understands they're in a long-term secular change on how humanity is going to consume energy. so they are now beginning to use predictive analytics to be able to predict when solar and wind will be available and the know demand and weather is predictable within a few hours. if you watch baseball they know when it will start raining within about 15 minutes. so there's a lot of good technology coming on board to help energy companies forecast when solar and wind will be available and deliver that when they are and when they're not, to deliver traditional sources. government can be a huge leader, a huge problem solver but to do it, it needs to be done together

globally. >> in our engagement can we use it to be more powerful. >> there was a globalsome it in san francisco and there was a public advocacy. some peers do recognize the role of asset owners to advocate generally about public policy around responsible investing issues, environmental issues, social issues. we can certainly be more vocal

and advocate for the policy side. we can only pull the lever so far ourselves moving investment dollars is not the silver bullet for any solution. we can communicate and discuss how stakeholders can contribute to issues we affect and ultimate affect us and our returns. >> there's one other way the government can be a leader and they are currently beginning to take what i think is good action. there's a national goal of establishing millions, to have a completely integrated grid. the goal here -- right now they have millions of sensors. i think 15 million. but the goal is to have the

entire energy grid completely integrated. if they do that, we can be much smarter about resource allocation. and about capital allocation. that's another method we can just be much smarter about resource allocation rather than delivering energy when it's not needed. delivering oil and gas when it's not needed. delivering electricity when it's not needed. we can be much smarter about resource allocation. we're increasingly becoming smarter about that. that's a national goal. i forget the year, it might be 2030. >> i think what commissioner stansbury said and from the board of supervisors the s. and g. are important.

i've seen initiatives from other funds on that. the 30% the governor signed in for women on boards, we have heard data that, that presents an actual benefit to investment portfolio and i see what you say from goldman. so it would be great for us to look at what we're doing there. companies have said they want 30% women on boards, it happened in california and we look forward to seeing what you're going to come up with the board can be head on those issues. there is no doubt to me that engagement is so strong. i know commissioner stansbury and i, when we meet with private equity firms we press them on these areas. they've been really core in

those areas. we have two partners out of 40 that are women and to do it in a positive way where you can do better than that but not only that, it offers you better investment results. we have been pretty silent here as a board on a lot of the other issues. it can have positive results in the portfolio so for you to have a path working with consultants in those areas and how to impact that well and so i know that by us pressing our investment managers, their out looking for more opportunities around the world. there's no doubt about that. it just makes everybody better. that's why -- we have to divest in 12 months or whatever that

was to give you a path to do it prudently and develop that, i think that's how we have to do it to reach our 7.5%. to be smart about it and do it systematically. we know this say -- is a start and look forward to more. i just say thank you. this is a great read for us and pathway. >> commissioner, to the progress humanity has made, just in the last 70 years, the percentage of people in the world that live in desperate poverty has gone from 80% to less than 25%. that's remarkable. i think in our life time, we can bring that number down to 5%. i think we'll be able to deliver to produce foods synthetically at low cost and deliver it by

drone at low cost. part of that advancement in human experience is a huge amount of energy consumption and it's polluting the world. no question the human experience needs to change in how we produce and consume energy. if the world were to stop using fossil fuels -- everything is made of fossil fuel, the computers here, everything. there's no question we need to make changes but through resource allocation and further advancement in renewable technology and solar and wind, and engagement a lot of can be done. and engagement a lot of can be done. >> this is an action item. >> i have one more question.

has anything been said today that should give any of our stakeholders pause of where we're going in this direction? >> i think companies that raise resources whether they're human or environmental resources or any other resources are likely to be bad companies. if we keep our focus on the constructive side of this, as bill has talked about not to arbitrarily get rid of them but invest in those that are doing better and take advantage of new technologies is very consistent with your fiduciary. you -- if you had to sell every company that doesn't have two women on the board but to say to companies we fire -- fire --

hire is important but i'd like to get to the discussion of what we can do to make the companies we invest in better. and that should benefit all of us. >> an other -- >> the technology stuff bill talked about to repeat it, bill said reduce the demand, change the mix -- the government action can't be underestimated. taxing fossil fuel would do a lot to help. fiat in norway has adopted a measure not selling or producing gasoline-powered vehicles after 2020. the problem with those is it takes good government action and it's easier to do ironically in a dictatorship than non-dictatorship so it's harder to get the government to take

constructive actions in our circumstance so working more on the companies to behave better is a better hope than the governmental piece though we should as spire to that but the -- aspire to that but the technological changes going on and there's predictions all the owe sales have peaked because millennials don't buy cars. if you can rent and not buy the car it's a better use of resources. there's thing going on that are constructive that we can take advantage of from an investment perspective that don't carry the negative consequences. >> what about our other consultants? >> having a holistic approach stands out in the combination of good analytics an action.

there's a depth of analysis and i think andrew hit the ground running is an understatement. the deep analysis from investment perspective and looking at this from an investment perspective has been a real advancement over common practice and to have a clear fact-based time line makes it more accountable makes it a good distinction and showing where there's leverage and the deliberate apoach and -- approach and the diaper example, it's not just about the energy

sector but the whole economy. that push for performance of efficiency companies versus inefficient companies and low-carbon companies to look across all sectors and not leave out the rest of the work and then investment in solutions to the questions asked about renewables some of the private company investments that is a pretty complete package and the progress that's been made from what was a commitment from january to today, we see a lot of institutions tackle this in different ways and the roundedness of the plan and trade and execution has stood out. >> thank you. >> as brian was talking about the pampers example, i was thinking of pampers and bringing back cloth diapers. >> we outlawed straws.

