have this trajectory and now we're seeing napa and alameda. >> i think -- the question we're looking for and some guidance is what would be acceptable to you. i think supervisor avalos has specifics and what -- it's the energy -- and i think we don't

have a particular formula. we're looking for whatever balances, for those needs and the other question is whether we go off on our own and they both have their pluses and minuses. with marin, we know what we're getting and we can move quickly and we can be apart of that program and i think as commissioner torres said, we can help achieve the economy. the down side, as far as we know, if we join with marin, we're with them for life. it's a marriage that's permanent. we're going to have limited control and we're going to be along the ride for them and that's something we need to hear from you. if you want to design your own program that's going to have a more aggressive job as a program or a more aggressive energy mix, we may not have that if

we join marin. so i think that's what we're hoping to get some indication on that and it's good to hear from them. if that's not acceptable, then we have capable staff who can learn from what marin has done and they can design their own program. we heard from you and from the mayor that local jobs are paramount and we can go a long way with the considerable resources you have for a build out to accelerate that. that's acceptable to supervisor avalos. we can't afford to wait any longer. we have aggressive greenhouse targets, 100 % renewable power is the only way we can get there. climate change is worsening and becoming more and more, i think, apparent to everyone, i think, upon poll and the san francisco residents will show increasing concern and i think if we continue to fail,

we're failing those people of san francisco and we're failing to provide power and provide local jobs and i think it's important that we get over the disagreements of the past so we can move forward and get this up and running so give us, you know, a permanent funding source for local jobs and for building renewable power and to give the people a choice of 100% renewable power. thank you for your consideration and i hope we can move forward. >> thank you for your comments and your remarks. the next speaker is johnson. >> thank you commissioner. >> thanks for being here. >> johnson to aid to london breed. your committee had a fascinating meeting during which public staff talked about three issues they're dealing with right now that has had an impact on the pc itself. we're facing the worst drought that california has had in

decades. last summer dealt with the third worse wild fire in california history and we're facing sea water flowing into the san francisco sewerage system. and the puc staff attributed this to climate change. it's interesting that the utility commission is facing the consequences of climate change and the city's climate action plan says that the single greatest thing we can do as a city to address climate change is move to 100% renewable power. the urgency is there and the board has been consistent and i would argue adamant in it's support, it's not dog mat i can about how that works. which on behalf of the board of suppose adviser was coming to you to

say help us design a program that works and it's not to dictate to the utilities commission, but it's rather to say let's move on something quickly. we have successful model in two neighboring county that's are clean and cheaper and working. and i think it's time for the people of san francisco that we join in that effort and we're happy to be apart of that conversation, however you think the program is best structured, we're here to be a partner in that. thank you. >> thank you for being here today. >> i'm sorry, bare with me, please. peter laterborn. >> good afternoon, peter. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thanks for hearing this item. legislative aid of supervisor mar. i do want to move power

with clean power sf. the details of the program are less of a concern. we're hoping that you who have heard this issue time and time again can give us input and give your staff input on what we can move forward with. we want to be partnered and be collaborative but we want to move forward. i'll end there and thank you for your time tonight and we look forward to getting some results forward. >> nice. thank you peter. >> the next card i have is from justin kudo. >> hi, justin. >> hi, thank you very much. my name is justin kudo. i'm a san francisco resident for the disclosure. i should mention that i do work for marin clean energy, but i'm speaking as a resident of san francisco. there's a lot of folks, there's a lot of [inaudible] who say that they want a program that try to go too far, too fast. there's a lot of people out

there who say that this is something that's not durable. the fact is it's durable and it's a successful method and it can be done. whether san francisco makes its own pca or joins in an existing program, the thing about the cca is it gives san francisco or any other community that chooses cca, a choosing its power supply. without cca, you have to hope that pg and e are going to make the choices in its power supply that you like and that you desire. well over ten megawatts and new renewables are in redevelopment or being built in marin county and the city of bridgeman. that wouldn't have been built if marin wasn't there. >> thank you for being here today. can i see jed, please. good to see you again, jed. thanks for coming here today. >> one day they're make these

