Little bit and reassure you a lot. The scare you part is that commissioner arce, youre absolutely right. They could set the not to exceed rate next week. They could move forward with a Shell Program and no other program, which as i said is only less than 4 of what we envision. So, but with that said, the reason that advocates have recently voted and said to the sfpuc and to lafco we would like them to proceed with these not to exceed rates is because they are now competitive with pg e. Especially if you compare it to a pg e green rate. And what ms. Malcolm proposed to us tonight are rates that will probably be even more competitive, even competitive with pg es brown power rate. The issue with the shell contract is that whether we like it or not, the local buildout that we all want is no longer tied to the small phase 1 part of the program. Its no longer tied to the shell contract. So, the reality is now that the shell contract is going to have competitive rates if the sfpuc sets compet
Contracts they have available for us to get instate labor, hydro, ghg free, start to go away because theyre going to start selling those contracts to other vendors that they have, other people that want to buy that energy. And, so, we need to keep this thing moving forward. I understand, commissioner arce, that you have some kaiserious concerns. Those are concerns that have nothing to do with the not to exceed rate. They have other program designs and we can continue to have this discussion. You doughthv need a resolution to have that continued discussion. Simply ask the puc staff, i am 100 willing to bet with anyone that ken malcolm and anyone else with the puc would be willing to come back and have those discussions with you here or if you want to have more sitdown meetings one on one with any of you that have questions, we can do all of this. I think what youre about to do is going to seriously harm this program and i would encourage you to volt no on that resolution at this time. T
So, i want to scare you a little bit and reassure you a lot. The scare you part is that commissioner arce, youre absolutely right. They could set the not to exceed rate next week. They could move forward with a Shell Program and no other program, which as i said is only less than 4 of what we envision. So, but with that said, the reason that advocates have recently voted and said to the sfpuc and to lafco we would like them to proceed with these not to exceed rates is because they are now competitive with pg e. Especially if you compare it to a pg e green rate. And what ms. Malcolm proposed to us tonight are rates that will probably be even more competitive, even competitive with pg es brown power rate. The issue with the shell contract is that whether we like it or not, the local buildout that we all want is no longer tied to the small phase 1 part of the program. Its no longer tied to the shell contract. So, the reality is now that the shell contract is going to have competitive rate
Im sorry for this. I think its i think we have to move the conversation to the place that we want it to go. And now is the time to do it. To marry the vision thats been articulated by the commission, by folks from the public, and get that to be exactly what the puc staff is saying. Because there is some kind of disconnect. And this does that because the goals that weve articulated are our goals, goals of supporters, folks that have worked on this for a long time. I included myself in this. All right. So, how about i hear what youre saying. There is a second. We need to move it to a vote. Are you calling the question, commissioner king . Yes. Director [speaker not understood]. I was wondering if the commissions by laws would allow electronic voting. They don. ~ do not. Thats not in our by laws. Is there any other discussion . Bylaws ~ dont we have to have Public Comment . Yes. Public comment on the proposed action. Jason freed, lafco staff. What i just heard read i think would be a big
Not all sinks are the same. Not all Property Owners are the same. How you service that with a work force that is limited the number of trucks. That sort of thing. Its a very different proposal and thats the kind of thing i think youre working out and i dont want to rush into that. I do have two questions, though, that came out of the reading. One is that the two proposals are quite different in nature. Are we going to be asked to pick one or the other, or is there is this a phase a, phase b kind of thing . Are they compatible . Do you really have to choose one . Thats my first question. The second question, i guess, is to the City Attorney. There was a description of the status of people who opt out from cca offering. The description in the materials that the local power produce basically said that if you opt out, you do not have another we do not have another opportunity to solicit them for an opt out in an opt out manner, but that they retain the ability to opt in at any time. And th