>> we can outlaw pampers. >> so we have a water shortage in california so -- i wanted to hear from anybody up there. any other thoughts from anybody? >> one thing on the methodology i'd add sit was a great opportunity -- is it was a great opportunity to bring different perspectives into the organization and we spoke with a number of different nonprofits and looked at the carbon factors which ultimately ended up in the methodology and got a range of expert opinions.

i wanted to highlight that as a unique approach especially when you look more broadly at e.s.g. data that that stood out for us as well as thinking how the companies are positioned in the future where they're often looking at the historical path especially with climate change the future will look very different from the past. >> two thing i'd add on to that. one, adding the profit providers and the conventional researchers. and trying to have them together i think was interesting. and the focus of the public speaker's comment on trying to focus on transparent, shareable data can be usable in other context i think that emerged over time but is useful in terms of the functionality. >> the combination of both speakering with non-conventional sector analysis and leveraging

traditional financial data is another thing that i think ended up being a unique approach to what we've seen people do previously. >> thank you, i have nothing further. >> this is an action item. what is the board's desire? >> what is the recommended motion? >> for the board to approve the summary of recommended actions one through five. >> if you look at your computer screens it's the bottom section, one through five that is staff's recommendation. >> i'll make a motion. >> i'll second.

>> there's a motion. there's a second. commissioner driscoll. >> we did this last time and it led to problems. i do note the editing on item number one. i'm not going mess around with that one today, but does this take out the partnering issue the other six we adopted in january? it's not clear. she's five are sim -- these five are similar. >> number one is modified to remove the word passive. just that we would take $1 billion -- >> replacing previous number one with the new number one. so the six from january still stands. except the one item i'm crossing out, passive and recommendation number one. >> in addition to that, we're recommending the board approve

the four items. >> and strategy six. >> that is correct. items two through five are action items towards number six, the board approved in january. >> i still don't see the original number three and was wondering what is in the new five. i couldn't see that. maybe it's in there. >> in the recommended action items? >> we continue to proceed with strategy areas one through five as written in january. >> so recommended actions which are the continued collaboration and engagement. so if you look at your screen, we determined those didn't require additional action because those are next steps and

so number three on theton -- continued collaboration are bullet points on what the plan is. >> i'm going vote against it because the lack of clarity. >> let's clear it up. what's your lack of clarity? >> i can't figure out how the five covered the six in the other changes. >> so in the summary of recommended actions, numbers two, three, four and five fulfill the directive under strategy six. it was to define the strategy. >> i can help with this. >> if we look at item six on page one of the memo, so not what's on screen, define an

approach to identify. what we're seeing is items two through five in the summary of recommended actions are the approach that we are going to take. >> that's six. execution. >> that's right. >> and no changes in two through five except two are not going hire another -- [laughter] >> i'll make the amendment to this motion. you're basically saying what staff's recommendations is your motion? between listed numbers one and two say to implement step six of the january 24 and tie them in that way it will be clear two, three, four, five refer to number six. >> that's fine. >> fair enough. >> i do not want the same clarity problems that occurred

last. >> that's a good addition. >> thank you. >> that was an amendment. >> if the maker will accept the amendment. >> i will accept it as a second. >> the motion passes. >> we have to vote. >> we to -- we do have to vote. >> as long as you accept the amendment. >> and i concur. >> we have a motion by commissioner paskin-jordan and a second by commissioner casciato and there was an agreement from the maker and any questions from the board as to what is in front of us? any questions from staff? any discussion on this item? okay. i will call for the motion in a moment. i just want to highlight one thing, i said this before.

all divestment actions we take or restrictions we need to track and see how much it's making or costing the system. and i intend to make it a policy but it's probably a good practice any way for transparency purpose as staff so can you work on that so in the near future we see what's going on with the numbers. i say that because had we done this a year ago, hes corporation has been up 50% and that's among the five we're going divest. they're up over 50%. w dax energy up over 73% in one year on a one-year basis. so the stocks we're going to be getting rid of, had we done it a year ago we would have lost a

million dollars on. that's a reality the board needs to meet the shortfall somewhere and find better investment opportunities. be sure we're tracking this from the date that anything passes. >> roll call vote, please. >> yes. >> commissioner paskin-jordan. >> yes. >> commissioner stansbury. >> yes. >> commissioner safai. >> aye. >> commissioner driscoll. >> yes. >> commissioner bridges. >> aye. >> motion passes. thank you very much. this was our last item on the agenda for the day. we don't have -- do we have [indiscernible] on there? >> no. >> meeting adjourned. thank you for your time.

