>> david pilpel. one of my favorite topics continues to be the list of bad people. i really would love for the new year, if we could put together the list of all of the individuals who owe fees, fines, forms and other things starting with f to the commission and why and periodically update that and work to get people off that list. i know i have said this many, many times before the commission. it would just be great if we could do that at some point and the goal of course is not to shame or publicize, but to get people off that list. we would really prefer that the people comply and i think not compiling that and publicizing that makes it feel people can get away with stuff and if they ride out the statute of limitations long enough, there won't be any penalty? >> how long is that list? >> non-filers? >> i don't think we know. there are different people that or on the list? >> you are talking about [kpao-eupbg/] combining three or four different lists? >> correct. >> i think that is worth putting on our list on the website. >> and if i could conclude my last commen

. >> david pilpel. i haveneñ?ñ? spoken to angela, , and rick, about the proposed rules.ign is not 6.9, it'síúñ?ñ? 6.8 in the íar my two biggest concerns at this appeals. one. sorry. this will take me a moment to finde÷ñ?ñ?ñ. 419? sorry. thankjzñ?ñ? you. 4.19, public hearingnlñ?ñ? on a, i would really like the order2af the appeal presenters to be changed so that on the bulleted list on pageñ?ñ? 31 of the drat that's before you, it wouldçñ?ñe the appellant first,quñ?ñ? thene agency representative, then the leader of the opposition or essentially the real party, and following that person supporting the appellant, persons opposing the appellant, and then theoñ?ñ? appellant with rebuttal. there are instances when i've appeared at appeal hearings and not been clear÷ñ?ñ? on whether m supporting or opposing the appeal and wanted to hear from both sides, and then be able to weigh in. and the current rule doesn't really allow for that. also, that rule doesn't make clear filed should be handledçñ?ñ? separately. it's my view that anyone who brings in $500 and asks for an appeal to

aisle take a david pilpel -- after all, and that is i believe the board of supervisors in the legislationthat could be staff is going ahead with four and a half anyway. i think it has latitude to do had that but you might want to k there's not a disconnect there. more importantly i unfortunately have to raise a red flag on our process and that is that -- you know, over the past couple of years, we've had some great harmony with staff. staff has been really good. i think we've achieved a lot, and the fact that there's past in september and we're on our way is very impressive. however in the last couple of stakeholders meetings, we, in the advocacy community, have become somewhat alarmed, and somewhat may be an understatement. in those stakeholders meetings we finally got the 400,000 -- a lot of the results from the $400,000 worth of work that we've been asking for years that you do to prepare for the local installation of hundreds of megawatts of renewables in san francisco. we also knew that once that information was prepared, and we just got introduced to their initial financial model th

>>7 8im%u david pilpel with the department of public comment. we heard this two weeks ago.d those can always be made better. and the appointments to them are largely within your control. so as those appointments come up i[eñ?ñ? think you can and should ask whatever questions are appropriate to%[qjc candidates. one actually a couple of quick things. the amended=v legislation extends the committee for three years. if there is interest in reorganizia8-irgv the committee, you may want to extend it for less than three years so that you could extenduyflsuf again or restructure it prior to that ké)áqq year continuance. there is also reference on page 2, line 19, to+b2$ submitting a resolution of the board supporting the extension.g-i1ao i didn't find that in the file. if that could make its way into the file so it'sp board if this advances out of committee that would bej!""4% helpful. finally, the chair of the puc citizens advisorye! 9ú:> committee, terence jones, was at this meeting couldn't stay, asked me to communicate his1(m÷jíc concern that the bogfy ofs --é,+ the members of

. >> david pilpel. i haveneñ?ñ? spoken to angela, , and rick, about the proposed rules..19, public hearingnlñ?ñ? on a, i would really like the order2af the appeal presenters to be changed so that on the bulleted list on pageñ?ñ? 31 of the drat that's before you, it wouldçñ?ñe the appellant first,quñ?ñ? thene agency representative, then the leader of the opposition or essentially the real party, and following that person supporting the

>>7 8im%u david pilpel with the department of public comment. we heard this two weeks ago. i did asl