thank you to puc and lafco staff for looking into this matter. you know, just -- let me just get a copy of these mailers. i certainly respect the right of any entity or any group and in this case of ibw to put out information about our program, but i also feel that in many respects, we are not doing enough in terms of really countering the misinformation here because whether intended or not, the message here is that somehow our program is unique in the sense that there is a purchase of energy from shell without really saying that pg and e itself is actually buying energy from shell as well, and that the difference between our program and ours is that we are buying energy from shell with the idea as eventually building an infrastructure that allows us to create our own energy, and in many respects, you know, the message to the consumer is that in fact if you want to get out of business, you know, get out of doing business with shell, that the only way we're going to do that is through community choice aggregation, so i think that when someone is p

any kind of like a mailer or mailing that has some information about this, i would also encourage puc, lafco staff to go into the community and there are probably -- i mean, there is dozens, each one of us on the board of supervisors have dozens of organizations and merchant groups, community groups that we can give you information on and we should be going to those meetings and saying, listen, don't be -- at least have all the facts, and don't be fooled by some of the stuff you're hearing. i think it's important for us to do that, even if we do something citywide, i think that going to the ground level is really important. thank you. >> thank you for all that feedback, we'll take that back to our commission and we'll see what we can do working cooperatively with lafco staff to take these low hanging fruit opportunities to get the facts out. >> thank you, another question from commissioner mar? >> let me to try not to repeat which has already been said by my colleagues, this is a sophisticated propaganda campaign which is spreading misinformation out there, we're being caught flat footed. i

we're back to talk about the items you identified for us at the joint puc/lafco meeting, meeting before last for you. ~ and that was two primary tasks. first, to develop a robust outline of the build out of our clean power s.f. program, including the mix of resources, the investment and funding levels, the sources of those funds, the greenhouse gas impacts, and the local jobs impacts. our new director that was introduced to you at our last meeting will make that presentation, kim malcolm. but before she launches into that, i want to advise you of two other issues. the second piece of -- to do from our prior meetings was a comparison of our proposed program with other programs operationally proposed in california and across the nation. we're still doing some more homework on the -- on that comparison and we'll provide it to you in written form so that we can discuss it at the next meeting at your [speaker not understood]. we're working with lafco staff to put that together. and we've had some late breaking additional information on the sonoma county efforts that we want to make sure we i

>> we'll also need to check with lafco commission to see their availability. >> is there anybody here -- >> is that a tuesday? >> yes, that's a tuesday. >> before the puc hearing. >> that's fine with me. >> why don't you let the lafco people know we have an agreement here. the only thing i have is 11 o'clock if we can call by our general manager. i'm sure he would appreciate me not calling him that day. >> i will check with lafco and get back to you. >> all right, thank you. [laughter] >> you're the best. other commission business? >> i have some business. >> please. >> in fact, i have quite a bit of business. first of all, i would like to request that we put the security assessment on the next agenda in closed session as we used to have it. i think it's time to revisit that in light of recent occurrences. so, i'd like to do that. and secondly, i would like to talk about what i see is a breakdown between the communication of the commission and the staff. there seems to be, in my mind, a feeling that staff is just going on doing what they choose to do without any answers to directions that we give. one point was yesterday i received an e-mail about the

i think with the advocates with puc and lafco to seeing what the options we have before deciding on the rate. i understand it needs to happen quickly but i hope we can meet together to discuss those things. thank you very much. have a great afternoon. >> thank you, any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we'll close to comment. this is an information item, so we have possible action on here, but we don't -- >> it would just be a motion to authorize the chair to sign a letter to be filed with the puc with the pg & e matter. >> okay. so moved. >> second? okay. seconded and can we take that without objection. >> commissioner breed? >> i guess i want to understand why we would need to do that? why we would need to authorize the signing of a letter? >> you don't need to, if the chair wants to sign a letter is that we discussed it at the commission. it's just a communication. it's typically a courtesy to the other members that this letter is going out. >> okay. thank you. >> if any commissioner wanted to object to it, i suppose it would be the time to say that.

also, we have -- trying to get a [speaker not understood] to plan together our joint lafco-puc meeting. we've kind of rearranged our schedule for may 9. i hear may 9 may not work for you now, and i'm hoping that we can figure out how to get that day or another day as soon as possible. we want to make sure that we can come together to approve -- approve together the votes, and move forward on the robust start and build out of the program. so, hopefully we can get together with that in the middle of may as well. >> i have it on my schedule. >> i have it, too. >> may 9th at 1 o'clock, right? >> i found out yesterday we don't have a quorum and i had to send out an e-mail. >> oh, there isn't a quorum. >> no. >> all right. we have two [speaker not understood] right here. we'll workout the schedule. >> okay. so, we are amenable and we hope that you can work closely with our schedule to make sure it can happen. we want to make sure we can move as quickly as possible. i appreciate your attention. >> thank you very much for all your hard work, supervisor. >> thank you. >> especially on this issu