>> growing up in san francisco has been way safer than growing up other places we we have that bubble, and it's still that bubble that it's okay to be whatever you want to. you can let your free flag fry

he -- fly here. as an adult with autism, i'm here to challenge people's idea of what autism is. my journey is not everyone's journey because every autistic child is different, but there's hope. my background has heavy roots in the bay area. i was born in san diego and adopted out to san francisco when i was about 17 years old. i bounced around a little bit here in high school, but i've always been here in the bay. we are an inclusive preschool, which means that we cater to emp. we don't turn anyone away. we take every child regardless of race, creed, religious or ability.

the most common thing i hear in my adult life is oh, you don't seem like you have autism. you seem so normal. yeah. that's 26 years of really, really, really hard work and i think thises that i still do. i was one of the first open adoptions for an lgbt couple. they split up when i was about four. one of them is partnered, and one of them is not, and then my biological mother, who is also a lesbian. very queer family. growing up in the 90's with a queer family was odd, i had the bubble to protect me, and here, i felt safe. i was bullied relatively infrequently. but i never really felt isolated or alone. i have known for virtually my entire life i was not suspended, but kindly asked to not ever bring it up again in first grade, my desire to have

a sex change. the school that i went to really had no idea how to handle one. one of my parents is a little bit gender nonconforming, so they know what it's about, but my parents wanted my life to be safe. when i have all the neurological issues to manage, that was just one more to add to it. i was a weird kid. i had my core group of, like, very tight, like, three friends. when we look at autism, we characterize it by, like, lack of eye contact, what i do now is when i'm looking away from the camera, it's for my own comfort. faces are confusing. it's a lack of mirror neurons in your brain working properly to allow you to experience empathy, to realize where somebody is coming from, or to realize that body language means that. at its core, autism is a social disorder, it's a neurological

disorder that people are born with, and it's a big, big spectrum. it wasn't until i was a teenager that i heard autism in relation to myself, and i rejected it. i was very loud, i took up a lot of space, and it was because mostly taking up space let everybody else know where i existed in the world. i didn't like to talk to people really, and then, when i did, i overshared. i was very difficult to be around. but the friends that i have are very close. i click with our atypical kiddos than other people do. in experience, i remember when i was five years old and not wanting people to touch me because it hurt. i remember throwing chairs because i could not regulate my own emotions, and it did not mean that i was a bad kid, it

meant that i couldn't cope. i grew up in a family of behavioral psychologists, and i got development cal -- developmental psychology from all sides. i recognize that my experience is just a very small picture of that, and not everybody's in a position to have a family that's as supportive, but there's also a community that's incredible helpful and wonderful and open and there for you in your moments of need. it was like two or three years of conversations before i was like you know what? i'm just going to do this, and i went out and got my prescription for hormones and started transitioning medically, even though i had already been living as a male. i have a two-year-old. the person who i'm now married to is my husband for about two years, and then started gaining weight and wasn't sure, so i

we went and talked with the doctor at my clinic, and he said well, testosterone is basically birth control, so there's no way you can be pregnant. i found out i was pregnant at 6.5 months. my whole mission is to kind of normalize adults like me. i think i've finally found my calling in early intervention, which is here, kind of what we do. i think the access to irrelevant care for parents is intentionally confusing. when i did the procespective search for autism for my own child, it was confusing. we have a place where children can be children, but it's very confusing. i always out myself as an adult with autism. i think it's helpful when you know where can your child go.

how i'm choosing to help is to give children that would normally not be allowed to have children in the same respect, kids that have three times as much work to do as their peers or kids who do odd things, like, beach therapy. how do -- speech therapy. how do you explain that to the rest of their class? i want that to be a normal experience. i was working on a certificate and kind of getting think early childhood credits brefore i started working here, and we did a section on transgender inclusion, inclusion, which is a big issue here in san francisco because we attract lots of queer families, and the teacher approached me and said i don't really feel comfortable or qualified to talk about this from, like, a cisgendered straight person's perspective, would you mind talking a little bit with your own experience, and i'm like absolutely. so i'm now one of the guest

speakers in that particular class at city college. i love growing up here. i love what san francisco represents. the idea of leaving has never occurred to me. but it's a place that i need to fight for to bring it back to what it used to be, to allow all of those little kids that come from really unsafe environments to move somewhere safe. what i've done with my life is work to make all of those situations better, to bring a little bit of light to all those kind of issues that we're still having, hoping to expand into a little bit more of a resource center, and this resource center would be more those new parents who have gotten that diagnosis, and we want to be this one centralized place that allows parents to breathe for a second. i would love to empower from the bottom up, from the kid level, and from the top down, from the teacher level. so many things that i would love to do that are all about changing people's minds about certain chunts, like the transgender community or the

autistic community. i would like my daughter to know there's no wrong way to go through life. everybody experiences pain and grief and sadness, and that all of those things are temporary. >> when i open up the paper every day, i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i

was going switch over and poof it happened. now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment.