calculated would be going up by a penny in january. >> that would be what percentage of clean products for that particular amount? >> the settlement proposes that that portfolio would be a hundred percent bundled renewable resources. not with new resources but with pg & e has with the portfolio. it would move to another rate portfolio. >> would that be something they are able to achieve on a gradual scale basically starting at one level and increasing or would they have to start running at hundred percent? >> they already have a hundred percent. if the green tariff has a hundred omega watt

participation, that hundred mega watt is all right under pnl. pg & e. i don't know what pg & e is propose inside the green tariff program. >> it would be challenging for us to be competitive without the local build out? >> dpengd -- depending oh what you mean by competitive, we that rate and still have a lot left over for local build. i can guess what the numbers would be, but they wouldn't be accurate right now. >> okay. if i can add to that commissioner breed.

>> i think what i'm hearing you ask is if it would be renewable. we would both be a hundred percent renewable. they would have a higher percentage of the bundles of the premium renewable products, but we would be constructing local renewables and their program while it envisions construction but it would impact the local economy like the program would. >> i appreciate that. that makes perfect sense and i just wanted to make sure that we are getting all of the information we need because i would like us to figure out a way to be more aggressive to provide this

program, bought the provide it that number one is of course successful and competitive and that's really important for it's success. i know we had a slight bit of a setback with the fact that the commission has determined that they will not set rates which is really unfortunate, but i do think that we as a board of supervisors, i know this is lafco, but we as members of the board have sent direction to puc commissioners explaining that we want to see this move forward. what i want us to be able to do is work with puc and we want puc to be more aggressive with helping to support us to move this forward and to make sure that it more competitive in doing so. so, i just don't feel that the

support is there. i know we are talking about and you are investing in the local build out but we are pretty much ready to go on it now. we can do those things simultaneously and we are just trying to understand at this point what's the hold up? abets besides the commissures disapproval of setting these particular rates. what's the hold up to looking at an alternative to something that would be successful? >> i think that's the plan for a local build. that's an area whe we saw a lot of mutual interest across the board from policy makers. to try to put more detail to that, is what

the general manager has asked us to do. so that's what we are engaged in at this point. >> part of my concern is the fact that we are trying to move the this program forward has really forced pg & e to finally step up to the plate and provide a product that they have had a long at a particularly competitive rate as well. i do think that we need to continue to push forward as aggressively as possible so we need to figure out a way to do that. i personal would prefer that we not do a comparison in terms of well, we have this money available but we need it for the rim fire to pay out and fix what we need to fix because we don't have the money to fix it because this money was earmarked for a purpose to provide for clean power. imagine if that were not the

case, then we would look for other money resources to fix the damages from the fire. i don't want to keep trying to add layers of bureaucracy and challenges to try to develop something more concrete to really move this thing forward, not just aggressively but of course in a smart way and effective way that makes sense so it is a success. because i would hate to see the time and effort go into a project that is not prepared to deal with the capacity that we are hoping that this program can deal with. so, i just wanted to make some comments about that and make sure that we are trying to be a lot more aggressive and moving forward with the directive with not just members of the lafco, but also the members of the board of supervisors. >> thank you. mr. mar?

>> i wanted to thank you about the work and it's been about 3 weeks since we asked the #z mayor the questions. he was really misinformed and i see the transcript. what communications with the mayor's office and the new environmental sustainability director done to correct that. the mayor's comments were almost as if he's reading from the playbook of our opponent. there is so much in there that is so wrong. i'm wondering what have you done to correct that misperception and what we've done now and how we can get it back on track so he's an alley with us and not an opponent as if he's working hand in hand

with pg & e. we have the transcript here and a whole explanation of what is there but how do we communicate with the mayor. single family -- >> i have sat down with mr. kim. he is making the rounds and getting familiar with all of our responsibilities and we did talk about the clean four -- power sf program and he's got a learning curve of many of the details of this program and how the city can achieve it climate goals is certainly something that we spent time talking about if this is no clean power sf, how are we going to change the renubls --

renewables and greenhouse gas. it's not ours -- to hold the mayor accountable. >> but, miss hale, correcting information that on something we've been working on fore i do -- for years, is our responsibility. if we haven't done that, what's our job. >> what i was leading to is we can say to make sure our program is understood. we can communicate what our program parameters are with the structures of the program as we have. and so that's what we will continue to do. i think we've been very open and available to address what the program give and take is and what the balance in trying to

affordability and clean and green and local build. it's clear that we have not center you can that balance yet in the way that our policy makers at the puc are comfortable. as i said before, our general manager has directed us to focus on that local build and to figure out how we can provide more detail and support behind that statement, local build, folks talk about robust local build and what that means and how we can put together a plan that is more understood and actionable. that's the task before us and what we are focusing on. >> actually i appreciate your question, commissioner mar. i found that the mayor had a very collegial and bunk alar way of sharing information when it came for question time. any

