>> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> any other questions, colleagues? commissioner pollock. >> i'm fine. thanks. >> so the question i have we have talked a number of times in our past meetings about the p.c.i. a exit fees. have you had conversations with our representatives in sacramento about legislation to fix pg&e's proposed increase in the p.c.i. a? >> so the city and the sfpc is working with our cal cca colleagues on, you know, developing approaches, legislative approaches to address things like the p.c.i.

a. i would say it is a very, very high priority for the clean power sf program as well as other operating ccas in california. >> i saw some social media activity from senator scott weiner that looks like he would support municipalizing bg and e and having a public power program. if there is a willingness to do such a big step he might be a champion for addressing the p.c.i. a. >> yes, we have been working with senator wiener. he has been a great champion for us as well as a great convener much others with -- other

elected officials within the cca community to provide a sounding board, thought partner on what kind of changes the cca community might want that the legislators would be ready to act upon, and we are in the final days of putting together the legislation that the ccas will be requesting be introduced to address p.c.i. a and other concerns about the marketplace. the bankruptcy, of course, kind of made everybody go something else is going on here we need to also pay attention to, right? whether that, you know, of necessity requires folks to pitch vit to address bankruptcy related concerns, we will see. we have a nice team among the

cca and legislative community to work to put solutions before the legislature this session. >> how much lee way does the legislature have? they can overturn the ruling on p.c.i. a? is that how i understand it? >> that is probably fair to say, but the concept of the indifference charge was a statutory contract. it came from statute. the legislature could say we are going to rewrite that section and change things. >> if pg&e, if and when they file bankruptcy, how does that affect the p.c.i. a? does it go away or operate the

same way? >> the basis for the p.c.i. a. there are unavoidable above market cost the utility is incurring. that goes to the fact that in bankruptcy cord pg&e may present obligations, costs it is obligated to pay the bankruptcy judge would through that bankruptcy process decide to forgive pg&e at least at some level. you hear about creditors coming out of bankruptcy getting paid x cents on the dollar. there is concern that is part of what is going to happen. what that would mean. >> if the bankruptcy court were to make rulings like that, that would mean that pg&e would have

lower above market obligations to pass on to ccas. that would mean that there may be downward pressure from the bankruptcy court on the p.c.i. a rate. all other things staying the same. >> is there similarly increased liabilities that could increase the p.c.i. a or do you feel like it would be a downward moving number? >> the p.c.i. a is only associated with generation. >> the liabilities in terms of fires? >> right, steps to address the liability with the distribution system would increase distribution rates.

i would not expect them to increase the p.c.i. a. >> that is helpful. thank you. i know that we have a joint meeting coming up. my questions to submit to you and i can read these off and i will send them to you, not to answer now but questions for the joint meeting. if i could just read those to give us a few outlines of the potential revenue bond programs. worse case with the proposed p.c.i. a. best case with revised p.c.i. a, how would increased super-green enrollment increase our bonding capacity? how would a premium local renewable power program increase the bonding capacity? if we identify another source of revenue like a carbon tax, state or federal funds or general funds? how could that increase the

bonding capacity? those are my questions for the jointer meeting. >> thank you for sharing those in advance. >> i wanted to get them on the record in lafco. thank you both so much for this presentation. it is very helpful. i think next step also for the joint meeting is to look at the timeline. i know on slide 26 you talk about commence of the 10 year capital planning process and development of new local energy program. early part of 2020. am i doing the math wrong? . >> that is the spring of this year. >> spring of this year. >> fiscal year end 2019. that is july of 2019. >> i did the math wrong.

the actual build out plan then begins in july 2019? >> let me take a moment to talk about how the capital planning process works. that might help. we have a capital planning process. we began the internal work in capital planning in preparation for next budget approval. for us the spring period is when we will be doing staff work to present to our general manager, executive management team the capital plan we proposed for clean power sf. that part of the process usually runs from around september to november where we are from

internal mode to look at competing needs, what are we going to fund. this will be the first time we have a clean power sf capital plan. the capital plan and operating budget typically goes to our commission in january. we have a series of budget focused workshops day long sessions to address the operating and capital plans. that feeds into the budget the mayor proposes. the capital planning committee also has a role of overview and oversight for all departments including the pc. it will have an oversight role of the new clean power capital plan. the capital plan and operating budgets get adopted through the process the board of supervisors runs. >> will the local build out plan be in the capital plan? >> it will have local build out

