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 san francisco. i'm a substation electrician for pg&e, member of ibw1245, i have five year widths the company, before i arrived here, i was working at the larkin street sub where the power was

distributed to city hall and the civic center kolas -- comes from there. >> be kind to us. >> yeah, i work a lot of overtime to make sure that happens. you know what, we all want clean power, we all want green power. i have a hard time visualizing that the shell oil company is the one to provide that. this is a company that probably for centuries have been profiting from pushing fossil fuel products, okay. i think we need to be really careful about multinational companies coming over here maintaining that they're here for the greater good of the community. perhaps it's unfair, but when i think about the shell oil company, i think of monsonto, at least with pg&e, it's a

local company. >> alita dupree, welcome. >> thank you for the chance to speak to you today. i come here as a consumer of electricity, both indirectly and directly. i come here for the summer. i anticipate spending 120 days or so in san francisco and i'm spending a lot of time and some money here, and i believe it's time to take action. it's just like people who live here year-round, i'm using this product, some of it's municipal and i ride the muni or go into the libraries, charge my phone or enjoy the lighting to do my reading or watch a film, and then some is indirect when i

patronize various businesses in the city. i think this is something we can show the world and not just the people who live here but to the millions who come here to have this clean power program. we can give more people a reason to come here, see what you're doing here. i love this city. that's why i like to spend a lot of time here and meet a lot of nice people here, so i ask of you today to take decisive action and approve this not to exceed rate schedule so we can see clean power come into action in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, mr. dupree. mr. ed abrian. >> president torres,

commissioners, welcome. my inlayed is ed abrian, and i'm a san francisco born resident, i was born here, raised here and i'll probably die here. now, on that note without environmental review, the sale oil plant, we have no way of knowing how it will affect our environment. >> thank you, mr. arthur fine stein. is arthur here? jed holtzman? welcome. >> thank you, commissioners for the chance to speak. it's hard to go after a few other people because i feel like i have to respond to some inaccuracies that have taken place in my time, i just want to second what commissioner

vietor said, the puc is saying that it will be impossible to get to a final build-out plan until this not to exceed rate is set so i was at the environment commission meeting marathon, they're upset there's an outline of a plan, i would like to point out there's an outline of a plan, we need to take action on this in order to get a plan. affordability was a plan. everyone was up in arms. a lot of work has been done by staff to bring that down to 11 and a half cent, ibew1245 is still using extremely high rates, probably the 14 and a half cent rates to scare folks away from the cc a, tell them it is going to double their bill, now that the rate has been lowered just to get the bill down off the ground, they are now trashing the rec, saying it's not real green power, it's hard for me to see

how they could want high rate and is low rates, it's hard for me to understand how they can get up and say that they're trying to work with staff and advocates in good faith to improve the program while running this campaign, but this weekend put hundreds of thousand of door hangers on doors trying to kill the program with inflammatory information, so i think if you're trying to improve the program in good faith, that requires changing your tactic in terms of putting infallacious information out there into the city, i would like a green new deal, i would like a huge, aggressive build-out, i think that's what everyone would like, my goal as an advocate is to get shell and rec out as soon as possible and when this contract is done, hopefully we would reach the point that we are so sustainable in terms of a build-out program. >> michelle meters.

>> hello, good afternoon, commissioners, sorry, aererbacker arthur had to leave but he is in support of passing it at this time. i'm the director of the san francisco bay chapter in the sierra club, we have 30 thousand members in alameda and san francisco county, we urge you to move forward. the contract that we are negotiating with shell, north america is for 100% california renewable standard energy as you know and it is i believe you'll see a letter in your packet that we're trying to put additional confines to encourage the use of union facilities energy production facilities. that is only a contract for 250 to 30 megawatts of energy, the initial vision of cleanpowersf is for almost 250 megawatts of energy, the entire load of the non-municipal build rinsing san francisco is over 500 megawatts of electricity consumption at

its peak, there is a lot of room for this program to grow and where we want to take it is local renewable generation that creates good, green jobs, local green jobs. what we need to do is establish a rate base so that we have some leveraging ability to do that local build-out. your staff has done a good job of bringing the price down so people won't opt out of the program that people can afford to stay in, pg&e have resources to garner from their huge rate base in order to develop a small amount of renewable energy. woe need to have a competitor to that so we can offer san francisco a choice of renewable energy and we encourage renewable to enter the program, it is relatively modest from the beginning, 20 to 30 megawatts but we can grow it however we want, it is a public program and that is what we need to start here today, we need to pass the 11.5 not to

