think the addition of -- to the shell contract that the power need to be california and unionized is an exceptional addition to the contract and i would support that highly. it seems like from the comments that the commission is expecting this amazing green new deal on day one, which as an advocate i also would love. advocates, starting with the local power, study have urged an aggressive buildout and the puc staff has been pushing back on that for sometime. so, it is not for -- it is not for a lack of drive that the program -- desire that the program be as strong in the ways that we are discussing today as possible, but rather in the economic climate that we're existing in and the financing mechanisms that are available to us, what resources will be available and how we

can maximize the use of those resources. so, with my last 10 seconds big i back on mr. brooks' comments about the financial workshop, this would really provide an avenue for convincing the puc staff that we do have large amount of funds available to support the buildout that we all want. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. seeing no -- yes. for the public record, mr. hunter stern has submitted public comment and some ibew local 1245 asking that the commission do their duty and in the weeks ahead demand the [speaker not understood] environmental review that will calculate just how much a shell contract will increase [speaker not understood] and other pollutants. ~ monica. >> okay, thank you, monica. now we had this quick clarifying, which was about the

sfpuc position with respect to said environmental review, or c-e-q-a analysis, i guess was [speaker not understood], commissioner wald. >> i won't comment on the merits, but i will say that the city attorneys are aware ibew's claim that c-e-q-a applies before the commission can make a decision. and i am following their advice on that in whatever i do. i would also add that marin energy authority, the cca in marin county was subject to the same claims before they launched their program several years ago, and they did not conduct c-e-q-a review in order to provide service to their customers. and they were not to. finally, i should mention in response to hunter stern's comments that the shell contract requires that whatever purchases are made under that contract will reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to

pg&e's portfolio. under any circumstance. >> all right, thank you. [gavel] >> i think we close public comment. and just to say a couple -- one quick thought, you know, that this is a big, big energy policy decision for the city and county of san francisco. i think maybe a big as the peakers. and there is so much that we want to see today bigger, bigger. during that time the environment commission and the department of environment as i said were the ones to really push and think outside the box and to exhaust all the list of questions, all the ideas to try to match vision and reality, shutting down, not building dirty fossil fuel polluting power plants in low-income communities of color. and, so, i would definitely want to hear from other commission colleagues what we

want to do with this. we've obviously had a long, long conversation tonight. i would like us to provide some direction. i think that's important for the growth of this commission and this department, to take some position, and to make a statement very open to what form that might take, where we go. but i think having another discussion is not what we want to say we did tonight, when we wake up in the morning. we want to say that we provided some direction with respect to the direction that we might decide as a commission. so, with that, we have commissioner wan. >> thank you. this is a quite exciting first meeting i have on this commission. >> they're all like this. [laughter] >> all the televised meetings we had are like this. >> this is a phenomenal meeting. i heard a lot, i letteredv a lot. still a lot of questions unanswered. i would like to ask if we do

have a resolution for tonight or we can have some action with a resolution tonight to continue. >> we passed a resolution in september. >> there have been changes after that, right? >> certainly after tonight, coming in with new perspective. i would see how that would be pretty clear. i don't know what -- i don't know if there would be looking at a resolution -- i mean, at this hour, too, looking at a resolution, seeing if there was some elements of the resolution that we could think about to amend our current position to send some direction could be an option. making a statement seems to be something important to do, but that potentially could be a way to go and would probably, if we

could get consensus, we could throw our legal hats on here to do some drafting. but see if there's language we could come upon. we certainly had some ask from the public, some steps from the conversation, some stuff we might agree on, some stuff we might not, but certainly expressing something that summarizes where we have arrived at and the conversation seems to be important to do. commissioner wald. >> i hate to disagree, but i would like to argue that we ought not to try to pass -- to draft and pass a resolution this evening. i would like to suggest instead that we perhaps -- we could decide that we wanted to make a statement in the form of a

resolution and charge -- if you agree, i'm thinking off the top of my head here, the policy committee with coming up with a resolution. i don't know if we've already noticed that meeting. i don't know if we can amend the notice. it's already a long agenda. but that would give us a chance, you know, to start at the ground floor with some language. you might have some, chair. other people might have some proposed language. we might actually have the language from last september in front of us to look at. and we could try to do it. but to start at 20 minutes after 8:00 -- [laughter] >> as the commissioner said,

with no proposed language before us strikes me as a really big burden and obstacle. that might not produce the best and most effective resolution because presumably we want our resolution to influence the puc commissioners. >> right. >> not just that we want to do something because we spend x hours and minutes discussing this issue, and it takes time, it takes thought, it takes creativity, and it takes energy. >> let me ask a quick question. to ms. malcolm, is this discussed as a new element to the shell agreement or the contract to now have the purchase of the large hydro -- is the plan still to pursue rate setting at the next week's sfpuc meeting?