plans for clean power sf. that is our intention. >> when is the first time this body could be updated on the plan. >> i will propose. i will take this back to check with folks. i would propose after the general manager is comfortable with what we are proposing might be a good time. i would propose something that addresses it with this body, you know, in parallel with addressing it with our commission or shortly after addressing it with our commission. >> you are addressing it with your commission in january? correct. assuming we stay on the same schedule we have been on important for air number of years. >> it could be in our meeting if

you are presenting to your commission in january. >> yes, if we are presenting in january of 2020 at my commission, we would be in a position to present here in february of 2020 a capital plan as it is being vetted through the standard capital planning process. >> so kay. thank you -- okay. thank you. >> as you are developing the build-up plan and capital plan, where can lafco interjector give suggestions or work on some of the aspect of the plan? quite frankly when i looked at the presentation today. it is very thorough. i thought i would see more of a fiscal build-up plan. at the last meeting they mentioned the build-up plan. when i look at this, i am

looking at what occurred and not a actual buildout plan for the sites. san francisco sfo parking lot, hunters point. littlalso is there a need for ay to look at other sites within the city and county of san francisco. some of the land that pc owns outside of the city of san francisco? >> we do look at city-controlled property for development. the sites that are in the next report came from that body of work we have done. we presented the work we have done and they presented it in the report to you. through the professional services consultants we talked

about earlier, we use those teams to help us evaluate those sites. it is a process that will continue. we can share with you the prior reports we have done that describe the sites and suitability for development. >> have we looked? have they identified other sites with feasibility? >> off the top of my head i couldn't tell you if there are sited outside of what is presented to you in the report. we can definitely doublecheck. >> since you mentioned this is ongoing and you are looking at sites and possibilities. i know the pc owns property outside of san francisco. san mateo county my have possibilities. we would be interested in being kept abreast of what your study ends up showing if you are adding these sites and the level

of fees build for the build-up sites. >> sure, happy to do that. commissioner singh. >> i wanted to tack on to that i would be interested and others would be interested in any records on par cell e of the shipyard. in light of everything that has come out i could see how that would be delayed for a very long time. >> let's open up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to speak about this? please line up you have two minutes. >> eric brooks, california for energy choice. once again as usual i want to thank and congratulate the sfpc for making real and serious progress. that is good. just to dovetail off the last piece of conversation you got

into with barbara. what i heard her say is that the sfpc in 2020, a year from now will be putting in its capital plan buildout plans with an s. that means small individual projects identified individually. it doesn't mean city and county wide and territory wide plan. that is because it is the sfpc job could be conservative with the plans. that is not its role that needs to come from the legislature and board of supervisors. right now we have a situation where the world is waking up. the green party since the mid 2 thoughs are talking about a new deal now progressive

democrats like cortez are driving for a green deal. world war ii level mobilization in every city on earth t to buid out a real plan for the entire city and county. that is what we need. that is where in 2019 we need the board of supervisors to pass a plan, to study and pass a plan, maybe have the study done through lafco so that when 2020 rolls around we are telling the sfpc this is what we want you to build. show us how you are going to build it. we don't have to count on the sfpc to do a job it is not connected to do. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, jeff hotel man senior policy analyst. i want to thank staff for the hard work. we look forward t to the full

rollout of the program for six years. we are excited for april the end of an era and hopefully the beginning of another. i want to thank you for asking did hard questions that led to this presentation today. there is a lot of conversations that need to be had. it is unfortunate what is happening with pg&e is adding the angle to readdress the ownership issue. i am worried about taking our eye off the ball of the clean energy issue. i would like as the representative of 350 in the room to remind you if we do not do our part to address the climate problem it is unlikely city and counties will be doing

it. whether or not we own the wires will be immaterial by 2050. we may not even be here by 2050. i would like to put the focus on what's at stake. not to say i have not been a supporter of public power in the past. that is a long discussion not for this meeting. to mr. brooks' comment there is a distinction between the best cost development of renewable energy resources like we are doing now and affirmative choice to do energy efficiency build out and green jobs plan and best cost version of that in that policy. >> any other speakers? public comment is closed.

can you please call item 4, madam clerk. >> no action was taken on this item. update on emerging mobility services labor study. i would like to invite officer bryan goebel to present on this item along with lea troeh. >> we are here to present today preliminary findingses of the review on the labor study on emerging mobility services. i want to update a few items before the presentation. first, our request for proposals for the labor survey has been posted. i am beginning the process of considerable outreach hoping the uc berkeley labor center will be one of them. i have had talks with them.

