was doing a great job and one of the things she was showing that pg & e's projected rate was 12 cents a kilowatt hour and at that time even under the shell contract she was showing how we can get 9 cents per hour and it was hundred percent green to all resident. now we are talking about a split rule, light and green. what was whas in sonoma is something that can be developed later. the if sf puc rate could have set the rate not to exceed today. what i'm going to call on the commission is to set the not to exceed rate at the next meeting at

the pg & e rate and after that then we develop the program. we need to set the rate immediately. >> public speaker: thank you. my name is rebecca evans. i would like to thank you all for this. i'm not an energy expert. i have been a san franciscan for almost 50 years and over 10 of those years i have watched this process. i hope you get aggressive about it. i have read that scotland is now clean energy. we heard from enernex that there are more jobs for this project than there

are for the keystone pipeline. i think that's good news for the city and for the region. i think it's really important that you do that. the climate crisis is here. we can look at what's happening in the east with the snowstorms and the tides. san francisco is supposed to be the city that knows how. we need take that mantra and make it real. thank you very much. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. next speaker. >> public speaker: i'm cindy aragon. in september of last year we passed the resolution overwhelmly to support cleanpowersf and asked the commission to go forward with this program. it made no sense to us that san francisco should be pushing the envelope on the issue of environment one of the last cities in the bay area to be

moving forward with this. it made no sense to us that green energy was being used as a political football and after 10 years and $4.1 million that we were still arguing over this. when i was appointed to the cac by my supervisor eric mar, i was appointed because he believed in. we passed it overwhelmly. we asked that it should be moved forward. we are not the only ones talking about this. we've seen the report. we know it's a viable program. all of the obstacles are gone. to think it going to be a year before we roll this out is inexcusable. i wanted to see clean power within my term as chair of the cac and i will be seeing it at the end of my term. that's a two year term. so i think it's really

important to rule this out. i'm asking you to roll this out much sooner before an election. i don't think this should be a political football. i know my members of cca agree with this. please move forward with this today. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, next speaker. >> public speaker: hello, i'm kiara babt with the club. it's a lot of work to be here at these meetings. i appreciate it. thank you for talking about the enernex report today. especially today i feel like i have learned so much and as things sound so much more possible as they did last night. i came here to ask you to move forward with setting the not to exceed rates and establishing a

launch date by the end of summer and now i feel like it's a weak ask. it sounds like we can launch this year. let's do the light green and dark green. it sounds like you should just aim to launch this year and catch up with the rest of the bay area. it's kind of embarrassing at this point. >> thank you. are there any other members who would like to provide comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we are done with this item unless there is a requested action? >> jason fried, the one thing that lafco may want to do is accept the report so i can communicate it to them so there might be a month eggs to --

motion to accept the report and let enernex done. >>supervisor london breed: is there a motion to accept the report? moved by commissioner campos. is there a second? second by commissioner crews. wow objection the item will move forward to accept the report. madam clerk, can you please call item no. 5. city clerk: item no. 5 status of pacific gas & electric companies application before the california public utilities commission. >> i just want to report that yesterday the california public utilities commission approved the green tariff program that were mandated by senate bill 43. this is the program for pg & e this

is the program that will allow them to have a green tariff product that they provide to their retail customers where they will have an opportunity to purchase up to 100 percent. i want to emphasize that. it allows customers to scale the amount of green energy they wish to purchase through pg & e. it's not 100 percent. you can scale it. also an enhanced community renewable product that allows customers to prescribe to a renewable generation facility located within pg & e's territory at 500 kilowatts to three mega watts. we have been following the development of this program and reporting on its progress. what happens next and now that the california puc

adopted the decision giving pg & e authority is they have 90 days within which to file an advice letter at the california puc and it will be in that advice letter that we learn more detail about how they intend to implement the authority they were given. so, for example it will describe the rate structure, it will describe the requirements around how to subscribe to a particular project and will have a clearer understanding within that 90-day period of what that product offering is. one thing i wanted to mention in response to commissioner crews' question about the green tariff and can we do light and dark green later, because of the scaling i think it's relevant to know what is pg & e's