microphone [inaudible]. general manager, lots of agencies. thanks for the time. i really appreciate you having the hearing. it's really great to see that data in front of you folks and i echo commissioner veto and i would like to have this, but i would not like to move. i would like to have this here in san francisco where i've lived for 15 years and i don't want to leave. we've soon cleaner and cheaper power and we've seen folks starting with what's cleaner and cheaper than pg and e with the ability to get up to 100% and we think that that's the fastest way to get to 100% renewable energy for everyone because if you have everyone buying into the program and you have that economy scale you can rach it up as resource

problems come down. i'm representing 350 san francisco but i think you know that already. the second point just from your discussion that i would mention is that the shell contract as i understand is pretty more a bond and i think, you know, further discussion of kind of those pitfalls is unnecessary. to the general manager's comment was the build out, i want to highlight again, that lapco has approved a build out program, rfp and a contractor named internex are working on build out planning now and again, i would encourage you folks to get involved with leftco and looking at that work. we've seen the great work that they were able to do and they did not have the

experience with power purchasing, schedule and sales that they have in-house. >> i would like to hand these over to you which i'll do here and then lastly we'll say we're working on ab 2185 and that fight is not over. we don't believe that restriction has any policy reason for existing, so the north bay to east bay and the south bay are looking at this. we would love to have this in the west bay. q.

>> thank you for being here. mr. brooks. good afternoon, sir. >> eric brooks, san francisco green party and local grass root for our city. i was working on ab 425 which i'll get to in a second. i want to reiterate that one of the reasons that marin and sanoma has had spectacular success is the two tier rate system. the light green and the dark green. that's something that the advocates in san francisco has pushed for a really long time. i think it's time to do that because it makes it clear when you have a good utility that's playing rate games with you to try to under cut you, the thing

that made it possible for marin and sanoma to keep their rates low was their ability to have those two different types of programs and two different types of customers. we need to do that and get on the track. with regard to local build out, it's crucial, we have things that marin and sanoma and other counties don't have. we have the power enterprise and the bonding. [switching captioners]

>> so we can be an example for the state. with regard to the ab 2145 they are hinting at a three-county con tingous limit, but they are not necessarily there yet and the bill is still being written as we speak. so what we need and your staff to do is push against even the three-county contiguous, because if we get the spectacular program in san francisco off the ground that is building hundreds of

megawatts and hiring union labor and we want to incorporate el cerrito into the program we won't be able to expand and expand the jobs. so we need your lobbying staff to hold firm to say not even the three-county thing is too restrictive. we need freedom to create the best program possible for any city in the state and make sure that -- if we are the anchor of it we'll make sure there are union jobs and we'll be all to spread that to other city withouts restriction. >> thank you, eric. we're glad you made it today. brother jason freid. >> hi, jason fried, executive officer formality local agency formation commission and you hatred from my bosss and i won't repeat what they said. there is one part that is important and we're currently

doing a study, as mr. brooks said, the work not completed by your staff. why is it not completed by your staff? because this commission has not told the staff to continue to work on this program and that is the key thing that i think is needed to figure out how to do all of this stuff. yes, we can have outside experts look at it, but your staff are the expert in. it we don't need to go outside of the puc to do and it would i encourage you to recommended back to your staff, instead on slide i, assist board and lafco, but to take the lead and do the work. i like to say the puc staff,

you have a lot of things. you have how do we balance our budget and do all of these other [stph-eupbgz/] you have extremely talented [stwa-f/] who can walk and chew gum at the same time and you i encourage to you do that. the one thingly bring you and i know commissioner vietor mentions supervisor wiener legislation, but this is only going to help the largest customers. as the gm mentioned, you have expensive intervening connection equipment that needs to be put in and if you put it in the beginning you perhaps lower the bar a little bit, but it's large customers so your large customers won't get the chance. you will go down both paths and that idea and the cc i idea are good compliments and you should pursue both of them and not one or the other. having the interveninging connection and that side of it might be more extensive for more customers and cca will be