the r.f.p. is posted. deadline to submit is marc march 15th. secondly, there is a graduate class at the university of san francisco that was going to be contributing to the study. i am happy to report today i met with the professor and that class commenceses january 21st. there will be three specific study areas, geographic and political economics in the speck tore. special and geographic, politics and lobbying and best practices. the students hope to present findings to lafco in may at our meeting. third i updated the timeline for the study. some aspects of it have taken longer than i anticipated. i included that in the packet.

we hope to wrap up by october and by sometime this summer come up with a final report of policy recommendations. throughout this process we are examining best practices of other cities, the graduate class is going to look into that as well. we have preliminary findings our emerging mobility intern is here today to give you a presentation. >> i am officially done with my internship. to put icing on my cake. our emerging mobility study is looking at labor practices in companies that use a platform to match services with customers and independent contractors. the gig economy.

my preliminary literature review showed three trends. radiation, how u.s. and global cities are regulating these labor practices and emerging mobility companies. that is what our study is first based upon but you can expand that definition to thinks such as sometimes called digital marketplace when we will get into later. portable benefits came up a lot. we were not expecting this, we will get into this later. employee benefits that are portable. lastly public and private partnerships. what public transit agencies are taking from the private and vice versa. regulations.

predictable results. there is a lot of friction and confusion who is ultimately responsible for achieving policy goals such as equity and safety and reduction of pollution and congestion. regulation does not apply to the same agencies. it starts at different times. lawmakers are pushing for that government must mandate operating information the from regulated entities and there should be one regulatory body in the region and state that monitors and oversees all mobility operators, public and private. anyway, there are trends on this. new york, they are mandating that companies must share with the taxi and limousine

commission. if you don't share you don't operate. washington state has legislation about workers classification. are they independent contractors? are they employees, self-employed? >> seattle gave them the right to unionize. in europe they have the wait and see approach. we will regulate it when it comes around and we see how the companies regulate themselves and interact with the public. they are finding that hasn't worked. labor classification and worker rights are jeopardizedded. it is pushed they must be regulated consistently from the start. if you don't comply with regulations, you do not operate. london is imminenting fair treatment and breaks and limits.

uber acquiesced. they are putting it on the big economy firms to work with them on worker classification. the companies must prove to the regulators about the worker classification. you prove to us they are self-employed, not the other way around. we don't have to investigate you to tell you what is happening with the classification. lastly, the companies would be liable for paying worker benefits, holiday pay, national minimum wage. mexico city implemented 1.5% fee on the company for each ride share ride given that goes to air publico a public fund. portable benefits? workers own benefits, not tied to a specific company.

company makes fixed rate contribution. benefiters cover independent workers. it is mobile. you can take it with you. your retirement, your maternal, paternal leave. it is a draw because it mainta maintains flexibility that employees and employers like, the gig economy. the affordable care act marketplace where workers can shop around for benefits package that benefits them. one example is from dc. it is about paid leave. paid family leave. they raise this from employee payroll tax from workers who want to opt-in. this is an example of the regulations proposed.

none of them have been implemented. they are very diverse. here in california they do nined the digital marketplace. this is an organization that operating digital internet website or smartphone application that facilitates the traditional services to individuals or entities seeking those services. it does not accept services request by telephone or fax or in person at a fis a physical l operation. you needy electricity. it is not a store that delivers things. that is another sort of name for this emerging mobile de or gig economy. the other notable things about the proposed legislature is it

requires companies to pay to health benefits plan administered by the employment development department and prevents discrimination under the fair employment housing act which is not in many or most of the legislation about regulating the gig economy companies. this died in committee last november. washington state we have portable pro rated universal benefits. one notable think about their proposed legislation. it was only for companies with 50 plus contractors to provide benefits and to a benefit fund for the independent contractors. one last one in virginia, $20 million in grant funding to assist on an experiment with the economy. there is legislation proposed

about similar things. why are these appealing to both parties? flexibility. very appealing to gig economy companies because they still don't have to call their workers employees. then they can't be sued about worker misclassification. handy came out in front. people come to clean your home. they wanted to say if you have this legislation, then you are saying, yes, we will give you portable benefits, but then you are putting in writing you are an independent contractor, not an employee to unionize. portable benefits cost companies less than providing employee benefits.

here you find uber and seattle unions forms a partnership for portable benefits. costs can be passed off to customers. public and private ask what interests the late borstudy. the employment relationship between city, company and drivers. some public agencies are taking on practices of the gig economy companies to have on demand services in the public transit options. they are saying, yes, put the buses instead of regular buses late at night with ridership low we will have it on demand. some companies down south have the program where they are partnering with lift to provide the public transit service.

