there, so we have a lot of impact, and i have not seen and heard people up in arms. through much of the bay area. a project management team, our construction true, our communication group has been doing an amazing job of letting folks know what we're trying to minimize disruption and that we are trying to do this for everyone's good, and people have been various understanding. i would be happy to take any of you out to these facilities. good news. president crowley: next item, mike cambell.

>> good afternoon. often, it is called clean power sf. the big news is that last week, we did issue a request for proposals, and on the july 9 meeting, you were all getting feedback and some comments on the earlier situation and you had seen, so i am just going to take a brief moment to talk about this and incorporate those comments and in touch base on the schedule and answer any questions any of you may have. so from the feedback we received, the cleanup, in my opinion, it makes it much more readable.

also for the layperson. as you all probably understand, this is a big challenge with the rfp. the first place that was changed regards the oil interview. it will be directly tied to the same areas that are being scored in the written areas. the second is related to the use of recs. in terms of allowing you to provide the portfolios, there are benefits associated with this. there are some policy perspectives on that, so we limited those with a standard

amount, which, right now, is currently 20%, with a goal of 51%. as you recall, the state requirements do not allow the use of these, so that 20% would be about them, and the difference between the 20% in the 15%i(.&m8zu2zñi, half of thg from it, at most 15.5%. a figure that way, we can split the difference and it the value of the reduce costs for the portfolio but also giving a clear message that we're trying to seek the development of new resources. commissioner vietor: could i ask a question? >> the difference, 15.5%.

is a 31% gap that could be made up. . we have limited that to 15.5%. >commissione: that means -- >> that is a number. they are of percentages. it is the 51% we're looking for in total. the 20% is gone. what is best left -- half of the remaining part can be used for this. that goes to 33%.

vñiat that point, you are down o only 18%. that is a shrinking portion. commissioner vietor: and will there be a consideration for bids that have lower -- >> yes, the designation clearly states that a portfolio with more will get less. >> and the trade-off is costs. if we can get that. commissioner vietor: good, i went to go on record again. i am not a big fan. i would hope the bill would include those in the proposal, if possible.

>> quickly, for those out there, ,xw ++% energy

credits," so if you could just say that for people who do not know. >> ok, and another element was commissioners wanted to have the posers clearly described what has made in their mind the program's success. so we have had that be part of what they have required. and getting feedback, just a moment on that. we are hoping to get energy efficient demand response through one or two w vehicles. one is the basic portfolio that the proposal is going to be providing, and the second is, if you recall, when you're planning to have a request for offers, or an rfo process. egwe will be able to get creatie ideas from the main supplier of the program as well is -- as others. there is also altering minimum contract term from five years to three years with the discussion i and

particularly how that might relate to the2q rfo process, and that could have something to do with resources. obviously, we are open to longer terms if that is whatqb proposas want to provide, but we did not want to potentially closed doors to good thinking that might be out there. in terms of the schedule moving forward, the rfp was advertised last week. we will be going in in learning about the program as well as making connections with one another, because a lot of what we are looking for -- creating a consortium. consortium.the deadline for prot

to have questions for us, september 15, and we are happy this is a very significant program. we went to make sure that the proposed errors have a chance to get some creative thinking and make connections, to have the full two months. after proposals, will be moving to the shortlist, so we will try to conclude negotiations with the intention of trying to serve customers in the spring of 2011. that is all but i have prepared, and i will be happy to answer any questions. president crowley: commissioners? thank you. public comment? 3t>> excuse me.

conservation. i cannot tell you the please i am to watch the progress on this program. in fact, this is under budget and under schedules, and are some challenges, as the commissioner noted. there are a lot of challenges behind you. .this is gratifying to see. thank you. president crowley: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks, and we have been working in san francisco over the last few years, and furs, i want to make a quick point to

clarify that. when i say i am representing these groups, like the ones that were in the letter, it means i have gone through a careful process of contacting them all. there was one of those groups that seemed to be indicating -- a leader of the coalition, and specifically, after the meeting was open, they were not supportive of the coalition, and i verified with them that they are still supportive of the coalition, so that leads me into where we aren't at with regard to the process. is very important that you know that coalition is not in agreement with how this is rolling out, at all. from the beginning of this process, we have been organizing

to make sure about the plan, which of believe you have all right now, that this has all been one project, that pieces of it are not separated out. elastic holders meeting, we a little aggressively made clear to staff that we did not agree with this process going forward this way, and we should take a few more months to nail it down, so please understand that at this point, they are in a complete disconnect on strategy moving forward. as to specifics, the big issue we have is dividing this up in pieces, what we specifically need to make sure of, now the we are in a better process, is that when the rfo process begins, it

needs to move one rfo for the entire package of renewables, efficiency, and solar, installations, and not be divided up into pieces. the project is not going to have the economies of scale. if we do not retain the integrity, so now the we are in will be considered a sort of a mess, we went to an least make sure that the are of a process is started immediately so we can get up to speed as quickly as possible and get that rfo is one big rfo. you, commissioner vietor, those rec's, we want them zero-fied as

quickly as possible. president crowley: next. commissioner: i would like to hear about another program and how the sfpuc is connected to that. i would like some update on where the state is it. >> and just to be clear, you are talking about the pg&e smart meter program. commissioner vietor: yes, and i do understand. a brief conversation about the status. >> we can do that at the next meeting. >> ok. president crowley: mike, can we

