there. back to the mayor's questions, there were six key categories where the mayor is misrepresenting what is going on with this program. especially the credited version. i give full description of that. what he's trying to claim that bucket 3 racks are not as good as bucket 2 recs. when you take into consideration bucket 3, you actually can control the underlying power in a much more direct way. if you take the shell letter that was sent to the puc, that said we can do 50 percent carbon neutral in california, you can pretty tell that the bucket rate from a different source from where we are getting the energy from can be much better fty than what our overall goals are

than what is transpiring from a bucket two and we are using system power to firm and shape our program. the interesting thing is you heard i bew for a long time when we talked about bucket 2 recs, complaining that it was just dirt power and now they are claiming that bucket 3 is dirty power and now that bucket one, which is probably the best energy. it goes from 10 percent in what was proposed at the time the board approved something to a year later 25 percent by a lot of good work by miss malcolm and the puc staff in creating a program that gets above and beyond anything that pg & e meets the, current offering and a build out that is competitive and all the things we want to do. the

bucket 3 recs is how we would use it, is okay to use. we are putting carbon free energy into system and recs that are coming out of carbon free sources around it. we are doing more than what you would expect to do. i think a lot of it on to which it would still le behind the be a great program. just looking at it from the energy production point that that's the key point i want to point out there. the next part is what the board approved. i found it fascinating and interesting that the mayor would be commenting on what he wanted. the board has made it clear since then that supervisor breed's resolution we still want to have this program. i think it's clear that out of what these

arguments didn't approve and what the board did approve and the resolution in the packet. you see the board is saying, puc come up with this program, here is a parameter, we are giving you the ability to change them as the information comes out and you can change the program up and that's what the puc staff has been doing all this time is modifying the program, working with labor, trying to figure out what that mix is and up until august 13th, when the program got shut down by the puc commission saying stop working on it without addressing how we can make those concerns better. the next category is the build out in jobs that i think miss mall colm did a good job of describing. eyes -- i'm a former labor, one of the things was about shell. after the

resolution passed they are agnostic towards she -- shell, they can get in union in california facilities. the other part has nothing do with that. >> we get, we had a big contract buying fuel from the western states petroleum association, shell is a member and we have a new contract with the golden gate petroleum situation, shell is a member. again, we were actually working with shells, there are contracts we have with shell to do work, it's a red herring excuse finding way to kill the program . >> yes, i would agree with you on that . the other part is the

puc board. the building of these new projects and all the efficiency work. i think it's almost a no brainer to me. i would hope the puc commission is more favorable. all the things that come with the labor project agreement to make sure that we are getting good standards for the work force that is doing the for this city on the program. those issues are easily addressed. it can be addressed until you have a program to go. you make sure your rfp has a labor project agreement. >> he brought up the whole opt out, opt in issue. that was one of the issues that was raised when the board approved this program last september in 2012 that we don't like it because you can't opt in, you have to opt out whether you want it or not. this whole issue comes up

all over again. that's a bigger break thing that the mayor has if he wants to work with us to change that state law which is particularly impossible to do in order for him to actually green light, something like this. it made know sense whatsoever. >> that is right. you skipped to some items. the other interesting thing about the opt out is that people don't have a choice in this matter. they are automatically forced into it. it's a very good program. the need for these buildings, there is a requirement that residents and businesses have to follow in this city if they are going to do business herement that's a simple fact. they have to, the difference between those two programs, people have a choice on power sf. they can choose to build. that is the law of the land and you have no

choice in this matter. for them to say you can do this and not in this case. i found an interesting approach to take. the cal market, i forwarded to you an editorial piece about the program and the mayor's can comments and trying to point to the fact that the mayor is saying i don't want the tax code and i'm not paying the tax code. it's like he's saying until you change the law, we are not going with the program. if the laws get changes, we can work with it. this is program you need and the program will do all the environmental things. then we touched on shell, one of the things i want to point out. even though i think shell has been a good partner in this case. they have been working with us and listening to us and taking all the concerns that people have been saying and pro actively

saying that you have to give us a hundred percent renewable. we didn't say that. i said how close can you get? they said we think we can provide this product to you. i think that's important to understand that. even if we wanted to get away from shell, if we don't have to execute the contract. the puc staff that is extra keys to do the scheduling from energy from other sources if the city decided it was an issue. as commissioner chair avalos said it's one of those red herrings out this with the program and the final comment is the snapshot with the long-term goals and what does this program look like on day one. they refuse and ignore the fact that this is an every changing program that in the year 20 it