that does include accessible services. you call and i think rides are $2. they are subsidized by the city. it is for all users, but, yes, basically lift is the public transportation. in ontario there is a transit partnership with uber to save the town more than $8 million in comparison to door-to-door bus service. in texas, you can book a mercedes-benz through an app subsidized by the city for $3 a trip. you can call to book a ride. you do not need a mobile phone to do that. these are all interesting ways to do that. what we are interesting in are the labor practices are the lift and uber drivers performing the

city's public operations employees of the city, end contractors? what is that looking like and playing out? part of our study will look at and call those companies. in conclusion, there aren't really best practices to tell you because we don't know what is working or not for all places. it works differently with different riderships. it is better to study and see how the regulations emerge. this is from november, this research that i did. in the last two months things have changed. some of the pilots ended. probably the legislation has gone through the committee. that is all. thanks. >> thank you very much. any questions?

yes. >> i want to thank you for this report. it was well-done and i appreciate that you spent your intern ship at lafco doing this. i was listening to a program where they were discussing the new california decision doing a new test on which workers are independent contractors. the abc test is so much better now than it used to be. i am a former worker rights attorney and represented a lot of miss classifie mississauga cs classified workers. there is an effort in the california state legislature right now to coddy fiin

legislation the new law as, you know, created in a way by the supreme court, which is reverse how things are usually done but very welcome. under the abc law it is very unlikely uber and lyft drivers are independent contractors. it will be interesting to see how the whole landscape changes based on this new california decision. i think it will change a lot in terms of what we see in terms of rights workers have and how they are classified in california and i think it is going in the right direction. i want to add that. >> i want to say thank you. this is fascinating. especially i did not know about the public private initiatives where municipalities are

subsidizing. i wanted to make a report on it. i am glad you brought that up. the elephant in the room is that for uber definitely and possibly for lyft it is estimated 40% of the cost of each ride is subsidized by venture be capital. they want to keep those going. so far these haven't run out of venture capital at all, but i think the idea they are trying to get to a point where one has monopoly power to increase the ride rates. it will be interesting to see if they are trying to now extract money from municipalities how that plays into their internal plans to keep this feed of venture capital going or phase out of it. i am glad you brought that up.

>> i want to say thank you, also. when i spoke to mta they were debating whether or not they would partner with lyft for the services. i cautioned them. you can't have it both ways. we see that this lyft and uber are competing with us in public transportation and we say it is okay. it is interesting when other municipalities are doing that. how do they strike a balance on this? they may not be seeing what we the magnitude of the economy and what it is doing to or congestion and the services like policing, you know, how they take away revenue from our public transportation system.

how do you balance that, i think, would be interesting to find out with the municipaliti municipalities, i could see how it could be. for example lyft wanted to do senior service vans. it would be easy to say we have a contract with you and they would have liability for drivers and passengers and we would contract with them. i think it is a slippery slope there. thank you so much. i really appreciate that. i will call for public comment. they may have questions for you. public comment. any members of the public? mr. brooks. >> eric brooks speaking for the green party and for our city san francisco. it is a good preliminary report raising the important issues that need to be raised.

it is lacking an important perspective theme aticly to get back on the table that is that in the beginning of the sharing economy, it was sharing. it was people individually contacting each other through the internet to share jobs and rides and resources. then the people that started uber and lift came along. if we stick ourselves in the middle of the relationship we can make a profit off this. they developed software. that is all they are is code. it is software but they stick in between the customer and the rider and driver to just make money. there is no reason for uber and lyft to exist at all. mta could develop the same code not-for-profit, city run and

owned, all drivers could work for the city, get city benefits, the whole nine yards. that is the one thing i say a theme ongoing in the future. we need to get away the idea we allow them to exist in our community at all. the other thing with the pg&e breakups especially we will see in the state legislature a lot every forming in the public utilities. if not we are going from the frying pan to the fire. part of that needs to be taking transportation responsibilities and giving them back to the city so we are in control of the transportation. >> any other members of the public? seeing none public comment is

closed. we need local control but also i can see autonomous vehicles being introduced. it goes on and on. any questions or comments? there is no action for the commission on this matter. madam clerk add time five. >> a discussion on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2019-2020. >> do you have a presentation for us on the proposed budget? >> thank you. as you know, lafco is required to approve the proposed budget by may first and finally budget by june 1st. i will present a proposed budget at the april meeting. i am proposing a budget requesting the full amount from the city and county of san francisco and i have provided

