and if we find that the sfpuc is not getting it together, we can make it happen ourselves. is that a risk? yes. will stopping the not to exceed rate vote next week change much? the answer is no. and as mr. freed said, if we get this not to exceed rate thing out of the way, we see how much money we've got to work with the buildout, then we can get this second phase rolling. so, i agree with your expressing the concerns you've expressed. i wouldn't make it so leveraged on you better work with us or else. let's just express the concerns and express that you want the not to exceed rates to be competitive with pg&e. thanks. oh, and you can leave out the rec thing because if you insist that we do the local buildout that's envisioned by all the laws and resolution that the board passed, then that means we will get away from recs right away. so, you don't really need to get into that territory. >> thank you, mr. brookes. next speaker. >>> hello, commissioners, judd holtz man again from 350 bay area. i won't take too much time just to point out that mr. brookes and the advocate coali

and the education phase will include the sfpuc tour, and the tour possible tour of the south east waste water treatment plant and the justice workshops. which the youth begin to articulate how the waste water and water systems really impact their every day lives. and so one of the examples i like to give is as young people drive to school, as they drive passed where the avenue,, why is that that section particularly under the freeway gets flooded because it is part of the creek and the water shed that gets emptied out into the bay so this is really a tangible understanding of not just the natural environment but the built environments is where these tours and these workshops are going to start eliciting these personal connections to these city-wide issues. and as we jump into that action component, there will be community data and creating personal narratives of how the issues impact their lives but the communities and they will capture the stories and capture all of that? the recommendations and in a photo voice project and pod cast that they will be desiminating via social media. >> i

. >> so, when you say the sfpuc is buying power itself, could you maybe explain a bit more what that means and how it relates to the shell contract and all that stuff? because i'm not entirely clear how that would work. >> sure. the way the shell contract was originally envisioned by the staff was that shell would basically buy, sell, schedule all power for the program, up to 30 megawatts. there are two ways we could do that a little bit differently that we've been talking about internally. we could, for example, reduce the shell contract a little bit by some portion and buy the net short ourselves, schedule it, create a portfolio for that small amount of power, and have shell go ahead and schedule -- buy and sell the power within the contract amounts, the contract [speaker not understood]. or we could take all scheduling and management decisions in-house and treat shell as a -- as one supplier in a portfolio, just a power supply, not an energy manager. we're analyzing that internally and we are getting some help from a consultant who has expertise in this area as well. >> would the s

the city and on city properties, and that will help us with our planning ~. >> that's coming to the sfpuc before tuesday? >> i don't know if i can form a final document by tuesday, no. no. >> so, we don't have a number on the in-city renewables -- >> no. >> is that because of the challenges around the rates and looking at the renewable energy credits around options as rates? is that kind of driving that function? >> yes. so, for example, if the city were to purchase a portfolio from shell that was 25% bundled renewable product and the remaining hydro or other power with recs attached to that production, we would probably have about $2 million a year in revenues that would come at a 10-1/2 cent rate or 10 cent rate. again, that would depend on how much hetch hetchy power we could purchase and some other things. it's fairly hard at this point to estimate megawatts of production in the city when we don't have a rate. we don't have guidance from our commission about how to proceed in terms of the revenue we'll have for a build out. it's also a big undertaking. right now we have very limited s

two, make it clear that the city and the sfpuc do not want a future that is dependent on recs. three -- i'm making it separate, melanie. four, is commit today achieving the city's -- using the program to achieve the city's greenhouse gas goals. or clean power. to achieve the city's greenhouse gas goals. and four, commit to a program that maximizes local unionized jobs. our commission has concerns about the current design of the program and the progress being made towards realizing the city's local renewable energy generation and job training goals. and we are committed -- which are -- which are vital parts of the program originally adopted by the board and supported by this commission. we -- we are committed to following the development of this program and to, whatever. >> it's just all over the place. i mean, what is the competitive pg&e? if it's easier and we can get through it, we can say that we have concerns about the current design of the program and its progress towards the city's local and renewable energy generation and local job training and placement goals. and if nee

before that, it was a struggle with the sfpuc power enterprise to get the buildout on the table. since ms. malcolm showed up, we've got the rates down. they're going to be competitive with pg&e, without which competitive rates, there would be no buildout because there would be no customers. since ms. malcolm came on board, much more of the local power analysis that you saw in a presentation a couple months ago from local power that shows how we can get thousands of jobs within the next ten years building hundreds of local renewables in efficiency, much more of that vision although not all of it has struggled to materialize under ms. malcolm so she deserves a lot of credit. so, the main thing i wanted to do is clear up a major misconception that i'm seeing this evening that will help you understand what we're talking about with renewable energy credits, with the shell contract, and how we're going to get to the buildout, the green new deal and union labor. and you may know that i'm sure all of you got the sierra club letter that said we are going to insist that this program be anc

for 60 years, the power plants are in the southeast sector, but in the other areas where the sfpuc staff conducted a survey and said, those people are willing to pay more money for so-called clean energy. this debate is [inaudible] and for the people who have spoken here has stated that to you, this debate is defumary, this is san francisco, this started a droning time ago, this hydro electricity and today it is going backwards. >> thank you, mr. david atoray. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners, david altore with the labor 261 and i took the liberty to writing my thoughts down on paper, the labor have long sought to be elite partner this the city's pursuit of renewable energy and job creation goal, back in march bh the sfpuc thought of setting rates, we asked three critical questions on behalf of our members many of whom are here today, in the overflow room, and they are one, where this program create jobs for our members and the local community members we seek to promote, how many jobs will the program create and three, where and when will these jobs be created? today we have no

now we had this quick clarifying, which was about the sfpuc position with respect to said environmental review, or c-e-q-a analysis, i guess was [speaker not understood], commissioner wald. >> i won't comment on the merits, but i will say that the city attorneys are aware ibew's claim that c-e-q-a applies before the commission can make a decision. and i am following their advice on that in whatever i 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 an

and third and finally, a request for the commission in the broad and full support for sfpuc throughout the last year is to look at the workforce development portion which is a specific portion of go solar sf and how to improve that aspect by potentially piloting a new approach which is state certified apprenticship, and in suring that we can have a community workforce in solar which is part of the greens job division at the end of the day. >> thank you for your time and patience. >> commissioners, my name is (inaudible) and i am ceo of power tree services inc and i am involved with a solar installation company here. and between the two companies we have installed over 207 projects, in conjunction with the solar san francisco since the inception and totaling just about a mega wat of the over all size of this project was focusing exclusively on the multiunit buildings, and we are currently installing three megawatts of the battery and two megawatts of the electric vehicle charges and another 200 kilo watts of solar under construction and i want to say that the go solar program has been k