do that? >> yes. president crowley: next item. clerk: all items under the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single vote, unless an item is requested to be separated. public -- to be separate. a, staff recommendations. this is for a memorandum of agreement with the city of san bruno. b, staff recommendation to approve an amendment to power enterprise project funded

agreement, with no time necessary no time extension necessary, in order to continue to accommodate design projects to improve power system reliability and meet western electricity coordinating council and north american electric reliability corp. regulatory requirements. c, approving a water and a prize water system improvement program, with urs/soha jv, to provide additional engineering services for design, bid, awards, and construction support, necessary to address the geotechnical and structural deficiencies found under amendment 1 and authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute this amendment, increasing the amount by over $1 million.

d, a staff recommendation to increase a contract not to exceed 1 million to one to $25,000 for a total not to exceed two years -- $1,225,000. e, general engineering san francisco, a peninsula, east bay to hetch hetchy, an enterprise funded contract, for a total contract duration of three years. f, staff recommendation. accept work performed by kj woods for water enterprise,

water system improvement program, a funded contract duration of 360 consecutive calendar days and authorized final payment. g, a staff recommendation to advise the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission with a three-year renewal option for the san francisco headstart at the southeast community facility. h, a staff recommendation to accept work performed by ntk construction, increase in the contract value, for larger than expected quantities of soil filled for the solo cap, for a total contract amount of almost $1.50 million, with a total contract duration of 127 consecutive calendar days and author is a final payment in the amount of almost 89,000 $500 to

the contractor. i, approve a transfer of funds form -- and from what to enterprise water system improvement program funded projectcu cuw384, tesla treatmet facility project to water enterprises' water system improvement program funded project cuw364, lawrence

livermore water quality improvement projects to fund the proposed modification. president crowley: colleagues, anyone that you want to pull specifically? ok. moved and seconded. all of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. any public comment? moving on, michael. clerk: you are now into the regular business calendar. item nine, a discussion and possible action to suspend world no. 6 of the rules of order of the san francisco public utilities commission to allow for the election of officers at a duly notice to meeting other than the first regular meeting after the first day of august. >> commissioners, this august 1 date was chosen because that was

the date that the commissioners expire. we're still in that 60-day period, and i would recommend that we suspend a rule to the highest state of october -- to the first day of october. it would change it for now. what i think we would want to do is come back in october and revisit it. president rohcrowley: colleagues, i will move that. you might want to read rule 6, michael, as it has been amended. clerk: certainly. after the first day of august each year, they show the let

president and vice president of the commission, each to serve for a one-year term. it is an eligible to serve consecutive 1-year term. -- ineligible. each and any of these may be suspended by order of the majority of members of the commission if entered upon the minutes of the commission. it could be that you suspend this rule and move the election by motion to the first meeting after the first of october. president crowley: commissioners? so move korea all of those in

favor of suspending this role -- so move. all of those in favor? clerk: mr. president, an agenda item 10, conduct a public hearing on the public health goals for the direct water quality division director to submit a letter to the california department of public health, documenting that such a hearing has been held. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i and the water quality division director. my name is -- i am here to present results of the 2010 report. california law requires that we triannual report. if there is not a california health care of all, we are required to use the federal. ú)íd9whr-- health-care bowl.

healbvth0wiñc]- -- health caree are required to use the federal. we're required to submit a port by june 30 and to the response of public comment on this report, which is why we are here right now. ?'this diagram to a relationship -- give you a relationship. generally speaking, if we had a rather mature a limit of 100, we want to make sure we do not violate it. the public health goal is generally much lower than the regulatory.

we will talk about arsenic. roughly about 1/10,000. i also want to note that out of the 95 contaminants' that we have to monitor -- contaminants that we have to monitor, we wanted to be conservative. we did not have a problem technically with arsenic. arsenic is a naturally occurring element from a number of potential sources, including runoff, industrial sources, treated wood, and you can also see it in some chemicals. the potential health risk is a carcinogen and also does adverse environmental effects.

-- has adverse environmental effects. you can see that we cannot even measure it. it is such an incredibly small number that you would not be able to see that it was there or not. we have done some special studies, pimm and we saw one at a high level of 2.6. in terms of our mitigation, we have a chemical quality control system, and we will do analysis of this treatment chemicals, so if we get chlorine or something else, -- we also have a

watershed management program. where arsenic could potentially get into a water system. one contaminant that i mentioned, this is a diagram of customers. the blue part is ours. we have taken a number of actions. this was to remove thousands of them, so we are well out. this was accelerated by the meter reading program. the federal government allows a 8% leg. in california, is 0.25%, and

that was january of this year. we have also been involved in other programs. this is also to take a look at the pilot program, finding faucet's that did not have lived in them. that program from the commission goes on and continues to this day. some of the health effects, the regulatory limit is 15. we did not detect it in any of the source waters before, as i mentioned. the main issue is up to-control,

and to use lead free prices were possible. california law is going to be the lead free version. this will be improving. this is the law that mandated that the level go down, so we were to to get that, and the current legislation right now, instead of this california but a national standard, this is not something at 8%. we also have testing for a nominal fee. we will pro t