emissions factor and understanding how this contributes to meeting this goal. this plan is being updated by the department of the environment and terms of where we are doing this. then there is the department of climate action plan which focuses in on energy use department by department. department by department, our report is due in march. >> ab32, how does this fit into our action plans? >> this is not explicitly addressed in the department of climate action plan. it does have an impact on all of our operations because we are emitters.

we have been participating at the air resources board where the regulation implementing the directives are being established and the power enterprise is interested and focused on the electrical sector working group at the california air resources board. we are happy to report on that. cap and trade is a big piece end of our standard compliance is a big piece of that regulatory effort. we are scheduled to report on those issues. >> that would be great. it seems that there should be from the climate change perspective, a place for ab32 in the planning. >> the ordinance that established the department a climate action plans gives the responsibility for the content of those plants in the hands of

the department of the environment. we can certainly raise that issue all departments follow a template and this establishes what is to be reported. this goes to the related footprint all the way to whether you are accurately advertising the commuter savings programs. this is a very broad range of climate steps at the department of environments and having east department report on this -- each department report on this. >> additional activities, there are many of these. i will not go over them. there are a number of initiatives that are helping us to understand our own

vulnerability locally. i will move forward to the costs. the commission asks how much we are spending on this climate change resilience work. those costs are summarized to a large degree here starting with the most expensive item which is the single adaptation item. this is estimated at about 10- $20 million which is pending any future design work that my show that that figure needs to be changed. we have done some investing in a white papers that have been very educational for us with the water utility climate alliance and the calibration budget. each of these had been left wrist by significant investments from other places and i think it illustrates one of the advantages with the coalition that we have been doing. we can make an investment and understanding better these issues and follow that with

many investments from others that make the project program and our understanding that much more robust. we have money coming into the project to bring these people together to do the work. what is not included are the soft costs, the modeling groups, the south -- staff from waste water enterprise. ostill to be determined is the big issue as to how much will this cost. this will cost us a lot of money and our capital programs. we have talked about how these issues will be considered. we will be doing water capital improvement programs.

we will be thinking about are their needs for adaptation and investments on the capital investment side can tell -- the capital investment side. >> if we look go to the people which will find this which will be our ratepayers and we will save 10 million, 100 million, las vegas is spending 8 headed million dollars on their third in take, one could link this to climate change. if we will be talking about those kinds of numbers -- >> is that possible? >> we are sort of a desert here. >> the intake is from the entire colorado basin. this is all the way to mexico. this makes california water look a little bit simple. in the sense that the compact that governs how water is

established and how it assumes 16 million feet come out of that system. the people who depend on that are wondering why the lake is at its all-time levels and why when they spend this money to get to the intake down below those levels where it is out now. they know they need to do it. the question is is a little bit of an irrelevant link. >> those people don't have homes. that is the other issue. i just wondered what of the comparison was them. why this was a comparable model. >> in the sense of their water

system, this has 8 states that get their water. we have our own self-contained, largely paid for project that has all of the advantage is that it has and our ability to control it completely on like colorado and the delta. because of the way that the drought has occurred in the southwest and in the colorado basin, it leads us to think about how drought might change for us and the effects of climate change on our own system. i was throwing out $800 million for the third intake to illustrate that there are significant investments that might be linked to climate change that others are making. at seattle, they're looking at significant investments. in south florida, they'regnifict investments. this is a common theme in the drinking water business that you need to look at your own system

and where your vulnerabilities are. >> there are other strategies in the western coastal states in respect to desalinization as well. >> this is being talked about at many locations. >> the rainfall is different. >> they are not as worried about water supply. las vegas is also thinking about using desalinization. they could trade with los angeles. >> there are current discussions to bring the water up to arizona. >> arizona has a slightly worse problem from the colorado situation. >> this will also have an impact

on -- >> when we come back to our ratepayers and say, here is how much money it might cost to respond, we need to have done our homework and that is what the current phase of our work is about. >> can you talk about this project? >> this is the metropolitan transportation commission. for agencies that always has concerns over regional issues related to climate change, both mitigation and significantly on adaptation, they are very concerned about sea level increase. i have been to one of their meetings. they have had two.