cheaper. so you need to give everyone both options to have a choice. this is is all about choice. choice through cca, choice through intervening connection agreement or choice with pg&e if that is what people do, but giving people the choice. so please encourage your staff to get back to working on this program and not doing work as requested, but taking the lead on doing this work. thank you. >> thank you, juror being here. jason, any other public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] i'm going to ask that my colleagues allow me to prior to donna reading matters that we're going to take up in closed session, that she allow me to call on publication comment for matters to be heard in closed session. is there any public comment for items to be heard in public comment? do we want me to have read into

the matter the items on the closed session? >> one clarifying question, may i? >> absolutely. >> there are a couple of things that we need to maybe talk about, but one i just want to point out is that jamie actually -- already informed you what i was going to ask you. so one of the things that we have been wrestling with is to have it affordable because of the opt-out, people opting into a more expensive rate and then we talk about we want the program to have build-out and we talked about -- we can do build-out, but my understanding is that build-out is setup, because you are trying to get the initial program cheap, but

the green is more expensive where you are going to invest in the local buildute. is that sort of the model? >> yes. for clean energy from the start we took the approach of walk before you run. it took us about two years of service before we broke ground on our first local project and in the beginning, well and still today, we're focusing on having competitive rates compared to pg&e and offering the greenest amount of electricity that we could with the long-term goal of building local renewable energy. so as noted it took us two years before we broke brund on our first local renewables, but i feel like that is something at least for us, that is starting to snowball. so like i said in my presentation, now that we have been offering service for four years, we have seven local projects underway and in addition to one that is already existing. and it's more than 11 megawatts. so i think the

local renewables is definitely something that is possible, because of ccas, but it does take a little bit of time. >> commissioner vietor. >> i know the president is trying to move us along because the hour is late, but maybe to try to close this, because i know that the general manager and the staff is looking for direction on how to proceed. my understanding is that also there were monies in the budget negotiation process that are still through validate order appropriated, whatever the language is for this clean power sf program. for the moment; right? and as such it seems to me we should be doing some level of work as part of the business plan to really take a look at and whether it's a reframing of this, definitely a redesign and we have had sonoma marin come before us to show us the models and call out the best practices of both of those programs and

really to -- i think the sonoma guy said it best when he said why do -- you might as well just imitate what is working and to really pursue along those lines with the goals of greenest product, lowest price, you know? back to the meter beat strategy we had earlier on and the generator and you see it as a three-headed monster, but maybe it's a sweet spot and follow in the footsteps of what worked. >> so i hear you, and i am just saying that as soon as we say that, all of a sudden the conversation swings towards job. generations, local newables and as we heard it's hard to incorporate that in the beginning because they actually have it as part of their deep green, which is more expensive than the pg&e and if we offer that, then as a whole issue of

now you having automatically enrolling people into a more expensive program. which has this whole other set of people that has issues with -- pardon me? [ inaudible ] i didn't say that. i said that -- >> i get you. >> i said that if we were to offer a deep green, which has a local build-out, it's more expensive. the deep green is more expensive than pg&e. >> so it has to be a phased approach. >> i'm just saying that we -- you know, we just have to have that conversation. >> right. >> so is that enough for you for now? >> yes. so i think where we're going to go is we are going -- >> i'm, is that enough? what are you saying? i don't rale there was a consensus or vote taken? >> i don't think there was. >> you are just directing him? >> i'm asking what he needs from us so far as direction

because as far as next steps, there is money -- >> i'm not so sure i'm ready to move at all at this point. i would like to look a little further to see what happens with 2145 to see what other options there r. you are subjecting what the lafco representative said to get the staff to work on it; right? >> and suggesting that there is a look as part of the business plan and there is this revenue question in the business plan, where we heard from marin there is $100 million that they generated from the program and there is the revenue question. there is the directive from the board that we have said it again with some budget monies appropriated, $4 million plus the solar money. >> that was from the mayor; right? i thought that was from the mayor. >> yes part of a negotiation process. so that is all current. that is all current and these pieces of legislation. >> can i -- so maybe we're