going to change. we need to figure out how to do build out as quickly as possible because we would have no customers. it a matter of focusing our attention that would allow us to grow this program and modify it over time. it not going to be the program on day one or year 5, 10 or 20. i think it's an important key aspect to keep in mind. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate the work you have done. when the mayor was making his presentation, i was besides myself. i made comments during introduction about it as well. i spent about maybe 5 minutes talking with reporter's afterwards. i was in shock that the reporting didn't even cover this huge discrepancy with what reality is and what was said by the mayor. it shows that we

need better journalist in this city among other things. okay. we can go on to public comment on this item, any member of the public when would like to comment, please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors, good afternoon. lafco staff. my name is shawn marshall with the local agriculturation network -- aggregation network with promoting greater energy. i serve as vice-mayor as the city of valley. i'm signature -- sitting here with my lead hat on. i want to commend mayor lee, there is nothing in the california statute that requires the sf puc to be the response offer cca. i do think

it would be the most logical choice, but given the political stalemate, i think it's smart for you to look at alternatives and there are many alternatives i think including marine, i think it's definitely work a conversation with them. there are cities in the formation process and this maybe even an opportunity to join statewide effort. i would welcome a conversation with you, miss miller in the future because i think there are some options that you ought to be considering. a couple quick comments. one is to let you know on wednesday, the county board of supervisors in san diego unanimously approved funding for cca study for the renewable energy program. i offer that up as an example as another large california city moving towards the cc accessible -- model. they have

a way to go but in that direction. and the longer this goes, the more missed opportunity not only from a green perspective but from an economic perspective you have going on. we know that power prices are very low right now. there are examples around the country of cca integrating brand new energy. just a couple. the city of chicago recently aggregated, they signed a new contract led by the work we are doing here in california. they also integrated in state wind and they did a deal with their supplier to do a distributed solar supplier in chicago. there are 60 mega watts in marine brand new energy, cape

cod and solar around 20 mega watts through the airport. we know that this works and i applaud you for looking at plan b and moving things forward, thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please? >> hi commissioners. i work with a group of local advocates working on this for a number of years. i main message is that lafco was created for the purpose of really making sure that clean power sf gets established and goes forward. there have been many times in the past where the sf puc is now -- not moving quickly or expeditiously enough and now lafco is moving quickly in terms of impact of getting work

down for a build out study which lafco went and approved $100,000 contracts for part of that build out work and following that and that's going to p you should the sf puc and pushing for $100,000 for a years worth of effort. to move things forward, this is the opportunity speaking on behalf of the advocates for lafco stepping in and making sure this work is progressive. there are a number of options. some of them have been talked about for sure. if kelly the general manager can build out the work then lafco can set expectations for when the work will be done and delivered and done. it a crucial part. alternatively

about a half year ago, i put out a request for a chase community based effort. i found a number of firms that had the capability of developing the type of build out plan that we've been talking about in san francisco. you can alternatively put up the money and get the build outdonement -- we know that many of the players as the lack of -- to being able to move that program forward and if puc doesn't put out the plan then there are alternatives to put out such a plan and as john marshall mentioned even more aggressive efforts. to basically say the sf puc is obviously not getting the job done, we have to look for alternative ways, alternative institutions, alternative approaches to try to move this thing forward. we

just want to encourage you as lafco to take the bull by the horns. we would be happy to work with you around some of these suggestions. we think that it's really a crucial time to get the sf puc quickly on the move or to find some alternate approach. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners, eric brooks, local green committee. a lot of interesting things have been said i think it's incredibly important to point out that i think as late as 6-7 months ago, even the advocates to the consternation to the allies who said this isn't ready to go

yet. this has to do with rates and how much is developed. and then not to hopefully don't give too big of a head but malcolm came and started to move this in a big way. we started to talk about rate more than a year and kim came along and started working on that. the highest rate is 11.5 percent which will beat pg & e and as $0.11 as provided to the committee. without good rates you are going to have too many people leaving the program and not enough of a customer risk assessment -- base for a local

build out. even though it didn't get to where it needed to be, really made a huge amount of progress compared to where things were out with the puc before. based on that, even though we were concerned about making sure it gets done properly, we were ready to come before like we did? july and august and said let's go. let be sure we keep our eye on the build out but let's do this. then the mayor and the commission of sf puc put a hold on everything when even the advocates said wait a minute, we are no longer saying wait a minute. we are on the same page now. it really chushl -- crucial that we move this forward. really what this boils