offering in their green tariff program bass a customer could scale to match a greenness that our light green program would have. it's a factor for us to consider. with that i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, colleagues, any questions, seeing no names on the roster at this time. i would like to open this item up for public comment. if there is any member of the public who would like to comment on item 5, please come forward. >> good afternoon, eric hurts. san francisco clean energy advocates and california's for energy choice. one of the coordinate ors that helped fight on ab. the rates really need to be challenged. right now the

cheapest electricity in california and in much of the country is natural gas electricity. okay. renewables are getting a lot cheaper but they are not cheaper than natural gas right now. so we have to be very clear about this. we do not need to wait for pg & e's green tariff rates to come out before we set our not to exceed rates because they are not going to be below their brown power rates and we know what the brown power rates are and we know that we just like marin and sonoma county are going to be charging brown power rates. pg & e is not going to be able to beat that unless they go to a really anticompetitive posture which will be very challenged by pg & e and not be able to get away with it. this idea that we have to wait until pg & e sets it's rate, they are

trying to set it up so we wait for them to do that so we don't start our program and we wait until after the election and there is not enough political will to get this off the ground. i have to say this talk to wait until the end of the year to set our basic light green rate which is the rate that will establish the entire program, again the hundred percent green we are going to offer is just a separate and small thing. we can set the rate and start the program now and in nine 9 months we can get this done in september and pass. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi san francisco resident and ratepayer. we are waiting for pg & e's rates. i'm not aware this is

a general business practice that you wait for a competitor's product to set their prices to make your pricing. the other part of the question because i don't know the details of these proceedings can we not set a rate and change it later. there was reference earlier to change rules to contracting rules to be successful in a new endeavor. changing times calls for us to be more flexible. let's be flexible to see what might be possible to move forward perhaps more like a private business might. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> bruce wolf, i won't announce what i'm affiliated with. the reason why the rates weren't passed the last time, the plan, let's talk about the plan, the plan was not moved on last time was because the reason

we were all told that the rate had to be set first. because the rates hadn't been set we had not moved on a plan. so i'm a little concerned about the message that we are receiving today. i would try to urge you commissioners, all commissioners, both entities to really knuckle down and this is in your lap right now. this is not in staff's lap. it's your decision and it's time to move now. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, any other members of the public? mr. rad cliff? >> public speaker: yes, the cloud on the california puc is going on now. i think we should do what we need to do and move on because i don't know what they are going to do there. looks like somebody is going to jail. thank you.

>>supervisor london breed: thank you, any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner crews? >> i have a question, on the small scale projects that pg & e are planning, has the city of san francisco or the puc actually partnered with them or beginning discussion about possible sites or is that down the road? >> barbara hale, sf puc. we have not had discussions with puc about projects. we have been shaping the proposal that they put before the california puc as an interested party

in that proceeding, but no discussions about projects, no. >> okay. i think my question is leading me to the thought that if there were discussions about site, for example, solar sites that we would want to be sure cleanpowersf has priority over pg & e site. that's something that the green tariff made me think of. thank you. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. so seeing no other names on the roster. i will like to move on to item no. 6 at this time. city clerk: status update on the san

francisco boerndz ordinance electing to study the feesibility implementing a community choice aggregation program by joining marin clean energy. >> jason fried. i have the information provided. since the memo was written on tuesday, supervisors avalos and members of the board of supervisors introduced an ordinance and looked through our own going through the process and given the recent developments happened this week is where the city is going down the road and creating our own option. >> thank you. it definitely looks that way. any other comments from any other members here, if not, i will open to public comment. are there any

other members. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> madam clerk, please move to item no. 7. city clerk: amendment to the memorandum of understanding between the san francisco public utilities commission and the lack local agency formation commission for the power enterprise community choice aggregation program to extend to the duties. >> i will leave the packet. so folks are aware the puc has a resolution. lafco would do it by a motion. lafco would need a motion to instruct staff to sign an amendment. >>supervisor london breed: okay. seeing no names on the roster. i will open this item up to public