you today with an updated expenditure the year end sheet. these are our projected spending to the end of the fiscal year so we will actually have a carryover for next year's budget of almost $60,000, and our clean power sf budget with the m.o.u. will be at $195,000. that is the balance. i just want to bring this item to your attention today to see if you had any feedback moving forward and any discussion. >> thank you very much. any questions? yes, commissioner pollock. >> this is very helpful. we have discussed in terms of planning going forward the m.o.u. for clean power sf

between lafco and sf p.u.c. that was renewed last year so that means that it won't be for renewal until 2020. >> actually no. the renew alexspires at the -- renewal will expire at the end of this fiscal year. >> it is actually at the end of this year. we either need to renew the m.o.u. or come up with a new m.o.u. and decide that. >> when does the p.u.c. present that to the board of supervisors? >> that i am not sure about. i am discussing with staff in preparation with the march 15th

joint meeting. >> do the remaining funds remain with lafco if the m.o.u. is not renewed or does that exhaust the funds. i believe we would need to extend the m.o.u. to continue to have access to the funds. >> the board's regular budget process starts in june. if we could have answers in terms of the m.o.u., that would inform our discussion about budget in april if we could know how that will be presented inian. the times is terrible. we need to approve the budget before the budget process at the board. it is complicated. thank you. >> any other commissioners? this opens it for public comment. any members of the public.

mr. brooks. >> california's for energy choice, mr. brooks again. i would urge you as i have in the past to be as jealous of your funds as possible and careful as possible. make sure you name down what is said so we get all of your funds. in light of the importance of the world war ii mobilization we have to get going. i would like to see you dedicate full funding to yourself instead of kicking it back to the board of supervisors right now. this is a key time the lafco needs to be strong, including things like the public bank work we need to get on as well. thanks. >> thank you very ever. public comment be is now closed. please call item 6.

on. >> no action on item 5. the executive officer's report. >> mr. goebel. >> this is bee be brief. march 15th is the date of our regular lafco meeting. the clerk at the p.u.c. is poling -- polling the commissioners to make sure that is okay. i want to make sure it works for you on that day. i will work with the staff to develop the agenda for that meeting and put in a request to use room 250. >> thank you very much. could you give us a deadline

with some advance notice of when we could submit questions to you that could be covered in the joint meeting so if we had a little bit of time in advance for myself and commissioner and staff to prepare questions that will want to be covered in the joint meeting. >> i will be happy to. usually the deadline is a week before the meeting. that would be early march. >> a week before the meeting won't give them adequate time to prepare any type of presentation in a formal way. if you could ask when they would want the questions in advance. >> got you. no significant updates on state legislation. i have been in touch with our legislator's offices. there is talk about a regionalization bill. i am not sure if that is going

to move forward. i have been keeping tabs on the p.c.i. a question about state legislation. i am in contact with the legislatures about that. they are talking about this but not ready to go public. the other item today i want to welcome our new clean power sf intern winston parsons who is here today. he will be helping out with research into local build out and examining best practices of other cities with renewable energy goals and looking at practices perhaps we could apply in san francisco. winston is getting his masters if you are ban and public affairs at the university of san francisco and will be part of the class helping out with the

emerging mobility study. i want to welcome winston. >> welcome. >> to the chair. i just wanted to publicly signal that i think that between our last meeting and this meeting there has been a major change in what is happening at pg&e. you know, i have been very public along with supervisor peskin, and i know that supervisor fewer agrees that basically we would be fools not to fully take advantage of a very incredible tragedy to seriously look at and begin steps to municipalize the utility. i disagree with one of our public speakers from the bay

area about the fact that somehow doing so would run counter to our efforts to have a local buildout, to make sure we are creating more clean energy. it is just the opposite. i think that having a local utility that isn't in a profit motive in the end result that we are recapturing back value to allow us to meet goals of providing a safer, cost-effective and reliable product to our customers and invest more capital in the build out plan for renewable energy profile or portfolio i should say, not profile. this is something that i as a

lafco commissioner am really interested in. i don't know if this is something that we want to, you know, schedule deeper discussion for the next meeting or talk offline before the next meeting and all of the reports, but i think it is an unexpected offense, the bankruptcy that might for me shift my priorities about what this body is doing in this period of time. we need to focus in on this task of what does this look like, what do we need to do, what are the fundings sources, what type of new agency, what outside experts do we need to contract with, where do we get the funding source to contract without side experts? this is something that is urgent that, you know, supervisor chair