down to, that even though the staff is now doing some really important stuff. when you've got people in the drivers seat that are not with you, that's a problem. what i think this is all about is who is in the drivers seat. in 2004 when at that time the staff wouldn't do an implementation plan, the lafco did one. in 2011 when the sf puc wouldn't work on the build out plan, the lafco started the process and now we need lafco to take charge and lead the way and complete the work that was on the table before it got stopped. thank you. >> good afternoon, bruce wills, a neighborhood of the san francisco clean energy advocates with the rest of my colleagues here. i just wanted to say that mr. freed's report was spot on. everything he said and how he presented it with

the analysis and rational around things, i think is exactly where we are today and how we should be moving forward. equally want to commend kim malcolm on the work she's doing and having somebody focus at the puc is important but we have to make sure there are no obstacles for her and she needs that commitment from the agency in order to be able to move forward. the discussion around the opt out, i think how to mayor presented it is very species, we need to maintain the way it is. this is the promise of what government is supposed to do, provide real services to the residents and the economy. if people want the choice to opt out of it, that's their choice. that's how to law is created. i think it's an important point to stand on and solid and i think it's an

important point. i also want to report that where i work in marine, in our business we are paying for marine clean energy under $0.10, the kilowatt hour. it is possible for ramping this up and getting real savings. this is what the small business people were asking for with their refrigerators and freezers running all day long, they are the ones paying. i think we need to keep things moving forward. don't be discouraged. we have a lot of historic ups -- hick ups. they

have some issues, we can get through those. they are totally in support of it. i think it's really somewhat uphill that we need to reach and it's very accessible and reachable. thank you. >> thank you, very much, next speaker. >> city close your eyes. let the power come to you. let the power come to you. take it slow lafco. we've got so far to go and then we will rise the power train of love. we are going to clean power with you all night. clean powers into sunlight. we are going to clean power you

all night. we are going to clean power the night. and when clean power is renewed and strong, you know that energy survives and the city can really thrive. i'm going to clean power with you all night. clean power today. okay. something in the way this city moves. attracts me like no other city. something in the way the city moves, i don't want to leave it now. you are asking me will clean power grow, well, lafco i don't know. i don't know. you stick around and the budget will grow. then

we'll make it happen. give it a go. lafco. [ applause ] >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm from the bay chaerpt of the sierra club. i want to thank you for all your hard work through these hard times. the action strategy and what we need to do as a city to reach our climate action goals. thank you for your hard work as well. kim malcolm at the sf puc. nancy miller and jason. >> thank you. >> thank you, any other member of the public would like to

comment? we'll close public comment. >> one thing about lafco staff, when talking about the pg & e tariff, one thing to keep in mind, it not a green litd program yet. it's on hold. no one should assume that that program will ever see the light of day because there are a lot of complaints that sf puc submitted a letter with a bunch of questions that need to be addressed. there is direct access providers and others providing other questions and comment. there is still a lot of issues to be addressed. even though it's a potential product, it's something not occurring yet. it's on hold depending on what happens with the state legislation. >> thank you. colleagues. we can

continue this item. >> if i could. this is, this could be an action item as well. if you have direction for us, i think this would be a good time to give it to us in terms of either -- >> you mentioned a letter from lafco expressing our or debunking the statements at this time. i think it would be helpful to have as a product if we can concur with that, colleagues? >> okay. >> did you want to explore some of these options with other partners, cca partners? >> that would be great. as in marine? >> yes. >> maybe the process for others like richmond city council.

>> can we take a short 1 minute break before the next item. a brief residents -- recess of 2 minutes. we are back.

>> i don't have a report. we covered everything in the third item. >> thank you. we can go to public comment on the executive officers report. seeing no one come forward. we'll close public comment. next item. >> item no. 5, public comment. members can address on matters within their jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. >> general public comment is open. any public member would like to comment. okay. we'll

close public comment. >> technicians six item 6. future agenda items. >> public comment on item 6 future agenda items? >> i would like to pick up on what commissioner breed said about if certain agencies in the city are not moving this process forward, then let's contract with some people that will move us forward whoever that maybe. there is a lot of stuff like the build out work that is half way on the table, there are other aspects like the possibility of how much in-house energy purchasing the puc could be doing. figuring out what relationships