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 cannot appropriately articulate and should not be in this meeting trying to do that. so, unless you can make a general statement, general motion about this, then, you know, i have to call a question that we are now creating a resolution. i can't do this. i will not do this. so, this is not work that's to be done at the commission nor have i ever seen this done. so, we need to draft a small statement that is a motion or, you know, as commissioners go down there and represent our point. >> i move -- i think you already closed. i don't want to stay here 10 minutes either.

>> i don't want to take a negative 10 minutes longer. >> yeah. >> i would like to move that we have a general statement that the program as we heard about tonight does not meet the original goals that were approved at the environment commission, and that we encourage the san francisco public utilities commission to work with the san francisco department of the environment to craft a program that is acceptable to the commission.

>> would you mind to repeat that one more time? >> well, i wrote down that what he said was the program as we heard about it tonight does not meet the original goals and we encourage the puc to work with the san francisco commission to craft a program that is acceptable to the commission. i have two problems with that, i have to say. i don't think it's politic to say that they should work with us to get a program that's acceptable to our commission. i just don't think that's politic.

and then i have to go back to what i said about the goals originally. we can't -- i don't want us to talk about these goals if they can all -- >> not to interrupt, but you may not have to even express that because the motion doesn't have a second. [speaker not understood]. okay, can you read it again? >> the program as we heard about it tonight does not meet the original goals, and we encourage the puc to work with the san francisco commission to craft a program that is acceptable to the commission. >> [inaudible]. >> must be the commission and the department of the environment. >> department of the environment.

>> that was the original. >> the department -- thank you. i'm sorry i got it wrong. to craft a program that is acceptable to the san francisco environment commission. >> 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 ng