we find that it's -- you know, we have concerns about the bill and cal c.c.a.res those concerns especially regarding decarbonization? and -- oh, thank you. so we think it's actually preferable and more strategic and effective to let environmental and at -- like, consumer ad row cass see organizations lead on this. we're supporting them, we're working with them, including sierra club, turn, 350.org. so this bill would only impact commercial customers, it would not impact residential customers? and you know, we see these community choice programs are choice, and we're already competing with the i.o.u.s, so we'll have to do our best to compete with direct access providers should this bill pass. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. commissioners? commissioner pollock? no. any comments? none at all. let's hear from our public comment speakers, please. >> yes. eric brooks again, san francisco clean energy advocates and californiians for clean energy choice. i really have to strongly challenge what i just heard from sfpuc staff. the only reason ab 813 got o

>> well, cal c.c.a. is one voice among many and i think that cal c.c.a. is working very hard to make sure that c.c.a.s voice is heard. i think that one -- one thing that we're observing through this process is that we think that it's very important that the state regulators hear more and more from the communities themselves and members of the community who care about c.c.a. service and customer choice. so that's one thing that i think that we'd like to also work more -- work together on to ensure. that champions of what we're doing are able to represent san francisco in these forums. so -- but, you know, the cpuc heard us out along with others. there's some complex issues. but like i said i think that the report itself is alarmist. really unnecessarily so. and a lot of what they're concerned about are issues that are under their purview and being addressed through open proceedings they have that can be -- can be addressed through their public process. so i think that we'll have to see a little bit with respect to how much influence and how much we're bein

so the members of cal c.c.a. are crucial to this and the sfpuc has been neutral and not pushing. we need you to ask them to push for a "no" vote on this bill and on sfb27. and one note with regard to wiener, he has the same concerns that have been announced by some of the opponents but he did vote "yes yet just to move it forward and not necessarily because he supports it. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much, miss lynch. >> thank you for considering this. this is a key and critical change in california's energy policy. basically it's going to repeal two important energy crisis protections that we got in in 2001. one was that california appoints the board of directors that runs the grid and our electricity markets. and two was that it's a california public benefits corporation. both of those key protections will be repealed almost immediately. now the proponents say that it doesn't matter, we're under federal law and we'll be under federal law tomorrow. the difference is who enforces and interprets that federal law. and if we didn't think that it mattered who did that w

the only reason ab 813 got out of committee is that cal c.c.a. did not opposed it. had they opposed 237 in committee, it might have been held back in committee or at least would have gotten less votes which gives us a stronger ability to kill it in the future. i really -- and the idea that being in a neutral position and claiming that you're working with environmental groups that have an opposed position, when your agency, your trade association is the reason that these bills are moving forward, is not legitimate. and i'm sorry to get back into a position to have to strongly challenge the sfpuc, but this is one of those times. if direct access is opened up, every large city that has large commercial and industrial customers, especially those that have not established community choice yet, all of those companies will be decimated. all the companies will leave even if they're getting clean energy because they're getting a better deal with bigger companies with lower economies of scale. so this is not really good. we need the board of supervisors to pressure the sfpuc.