Advocates community has called upon the local Agency Formation commission to create to hold a workshop, a financial workshop in which we will bring experts around california into the financial workshop to look at the local power work and show how that billion dollars over 10 years can happen. And what you can do as a commission that would help us more than anything else is send the communication to the local Agency Formation commission that you support the idea that works and would like the lafco to work very closely and cooperatively with the advocates to make sure that workshop is successful. Thank you. Thank you. ~ workshop next speaker. Could i just observe that im extraordinarily moved and impressed by eric burks comments. I remember sitting in the ground floor of the old sfe offices. Yes. In the dark. [laughter] on really uncomfortable chairs. I remember. And hearing eric excoriate the puc . Dont you love that word . I never get to use it. I was like wow. I mean, he was really as hard on them as i have been on federal agencies in my career, and that is saying something. And to have him come here and say that the program that were talking about that theyre talking about is, in fact, better for the things that we care about than it used to be is really impactful for me. I have to say that. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Its hard to say when things its harder to say when things are going well than it is to say when theyre really rotten. Next speaker. Hi, my name is jed hooks man, im a longtime San Franciscoes are department and also here representing 350 bay area which is a volunteerled client advocacy group. As an environmental scientist i definitely would like a Green New Deal as well. Id like to point out that affordability was one of the goals given to the puc when putting together this program. The representative we heard from ibew was advocating for an alternative with less recs than this, of course a higher rate to the customer. When the rate was recently 14. 5 cents, everyone was up in arms about that. In fact, ibew1245 to this day is still using the shell shot campaign some extremely high rates which are no longer even what the puc staff is considering just to inflame people against the program. So, theyre using these old high rates to convince people that their bills are going to be absurdly high so they wont join the program. So, i want to point out that affordability is important and that im not sure that ibew can have it both ways in calling for both lower rates and higher rates. Really briefly, lower price, more buy in from customers, more buy in, more revenue for the puc, more revenue more buildout. More buildout more jobs and less recs. High rates, no buy in, program dead. This is very important to keep in mind. So, when thinking about ideological purity versus pragmatic reality, which im not always the best at, i will admit. [laughter] my goal as an advocate for this program is to get shell and recs out as soon as possible to have a extraordinarily robust local buildout that brings in tons of local unionized jobs. I think the addition of to the shell contract that the power need to be california and unionized is an exceptional addition to the contract and i would support that highly. It seems like from the comments that the commission is expecting this amazing Green New Deal on day one, which as an advocate i also would love. Advocates, starting with the local power, study have urged an aggressive buildout and the puc staff has been pushing back on that for sometime. So, it is not for it is not for a lack of drive that the program desire that the program be as strong in the ways that we are discussing today as possible, but rather in the economic climate that were existing in and the financing mechanisms that are available to us, what resources will be available and how we can maximize the use of those resources. So, with my last 10 seconds big i back on mr. Brooks comments about the financial workshop, this would really provide an avenue for convincing the puc staff that we do have large amount of Funds Available to support the buildout that we all want. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Seeing no yes. For the public record, mr. Hunter stern has submitted Public Comment and some ibew local 1245 asking that the commission do their duty and in the weeks ahead demand the [speaker not understood] Environmental Review that will calculate just how much a shell contract will increase [speaker not understood] and other pollutants. ~ monica. Okay, thank you, monica. Now we had this quick clarifying, which was about the sfpuc position with respect to said Environmental Review, or ceqa analysis, i guess was [speaker not understood], commissioner wald. I wont comment on the merits, but i will say that the city attorneys are aware ibews claim that ceqa 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 ceqa review in order to provide service to their customers. And they were not to. Finally, i should mention in response to hunter sterns comments that the shell contract requires that whatever purchases are made under that contract will reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions relative to pg es 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 fuel polluting power plants in lowincome communities of color. And, so, i would definitely want to hear from other commission colleagues what we want to do with this. Weve obviously had a long, long conversation tonight. I would like us to provide some direction. I think thats important for the growth of this commission and this department, to take some position, and to make a statement very open to what form that might take, where we go. But i think having another discussion is not what we want to say we did tonight, when we wake up in the morning. We want to say that we provided some direction with respect to the direction that we might decide as a commission. So, with that, we have commissioner wan. Thank you. This is a