who is on the budget committee could look at. it is something supervisor peskin and i are beginning to look like with the budget supplemental. i have a lot of interest in refocusing the energy of this body on that endeavor, you know, in the near term time. i would love to hear, you know, opinions of our director and my fellow commissioners on that point. >> thank you very much. commissioner singh. >> i agree with commissioner ronan and i want to echo what mr. brooks said about the nature of the task. we need to be as prepared as san

francisco and california as much as humanly possible knowing what is ahead and something on the order of a third of global market capitalization of all production in the world, 30% of that capitalization is reliant on fossil fuels or industries that require fossil fuels and it is based off future values for the company which is currently on the reserves they have. if we want to reserve the reserves that affect all of the production most of that needs to stay in the ground. i don't see how if we don't start taking municipalization

seriously, we are going to see the civilization in the national markets to prepare for. they are predicated on the idea we will continue to consume at this rate. it is important for everybody. if we can't do it here, where else can we do it? >> commissioner pollock. >> thank you so much. you bring up very important points in terms of the focus of lafco and looking toward clean power sf shifting to a more front burner topic that the body is looking at. i think this will impact what we talk about in terms of the work plan for lafco, our budget.

any oater of outside or in house expertise we need. probably you will be doing discussions with each of the offices and with myself and commissioner singh to give you our ideas for the next lafco meeting in february. >> i agree that there is an urgency to this, and i look forward to working with you and your staff to figure out what the next steps will be for lafco to make this a priority. >> let's open up for public comment. any members of the public like to speak. >> good afternoon, eric brooks, california for clean energy choice, the green party. i just want to speak to this issue. the question is not whether or not to municipalize our

electricity system. the question is when and how. those of us near the beginning of community choice, and those at the beginning like paul fin. always envisioned it as a half step towards municipalization. the problem we have is that i believe under the law we have to have a ballot measure for the public to vote yes to municipalize. if they decide to be opposition alto that. that is a fight but the biggest problem is what we saw in the presentation today. that is a municipal utility has different utilities than an entity like clean power sf which is laser focused on clean energy. los angeles is behind on clean energy.

when you are a municipal auutility you have a different landscape. they are still using coal in los angeles. what we need to do in my view and most community choice views municipalize but first get community choice fully off the ground, make sure that the board of supervisors has passed the buildout plan directed them to start building it. as you build out the system you will see where you need to acquire pg and e resources. if we municipalize immediately, that is billions we have to spend to buy the wires. >> we cannot get so far ahead of ourselves. >> thank you. any other public comment? public comment is closed.

can you please call item 7? >> for the record item 6 no action. eye attempt 7 public comment. >> any members of the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. can you please call item 8. >> future agenda items. >> any future agenda items? we might have mentioned one today. would you like to continue the discussion about the direction of lafco? >> yes on the future agenda item? >> i can add that to future agenda items. if we could have our executive officer talk about on the agenda in your executive officer report to have a discussion about the work plan and budget and how that dovetails with pg&e

acceleration of how we discuss clean power sf. >> thank you very much. any other items? yes, i'm sorry. >> if i could clarify that. what i could do at the next meeting is agendize a revised work plan and bring that back to you for approval at the next meeting. >> thank you very much. >> i don't think this needs on the agenda for the next lafco meeting. what is going on with pg&e has shifted our best laid plans a little bit. i want to recognize on the record the momentum towards public banking this year. i want to noncommittally suggest

that we consider agendizing the public bank stuff in the next few meetings. >> thank you very much. any members of the public? >> one last time eric brooks. all of the groups i mentioned before. yes, on your next agenda before the joint meeting with sfpc please start unpacking this municipalization process and what it means and implications. another thing to focus on is that in the last pg&e bankruptcy after enron they took $5 billion and shuttled to the wall street parent corporation and then the ratepayers paid $5 billion for no reason whatsoever except for the shell game. we need to protect ourselves

both locally and on the state level against games like that. then i want to also one quick note on the uber lyft thing, it would be helpful to the public if the executive officer could start putting the words such as uber and lyft in the lines of that item. a lay person wouldn't know it is about uber and lyft. it would be nice if you could indulges that. that is one piece we need to pay attention to ab56. i believe it is assembly member garcia. i think i am right on the name. what it will do is centralize all energy procurement decisions under a state agency. that would clearly be really bad