comment. are there any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment on item no. 7. please lineup to my left. mr. brooks. >> public speaker: yes, eric brooks again. first of all speaking strongly in favor of this motion. there is still a budget left crucial. i know the history of this that the relation between the sf puc and the lack of moving this is crucial. this mou needs to continue. now i want to get to the specific work that needs to be covered by one or both agencies. either one or both agencies and that is the enernex report is great. the plan that it lays out or the framework that it lays out is excellent and itd would be great if we passed that. however, i was quoted in the examiner today and

other people were spoken to about that examiner about cleanpowersf and we need to make sure that we not only make this program great but spectacular and make it serve local workers and local union workers and local communities of opportunity and community of color that need work. the way we do that is to do the one thing the enernex report was not able to do because the data isn't there yet. we need to set the rates first and get to the process of figuring out the behind the meter local distributed generation assets that we can build because that's not clarified. if we figure that stuff out. putting solar panels and efficiency, that will bring the 9920 jobs and probably upwards of 12,000 jobs if we flush out --

putting it on local roof tops. it's crucial we take some of the money and staff on both sides to make sure we flush out behind the meter components and efficiency components because they are not cooked yet. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> public speaker: hi, jed. i think it's very clear that none of us would be having this meeting today if the mou had not been in effect last year and given all the today it's very clear that there is tons of work that needs to go on. i hope this would be a very

>> david. sierra club. we want to definitely support extending the mou and get that cleanpowersf rolling. and we'll be a state leader on this and set an example for the state for a big local build-out and energy efficiency. get those greenhouse gas out of here. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues, is there a motion on the floor? motion by supervisor campos to direct staff to enter into this mou with the puc seconded by commissioner mar. without

objection from lafco commissioners. this item passes. >> commissioner, ann caen, would you like to do the honor to introduce puc. >> thank you. the item in the packet is a no cost extension of the existing memorandum of agreement and i recommend it for your approval. thank you. >> okay. may i have a motion from our commissioners? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there discussion on this item? >> i do. i have a comment, madam chair. i think it's appropriate to recognize the value of staff of lafco specifically jason who i worked with for the past several years. jason's wealth of knowledge but most important he makes himself available to any of the public utilities

commission. as i move forward i'm going to find his time and willingness to sit down to be invaluable. so i'm fully in support. >> further discussion? i call for public comment on this item. seeing none, i will call for the vote. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? the motion carries. >>supervisor london breed: all right. with that we are moving to item no. 8. >> item no. 8. general public comment. >>supervisor london breed: are there any members of the public who would like to provide any general public comment on items not on the agenda today. >> public speaker: . jeff brooks. this is sort of a related item very important and coming up as an imminent issue filling of the final seat on the sf puc by appointment. that final seat is the seat that is required

to have a person that has ratepayer or consumer advocacy experience. and i think it would be, i'm pretty much directing this at lafco. i have a feeling this won't be entirely wrapped up by the end of february and it might be a good idea to in case it's not resolved why it to schedule an a discussion of proposition e in 2008 whiches the proposition that gave the board of supervisors power to vote on this. the vote was loud and clear in proposition 8 that we want the public utilities commissioners. for example commissioner vietor has clear environmental just --

justice experience. i have to put on my consumer activist hat we have to do more digging. we may apply for a different sfpuc. we must honor that ballot measure and if we get to lafco meeting time next month, if this decision hasn't been made. it might not hurt to have a brief discussion about what that proposition is about and how we should be honoring that proposition. we need badly for the help of cleanpowersf to have a ratepayer advocate and stay on stop of it. >>supervisor london breed: thank you very much. any other members of the public.. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> with that, we are at the end of our meeting. again, thank you all very much for coming out today. thank you to the advocates, to the mayor and everyone else who is going to continue to work with us all to make sure that we launch clean power this year. thanks, again. this meeting is adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>. >> golden state good evening, everyone welcome to the january 20, 2015, of the entertainment commission my name is b the inteblth is a huge

part of our everyday life everyone with the seniors use it for work and play. although there's a many valuable websites on