quite exciting first meeting i have on this commission. Theyre all like this. [laughter] all the televised meetings we had are like this. This is a phenomenal meeting. I heard a lot, i letteredv a lot. Still a lot of questions unanswered. I would like to ask if we do have a resolution for tonight or we can have some action with a resolution tonight to continue. We passed a resolution in september. There have been changes after that, right . Certainly after tonight, coming in with new perspective. I would see how that would be pretty clear. I dont know what i dont know if there would be looking at a resolution i mean, at this hour, too, looking at a resolution, seeing if there was some elements of the resolution that we could think about to amend our current position to send some direction could be an option. Making a statement seems to be something important to do, but that potentially could be a way to go and would probably, if we could get consensus, we could throw our legal hats on here to do some drafting. But see if theres language we could come upon. We certainly had some ask from the public, some steps from the conversation, some stuff we might agree on, some stuff we might not, but certainly expressing something that summarizes where we have arrived at and the conversation seems to be important to do. Commissioner wald. I hate to disagree, but i would like to argue that we ought not to try to pass to draft and pass a resolution this evening. I would like to suggest instead that we perhaps we could decide that we wanted to make a statement in the form of a resolution and charge if you agree, im thinking off the top of my head here, the policy committee with coming up with a resolution. I dont know if weve already noticed that meeting. I dont know if we can amend the notice. Its already a long agenda. But that would give us a chance, you know, to start at the ground floor with some language. You might have some, chair. Other people might have some proposed language. We might actually have the language from last september in front of us to look at. And we could try to do it. But to start at 20 minutes after 8 00 [laughter] as the commissioner said, with no proposed language before us strikes me as a really big burden and obstacle. That might not produce the best and most effective resolution because presumably we want our resolution to influence the puc commissioners. Right. Not just that we want to do something because we spend x hours and minutes discussing this issue, and it takes time, it takes thought, it takes creativity, and it takes energy. Let me ask a quick question. To ms. Malcolm, is this discussed as a new element to the shell agreement or the contract to now have the purchase of the large hydro is the plan still to pursue rate setting at the next weeks sfpuc meeting . Because if its not and we have more time, we could go to policy committee to have a resolution. But if you think youre still going to propose let me clarify. They minimized clarification to the contract because there is no contract. All there are is discussion and some draft language. The discussions about hydro are just me calling them and saying, can you find some california hydro that we could include as a resource, and theyre investigating that. No changes to the contract. So, there is the proposal, even with some of this stuff youre still anticipating the sfpuc will consider rates on tuesday, whatever it is . Its on their agenda to consider rates and thats their only task right now, to consider rates. Not to consider policy. We have a policy from the board of supervisors. So, thats the issue, is doing nothing or having some policy no, because are we going to say anything about [speaker not understood]. Right. I could admit this entire conversation, but we would say we want higher rates . No, i was saying that if the idea if all theyre going to talk about next week is rates, are we going to Say Something to them about rates . Well, i think what i understand from puc kind of conversations and everything is that when rates are set, its locked in. This is everything thats in place now is set. No. Let me just say one thing. This is if the time is to have influence over the form and the shape of the program, its the time to send the message is now. Unless you tell me otherwise and tell me rates dont matter, [speaker not understood]. Yes. I think that one of the i hate to put off something for tomorrow that one can do today even if it is at 8 20. And i think, you know, the sooner we can come to a conclusion the better as long as it doesnt prejudice what were going to say. Im not arguing to put off till tomorrow something that we can do today. I dont think we can do it today and be effective. Commissioner arce, did you have a question . Yeah. So, what theyre doing theyre going to change after rates. Rates get set, that means we cant go any higher than that on the rate. What will actually happen there are still discussions that go on. Its going to take 6 to 8 months before the program is going to get launched. So you have time to to have a discussion if you wanted to have 100 bucket 1 you probably couldnt do that with 111 2 cent rate im guessing because of the cost of bucket 1. Could you have a discussion about how the program gets changed or mod snide there are still ways to modify the program with 111 2 cent rate to get to some of the stuff you want to talk about doing. Thats 6 to 8 weeks to seth the rates. Question to ms. Malcolm with respect to consequences. If we get stuck on the job numbers we saw, if the draft outline of the local buildout does not go to what mr. Brookes and a lot of us have been wanting to see and it gets stuck on the draft outline after rates are set and we say, god, it never happened, whats the consequence of saying it didnt pencil out after we set rates . Whats the consequence . Whats the consequence of saying the program didnt turn into the Green New Deal . Well, i guess it depends who you would ask. Would the city lose money . No. After rates are set . No, no, the city doesnt need to lose money. Were setting rates in anticipation of having the margin. Because i thought i remembered from the conversation at one of the puc meetings, once the contract is signed, we put our capital and collateral into the contract that we stand to lose that if the program doesnt go the way we want it to go. No, no, no. If i understand what youre saying, it means there sr. Thctionv a buildout. Youre saying what happens if theres no buildout. Theres no commitment from the city to shell to conduct a buildout. Only to buy a certain amount of no, what im saying is a lot of advocates for the program and allies and colleagues and a lot of us have put their faith in you to deliver something to deliver that is not what anyone wanted to, to turn it into what folks want after rates are set. And if it doesnt happen, does everyone, does the puc say, hey, it never happened . And sierra club say, yeah, it never turned into what we want it to be. Do we say hey, do over, and shell says, hey, no hard feelings, what is the consequence . No, theres no consequence with shell as long as we purchase power for customers for 41 2 years at a given rate. So, wed be locked in for 41 2 years whatever those terms are. If it didnt become what we want it to become after rates are set . Yes. Well stop at yes because my point is now is the time to get this right because once we have that, were going for 41 2 years and we lose the ability to get shell to do to move to where we want to go. Doesnt have to move. The city has to move. Its not about shell. Its not about shell. [multiple voices] i thought it was quite persuasive. Its not about the contract. The contract all the shell contract is during the transition period in 41 2 years is buy 20 to 30 megawatts of power on the marketplace. Were responsible for all the buildout work. Commissioner josefowitz. Commissioner king. Thank you. Let me ask this a different way. Eric, im forgetting your name. [speaker not understood]. Okay. Is there a part of this i guess what some people are concerned about is from the things that are still lingering out there like pla agreements and, you know, for those of us that care about kind of, you know, where the energy is coming from initially or whatever. If you can bundle some of the stuff at minimum in california. For those of us that care about that kind of stuff, is this particular vote take us over the threshold that locks us into what they have already, like all of these thing that have not been answered yet, you know, does this vote lock you in to some of these things . Does it make it do we lose a leverage point that makes it harder to negotiate the pla agreement and things of that nature . And i think thats for some of us, thats what were concerned about, these different points that are leverage points for us to make sure we can get what we can get at the front end so that this will progress the way it should progress. I would say no with the following caveat. Being understood that its the puc commission, not shell. Michelle ~ shell is completely separate from all of this. The puc commissioners dictate what occurs just like you dictate to your staff what occurs. If the puc commission said, we are going to have pl, as, this is all going to be how you structure this program, ~ staff will have to do it faze thats what theyre getting authorized to do. Its more of an issue within the city family itself. The price sets limits to how much money we potentially have for a buildout. If you wanted to buildout all this stuff right away but you have prices that would be so high you wouldnt have customers to be participating in the program. Im clear about the we be customers so that we have cash. I get that line. [multiple voices] i think everything that you guys are talking about here wanting to have the discussion about is what needs to be figured out over the next 6 to 8 months. We need to have rates in order to figure that out, though. If we dont have rates, theres no ability for us to say how much money is in the program and available for a buildout to do all of these things. So, you need to have a rate to do that. So, the rates are really important and they determine how much money there is for local buildout. Correct. So thats really whats important on tuesday. Correct. If we dont have a rate we cant figure out how to do the buildout. What ms. Malcolm cant figure out now is because she doesnt have a rate to set it to. The decision on tuesday is very important. Yes. Commissioner, is that what youre trying to get at . ~ commissioner arce yes. Okay, go ahead. As we speak, im trying to put together some thoughts. Commissioner king. That was already. Im sorry. Commissioner wald. Im just trying to figure out how important it is. It seems to me its a mistake. It may be more important than i thought it was before, but its also not its not the be all and end all. We could get a rate. It could be 15 cents. It could be 30 cents. But that doesnt mean that people like eric and his colleague and you, chairman arce, in your day life, and the rest of us in our Commission Life can walk away. It is not the end of the battle. And, so, i dont want us to overemphasize its importance because that will lull us into a false sense of security that we dont have more work to do together to get the program that we want. So, if we could Say Something like we would favor a rate that will maximize the amount of money thats available for local buildout while not being so high as im making this up and people who know me know you do not look to me for economics. [laughter] thank you, commissioner king. [laughter] cannot drive away the customers, which i regard as if thats the message, thats a simple message that we could come up with which might or might not be useful. But thats a Pretty Simple message. Im trying to distill that into something to commissioner king. In one second im going to propose something. So, were going to do language, then we need to go ahead an