other questions, colleagues? >> i just have some comments. >> commissioner breed? >> i have some concerns that, and i hope, mi -- miss hale you don't take the wrong-way. i have concerned that we don't have direct control over or trying to move this program forward effectively because we are too dependent on a city agencies puc, for example, to help us start to implement this and there is a bit of a -- i guess challenge here where we have commissioners who are appointed by the mayor and we have director who has their

policy directive as it relates to power and water which is what they do great for our city which is appreciated, but we need to think about whether or not we want this process to be a part of moving this process forward, be a part of the city through puc or we want to look at contracting this out with another entity that could help us effectively move this forward based on the exactly intense of the project and what we need outside of puc's jurisdiction, outside of pg & e's oversight so we are able to really move this thing forward. so, i just wanted to put that out there because i don't know if we are going to get anywhere.

i mean, miss hale has been given a direction from the director to look at local build out which we appreciate, but does that move us forward. and is that moving us forward in a more timely manner. we started this process way back in 2007, we've been doing a lot of work for this program. there has been a lot of support for this program and we are at a crossroads here. i think we need to make a decision or think about doing something more extreme than just an allowing the same plays with the same process and doing the same thing and getting the same results of no rates being set or agreed to. so i do think we need to look at possibly contracting out for someone putting on an rfp or something for an entity that can help us

facilitate this process so we can effectively get it done. >> thank you, actually i heard something fairly interesting just talking to you, jason freed, is marine county, marine power, the cca program they sell to continue -- contra cost a county that we might have a joint pg & e with with marine county? >> marine has gone outside of it's county and now serves richmond because richmond decided to join the mea program. now this is napa trying to join. m ea are going through that process and making

sure it doesn't harm their program and keeps their program moving in a functional way. they are trying to do another template program on how it can join their program. it could potentially decide to join apa in marine and be part of that program. there would need to be discussions that occur with them and in the city and county. >> we can do that with the public utilities commissioners and not being part of that process. >> there is a commissioner there and if it's power related, what's in the charter. i'm not a lawyer. >> i think that would be something worth exploring and maybe at the lafco meeting can be presented to us as a possibility and what the process was for the richmond

city council to be able to join the marine cca program. >> i can do research on behalf of that and i can ask the city attorneys office for guidance on that part. >> if i might add, the point is well-taken, i would suggest a two prong approach. i think, i think we should send a letter to the mayor pointing out the misrepresentations. if sf puc staff doesn't feel comfortable doing that, we should do that. i think lafco staff should do that and perhaps the chair would go to the meetings to talk about the concerns and

frustration. i do think the point is well-taken that i don't think this is a policy question, but it's obviously also a political one. we want to make sure if we can solve the problem, great, i'm not sure that we can, but it's certainly worth keeping on that road and then checking, the marine issue we can have outside council. i know something of what richmond is doing because i have been working a little bit with them. but the question is we don't want to go through that process and set rates with the commission. that's the first question. i'm not sure how, and the second is whether or not marine is agreeable. we are a big entity to join in their fpa. if they had conversations with them and they seem agreeable. it's something that we did look at a couple years

ago and our chair at that time, we met with marine and talked about the potential and they were taking a different program approach than we were at that point. but, there is also a couple other efforts that we might in terms of cca that we might explore and i will talk to you privately about that. >> intriguing. thank you. colleagues, any comments or questions? i think next i wanted to hear from mr. freed and your breaking down however you want to say the mayor's presentation and what you were able to highlight in terms of the mayor's main points of contention that we have with

the representation, truthfulness and accuracy of the mayor's comments. >> more than happy. jason carried, lafco staff. i was watching it and dumbfounded by the comments made and some things being said auto out in the public and i was able to full transcript, sfgtv has a transcript version which is not perfectly accurate and there are a lot of spelling errors, i didn't try to correct that but there are comments in the packet where there are inaccuracies. i'm not going to get into each one of those individually. one of those that i did want to address is when the mayor was asked the question about how can we work

together, you never seen him asked the questions directly. you never actually see -- it was not in my comment and probably should have been added to my comments. >> there's a discussion about how the mayor's was trying to fulfill the environmental efforts here in san francisco and i saw in the air district, i have been there since march of 2011 and parson was there, the mayor's seat has been vacant in the air district all this time, probably over a year. i have asked a number of times, like when are we going to get someone to be there and they say they are working on it. it been, a lot of decisions are being made about

environmental efforts, greenhouse gas emissions and other issues regarding our environment and there is a no show on the mayor's side. hopefully someone will be filling that seat. we have plenty of staff who has expertise to be there. >> i will take your word on it. i don't know what's going on 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 for the city 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.