because if it's not and we have more time, we could go to policy committee to have a resolution. but if you think you're still going to propose -- >> let me clarify. they minimized clarification to the contract because there is no contract. all there are is discussion and some draft language. the discussions about hydro are just me calling them and saying, can you find some california hydro that we could include as a resource, and they're investigating that. no changes to the contract. >> so, there is the proposal, even with some of this stuff you're still anticipating the sfpuc will consider rates on tuesday, whatever it is? >> it's on their agenda to consider rates and that's their only task right now, to consider rates. not to consider policy. we have a policy from the board of supervisors. >> so, that's the issue, is doing nothing or having some policy -- >> no, because -- are we going

to say anything about -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> right. i could admit this entire conversation, but we would say we want higher rates? >> no, i was saying that if the idea -- >> if all they're going to talk about next week is rates, are we going to say something to them about rates? >> well, i think what i understand from puc kind of conversations and everything is that when rates are set, it's locked in. this is everything that's in place now is set. no. let me just say one thing. this is -- if the time is to have influence over the form and the shape of the program, it's the time to send the message is now. unless you tell

me otherwise and tell me rates don't matter, [speaker not understood]. yes. >> i think that one of the -- i hate to put off something for tomorrow that one can do today even if it is at 8:20. and i think, you know, the sooner we can come to a conclusion the better as long as it doesn't prejudice what we're going to say. >> i'm not arguing to put off till tomorrow something that we can do today. i don't think we can do it today and be effective. >> commissioner arce, did you have a question? >> yeah. so, what they're doing -- >> they're going to change after rates. >> rates get set, that means we can't go any higher than that on the rate. what will actually happen there are still discussions that go on. it's going to take 6 to 8 months before the program is going to get launched. so you have time to to have a discussion -- if you wanted to have 100% bucket 1 you probably couldn't do that with 11-1/2

cent rate i'm guessing because of the cost of bucket 1. could you have a discussion about how the program gets changed or mod snide there are still ways to modify the program with 11-1/2 cent rate to get to some of the stuff you want to talk about doing. that's 6 to 8 weeks to seth the rates. >> question to ms. malcolm with respect to consequences. if we get stuck on the job numbers we saw, if the draft outline of the local buildout does not go to what mr. brookes and a lot of us have been wanting to see and it gets stuck on the draft outline after rates are set and we say, god, it never happened, what's the consequence of saying it didn't pencil out after we set rates? >> what's the consequence? >> what's the consequence of saying the program didn't turn into the green new deal? >> well, i guess it depends who you would ask. >> would the city lose money? >> no. >> after rates are set?

>> no, no, the city doesn't need to lose money. we're setting rates in anticipation of having the margin. >> because i thought i remembered from the conversation at one of the puc meetings, once the contract is signed, we put our capital and collateral into the contract that we stand to lose that if the program doesn't go the way we want it to go. >> no, no, no. if i understand what you're saying, it means there sr.thctionv a buildout. you're saying what happens if there's no buildout. there's no commitment from the city to shell to conduct a buildout. only to buy a certain amount of -- >> no, what i'm saying is a lot of advocates for the program and allies and colleagues and a lot of us have put their faith in you to deliver something to deliver that is not what anyone wanted to, to turn it into what folks want after rates are set. and if it doesn't happen, does everyone, does the puc say, hey, it never happened?

and sierra club say, yeah, it never turned into what we want it to be. do we say hey, do over, and shell says, hey, no hard feelings, what is the consequence? >> no, there's no consequence with shell as long as we purchase power for customers for 4-1/2 years at a given rate. >> so, we'd be locked in for 4-1/2 years whatever those terms are. if it didn't become what we want it to become after rates are set? >> yes. >> we'll stop at yes because my point is now is the time to get this right because once we have that, we're going for 4-1/2 years and we lose the ability to get shell to do -- to move to where we want to go. >> doesn't have to move. the city has to move. it's not about shell. >> it's not about shell. [multiple voices] >> i thought it was quite persuasive. it's not about the contract. the contract -- >> all the shell contract is --

during the transition period in 4-1/2 years is buy 20 to 30 megawatts of power on the marketplace. we're responsible for all the buildout work. >> commissioner josefowitz. commissioner king. thank you. >> let me ask this a different way. eric, i'm forgetting your name. >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay. is there a part of this -- i guess what some people are concerned about is from the things that are still lingering out there like pla agreements and, you know, for those of us that care about kind of, you know, where the energy is coming from initially or whatever. if you can bundle some of the stuff at minimum in california. for those of us that care about that kind of stuff, is this particular vote take us over the threshold that locks us

into what they have already, like all of these thing that have not been answered yet, you know, does this vote lock you in to some of these things? does it make it -- do we lose a leverage point that makes it harder to negotiate the pla agreement and things of that nature? and i think that's for some of us, that's what we're concerned about, these different points that are leverage points for us to make sure we can get what we can get at the front end so that this will progress the way it should progress. >> i would say no with the following caveat. being understood that it's the puc commission, not shell. michelle: ~ shell is completely separate from all of this. the puc commissioners dictate what occurs just like you dictate to your staff what occurs. if the puc commission said, we are going to have pl, as, this is all going to be how you

structure this program, ~ staff will have to do it faze that's what they're getting authorized to do. it's more of an issue within the city family itself. the price sets limits to how much money we potentially have 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 li