exceed rate when san franciscans is sign up for their own renewable energy option. thank you. >> sue bonn. okay, let her know she can come back. jennifer derkins, alright. gwen mcallin. there you are: my name is jennifer deergin, i'm a resident of san francisco, i want to thank the commissioners and staff for all your work, i encourage you to pass the rates today so the program can launch next spring and now's the time to pass the rates, thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible] outside? okay, don weiss with marine

energy? this is our second witness from marine -- don't you guys work over there? >> yeah, luckily we're very close, it's just across the road. >> welcome, thank you very much sh it's a pleasure to be here, my name is dawn weiss, i'm the executive officer for the marine energy authority, and the questions and issues you guys are all grappling today are not new when our clean energy program grappled with many of the same issues with our early start-up, i'm happy to report the program works, in fact, we've been able to exceed a lot of our expectations ahead of schedule and we've been able to prove that a lot of the initial fears of the program were unwarranted. as of this month, we are serving over 120 thousand customers throughout marine county and the city of richmond. because of our existence, any customers in our region can

choose pg&e's 19% renewable program, our light green 50% renewable program or our deep green renewable program, those are three choices, right now in san francisco, there is only one, we bring in revenue and we are solely funded through a revenue stream of rate payers, not tax payers, our rates are competitive and lower than pg&e rates for almost all customer classes, i have a joint comparison that we compared with pg&e and mailed out to all customers in our shared territory last month and i'm happy to share that with you all. >> thank you. >> we have contracted for power since our launch from 17 different supply contracts. many of these are to build new california based renewable supply. quite a few of which have launched just in the last six

months, that's again new renewable energy supply being built to serve our customers in california, that's what's happening with our agency, we're creating new jobs and creating more renewable energy under the grid under long term 20 and 25 year contract, our most recent power supply contract is with cal time for sonoma produced geothermal pow e it has 578 employees in northern california and their local construction programs have employed more than 1200 union workers. as a public agency, we're proud to be able to support union workers and prevailing wage workers. we've already begun local build o*ut from the solar installation, we've identified new sites for solar at transportation port and is non-profit organizations within our service area, they're in early planning stages, we

provide service to almost 2 thousand net energy metering customer that is are generating their own power on their rooftops getting power to our load and the installation of our airport project created 20 jobs through the 20 month construction phase through our feed-in tariff and as well as the feed-in tariff , it also generated new jobs w we pay for those programs to promote local jobs. >> we have lofted two minutes per witness z. >> this year, we also launched a 4.1 million energy program that's available to cc a programs that launch. we understand there are complexities involved and encourage you to keep in mind by taking action to move this program forward, you are allowing your rez densest and businesses a choice in the

energy provider, you're simply ensuring your community will have one option. >> the geothermal, is that where the fracking is occurring? >> no, that's a natural gas product that stems from fracking, geothermal is very different. >> i wondered if that's where the access was. >> geothermal power sa california certified renewable product which is different from natural gas which is a fossil fuel. >> and you don't use natural gas at all? >> we do use conventional power to cover the balance of our supply, beyond the 50% renewable and the 100% renewable, there are some customer that is choose our light green power which is 50% renewable, and you'll see a breakdown of the different products that we provide and which are renewable and which are conventional. >> what i found interesting is you're partnering with pg&e

where the partners here are preventing pg&e. >> a cc a program is a partnership with the incumbent utility, we work with pg&e to provide service to customers, customers in our territory continue to get their bills from pg&e, we ever been working in partnership for the last three years and i must say it's been going well over the last year and a half and we have a good working part ner ship that's meeting the needs of customer ins a cooperative way. >> it didn't sound like cooperation from the previous witness. >> i would echo the sentiments of the first speaker in the words that i used just now is that in the last year and a half, we've had a cooperative relationship with pg&e but the comments made earlier is accurate, we had a difficult launch, nrfs a lot of misinformation nufp of what i'm

hearing today, kind of getting some flash backs, a lot of misinformation that is not grounded in fact that can make it difficult as a decision-maker to make a clear decision to move forward, the ceqa concept that's being brought up, the job loss at substations doesn't make any sense as i described, pg&e continues to serve customers by distributing the power, delivering the bill, they continue to employ the ibew workers that you're hearing from today, there hasn't ban loss of jobs from pg&e in our community, they've had to add some folks to provide support to our team. >> you've added 20 jobs? >> we have an in-house staff of 17 folks, we also have a team of outside consultant that is provide additional support to us and then we have a team of vendors who are providing energy efficiency and renewable installation services in addition to