lafco doesn't do cca. they've done special studies for us. [multiple voices] >> so, we've got a person who is the interim executive director who is also serving as general counsel; is that correct? >> yes. >> and then we have someone who is the senior community development specialist, is that correct? >> correct. >> we're looking to merge the executive officer and the senior community development specialist? >> in essence what we're really doing is expanding the scope of what the senior community development specialist position can do. because when it was created by the board, that position was only allowed to work on cca related projects. >> does this expansion have a cost to it? >> no, it will be a cost savings. >> a cost savings. >> right. would you like me to explain why? >> yes, please explain why this is [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood] from the clerk's office. the costs will come in with the lower billable hours from the counsel that is currently serving as the executive officer. >> i see. have you cost out what th

lee, there is nothing in the california statute that requires the sf puc to be the response offer cca. i do think it would be the most logical choice, but given the political stalemate, i think it's smart for you to look at alternatives and there are many alternatives i think including marine, i think it's definitely work a conversation with them. there are cities in the formation process and this maybe even an opportunity to join statewide effort. i would welcome a conversation with you, miss miller in the future because i think there are some options that you ought to be considering. a couple quick comments. one is to let you know on wednesday, the county board of supervisors in san diego unanimously approved funding for cca study for the renewable energy program. i offer that up as an example as another large california city moving towards the cc accessible -- model. they have a way to go but in that direction. and the longer this goes, the more missed opportunity not only from a green perspective but from an economic perspective you have going on. we know that power prices are very low

possibility and what the process was for the richmond city council to be able to join the marine cca program. >> i can do research on behalf of that and i can ask the city attorneys office for guidance on that part. >> if i might add, the point is well-taken, i would suggest a two prong approach. i think, i think we should send a letter to the mayor pointing out the misrepresentations. if sf puc staff doesn't feel comfortable doing that, we should do that. i think lafco staff should do that and perhaps the chair would go to the meetings to talk about the concerns and frustration. i do think the point is well-taken that i don't think this is a policy question, but it's obviously also a political one. we want to make sure if we can solve the problem, great, i'm not sure that we can, but it's certainly worth keeping on that road and then checking, the marine issue we can have outside council. i know something of what richmond is doing because i have been working a little bit with them. but the question is we don't want to go through that process and set rates with the commission. that's the first question.

do. i would also add that marin energy authority, the cca in marin county was subject to the same claims before they launched their program several years ago, and they did not conduct c-e-q-a review in order to provide service to their customers. and they were not to. finally, i should mention in response to hunter stern's comments that the shell contract requires that whatever purchases are made under that contract will reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to pg&e's portfolio. under any circumstance. >> all right, thank you. [gavel] >> i think we close public comment. and just to say a couple -- one quick thought, you know, that this is a big, big energy policy decision for the city and county of san francisco. i think maybe a big as the peakers. and there is so much that we want to see today bigger, bigger. during that time the environment commission and the department of environment as i said were the ones to really push and think outside the box and to exhaust all the list of questions, all the ideas to try to match vision and reality, shutting down, not building dirty fossil fue

fact that all of this month's questions focus on ccas, an indication of the level of attention that all of us are paying to this important topic. i'll do my best to answer each of your specific questions without repeating myself. let me start, supervisor mar, by addressing your comment that the san francisco public utilities commission has repeatedly failed to set rates for the community choice aggregation. the puc's primary charter mandated duties are to protect the rate payers and ensure clean drinking water for 2-1/2 million bay area customers, collect and treat wastewater and stormwater in san francisco, and deliver power for the municipal needs of the city and county of san francisco. this obligation to the rate payers and the fulfillment of these core charter responsibilities which i know all five commissioners take very seriously is the overriding concern they have when faced with any issue. after getting lobbied very hard by advocates and members of this board to approve a program, the commissioners ultimately decided that the proposed rates for the community choice aggregation weren't a deal for san francisco. here's why i thi

understood] which has a cca program which has a good example of where a rec has come forward to help produce new localized renewable energy and a farm that had a choice between doing their own generation. fossil fuel or renewable small hydro project. ~ marin because recs existed, they were able to price it out in a way that allowed them to do the small hydro instead of relying on fossil fuels to generate their own electricity for their farm. that is a perfect example of how recs can be used in a good wow. the other thing to keep in mind everyone is looking at this program on day one. we should look at where this program is at in year 10 and year 20. the goal is not to be 75% recs in year 10 or 20. the goal is to getting to commissioner arce's green deal. it might not be as quick as some people want, but to start building it and owning our own generation which is coming more and more from that bucket 1 although to some degree the city does depend a lot on large hydro through hetch hetchy. that is not considered state renewable. any hetch hetchy we are able to roll you have to put a rec on top of t. but i don't think a single person at least from the government pers

do that. >> okay. >> he is only supposed to work on cca related item. so, even asking him to find a contractor to look at a different kind of study is technically outside of his scope of work that the board created for him. if the lafco commission is interested in having him do this other work -- >> okay, i understand what the resolution says. but i'm confused and in some ways surprised because of information that i received directly from the person in the position about lafco and initially when i joined the board and how we've been able to communicate, it was my understanding, of course, that the position had never been filled. he's done work of those positions and this consolidation would basically help to continue things, make things more efficient in terms of the way they are. but at no point was i ever i think aware that he could not work on specific things because those were the things that were provide today me as his list of responsibilities and were actually encouraged -- i was encouraged to request these particular items that are not necessari