not -- are we asking for something from staff how to, really? >> that is what i don't understand what you want. >> maybe if i just shed light on it. so given the legislation that the board has passed, it's about working -- one of the commitments is that we're going to work closely with lafco and look at the possibility of the marin model with the focus on local jobs. and i think we still should entertain that and talk about that. i think the issue of local jobs and local build-out, we need to have that conversation and maybe come back and see what that looks like. but i think also what is important is to do our plan, for power enterprise and to present it holistically. because some of the development, like we do in ty treasure island is not only commercial, not just the

commercial side like hunters point, if we do hunters point we're doing the whole area. so i think we probably just want to kind of identify what it is and how each component could work with it and then talk about the risk profile, if joining marin vs. starting up something like sonoma and have that conversation. so i think one of the things that i wanted to do was just kind of get and talk about how things have moved since we presented something? and i think the census from what i am hearing from these programs is that having a beginning step, where it's meet or beat pg&e is one of the goals of these programs, which our goal was to get the greenest project even though it cost more money. >> i'm still unclear where we're moving. are we moving to

another vote? >> no. >> to proceed further? i didn't think so. so where are we moving? >> a workshop to talk about the other cca programs, marin and sonoma, based off of that, we have also identified what we want to do as far as our business plan on the hetchy and so the legislation that the board passed is for us to lafco to study the marin, so we're going to participate that with the local jobs. so when we come back with our business plan we'll hopefully have -- >> so we're having another joint meeting with lafco on this issue? >> i believe. >> i don't know. >> eventually. >> yes, eventually. >> i would hope -- i mean for me, i think the goal that was set was achieved for this hearing; right? we had the two entities show up. for me, maybe i may be speaking

for myself, but then the public participation also gave us a whole new perspective. i would just hope that staff between now and our next meeting would kind of now narrow that down for us. because i would want -- i would want them to kind of organize those thoughts, bullet point them for us and then we'll all convene again. >> where is scott's board now? is it passed by the board? has been t been approved by the board? >> which one? >> directing us to use hetchy. >> no we're actually working with scott on that legislation. >> so it hasn't been passed:there is a lot of stuff that we are working on now. >> i think to your point, i know for every punch that the puc throws on this thing, actually moving it forward, it's going to be two counterpunches. and we just have to be ready for that. the labor component, i don't see that sonoma or marin has

the same labor component. i just haven't seen it. maybe it's there, but that is one of the heads. and i don't know that we were ever successful with the san francisco labor council. this is not just the ibw but the entire labor community and once they have an opportunity to see this new information, once it's all kind of straightened out for us. they will weigh in. you know? and i will be eager to see that. >> i'm still unclear what the end goal is? is the end goal to reverse what we voted to do last year? >> it's done; right? >> i'm sorry? >> that is done. >> that is done. so i think what i'm asking for is due diligence from staff from me as a commissioner because i have never been briefed on the wiener legislation and didn't know about 2145 and should have

known about it, but now i do and i'm dr. ed because i know the author and would like to find out his intentions and a few other factors in terms of are we really beating pg&e orb $0.70 as it is in marin? i don't want to close the door, but to make sure where the door is and to find out the pathway to that. >> for my part, i think we have gotten a lot of information today and so it would be good to get it all kind of put together and say in this new day. >> we're on the same page. >> without shell, knowing there are products out there, that could beat the rates that we could get greener with the product, is there life after? is there a new version? a newly-designed version to meet these goals that were laid out originally? >> great. >> if we could get something at next meeting or the next month. >> let's have another hearing. >> [laughter ] >> the another month that

would better inform us to continue this dialogue. >> when does her leave start? >> she is not leaving -- no. [laughter ] >> she is gone now. [laughter ] >> she has already left. she knew i was going to say that. so let me work with the staff and give you an update when we feel that we get to an approach of what we feel timelines of what we want to do, because there are moving parts. one is the main focus we're working on is the wiener legislation. so we actually may even do a hearing on that legislation and how that impacts us. so we have to work on that. and then, you know, we're going to look more at the marin model, and the job component, and how that would look like if we were to do that? and