we are working closely to influence the state process because they are a bit of an adjunct of the state. they are trying to focus adaptation efforts to get people talking to each other and get people collaborating about what kind of science they're using and the adaptation plants they are making. -- plans they are making. some claimants science people. they have an extremely important role to play. -- some climtae -- climate science people. it is a good thing for people from the bay area to be talking to each other. they are bringing the

initiative which is made up of the executive officers of each entity and maybe board members of each entity i hope it goes forward because we need that influence on the bay area. >> thank you. >> other comments? thank you, that was very informative. we appreciated. public comment? we --appre -- we appreciate it. >> i have some comments about the presentation. first, the bay conservation development commission. they are currently working with other agencies on a strategy for dealing with sea level rise as a

the encroaches on to our coast along the bay so that they have a designed plan to have a retreat process where we are using the creation of a new national wetland area to mitigate of the sea level rise so that you are not going for burns and things out of the day. if you have a retreat strategy that uses wetlands creation, that is important. the reason it is important is that as the previous speaker said, natural systems mitigate storm water and wastewater. so, i would urge the waste water and storm water enterprise staff to engage with bcdc to get closely involved with that plan and to help plan out and do the retreat etc. with wetlands

creation. that might help in areas where the sea might be encroaching on the water treatment plants and things like that. on the amount of sea level rise, i have followed this for decades and can tell you that the 55 inches is updated. i guarantee that it will be 78 inches or more by the end of the century. have your staff pushed the envelope on those assumptions because 55 is not a good assumption anymore. with all due respect, you will find opposition from environmental groups on that. almost across the board, we will be resisting that because not only do you create the -- that has to be gotten rid of, but you

also are using so much energy to take the salt out that you are going to create a lot more greenhouse gas emissions by burning the energy to do that. this will like -- this will be like trying to bail out a boat with too small a devices said the plugging the holes. the environmental groups are going to try to steer us away from that. i was surprised to hear staff is not up to speed on composting toilets. they have become very sophisticated. there are systems to use in multiple room buildings and they are not just use in rural areas but in suburban households. it will create jobs to have as people come in and pick it up. thank you.

>> that they do have some very unique -- also on desalinization, there are concerns about that out there. if that is why the review is in place. >> we have talked about the constructed wetlands before. i am a big fan because they provide a big service and they can really help to mitigate. i would encourage our waste water team to be looking at wetlands opportunities along the bay and what we might be able to at least pilot sooner rather than later. >> the problem is that even with sophisticated screening on the

intake, you kill all of the microorganisms that are at the bottom of the food chain. specifically, they are looking at a point as a location. that has enough industry there, i think that we should consider those thanks before we site plans. it was a very interesting presentation. i learned that the puc spends money on a report which i have been trying to get a copy of for over a year. this was done in two components, this is a model in report. originally, they used the climate change model and decided that it was not sufficient. this was accurate for the -- modeling and they are doing additional modeling and i'm looking forward to seeing it

sometime this summer. i am very interested that this is modeling on the impact of climate change on the system. there will be about 7% increase in runoff to the red divorce -- to the reservoirs by 2030. this was not really a factor, which i did not agree with. i am interested in ascertaining exactly when that report will be available. one other issue is that if you've -- there was an article on ocean beach and. this is where the oceanside plan is. underneath that the highway is a

sewer pipe which my understanding carries mostly storm water. it seems to me that what we should be looking at is relocating that pipe and finding another way to handle the storm water so that it currently carries and maybe we can add that to our next right up -- wr iteup. when you baffle the outtakes, the water is not going out. he will have flooding at low- line levels along the shoreline. one and that might be nice to understand in future presentations are what plans we are making to handle those areas where those go win - --- go in. >> this might be a question

because i think there is a communications piece we want to be thinking about moving forward and maybe the first is the release of this report. the second might be whether we want to develop more of a presence, whether it is our website or something moving. >> when the report comes out, it will be of great interest to a lot of people, starting with us and including the public. the money that we spent at leverage by greater investment was in calibrating the model more than on the report. the report was one aspect of that. we actually did a draft version after the first phase of calibration. this was not of the kind of quality that we needed to be at. when that report -- phase is

completed, we expect there to be a report. the improvement project time frame will be much sooner than that and definitely end of this year. there was a 7% shift in timing. this was spring, summer, and into winter. the 7% reduction in flows or water quantity which was not we found and it would be a different kind of thing. >> thank you. >> the lengthy presentation was interesting but i also feel that it should be clear that this

will be available. there's no doubt that the research is valuable and we will calibrate models. there are papers by the alliance as to decision making which is hypothetical. in the meantime, you have gone forward with water system improvement program. we are about to receive a presentation on the projects that would benefit from knowing the results of this work. i suspect they are years away. it would be helpful to know when that will be helpful -- when that information will be available. the connections that you're making to the decisions you are about to make i think are

spurious. mcgee will make peace in the absence of information. -- you will be making this decision in the absence of information. >> this is incredibly frustrating. we are engaging and we specifically talked about the strategy for the program with the no regrets strategy. this means that whatever is going to happen, a more robust system will be able to handle it better. what we are doing here is we are making sure that we are at least aware of the climate change issues. we will not be able to make decisions about the size of the digester.

we don't have it yet. we don't have it because no one has said. we are trying to get the best information so that we can least be aware of this. we will not be able to make these decisions based on hard science and climate change. >> it would be prudent to build a resilience system in anticipation of the worst-case scenario based on what we now. we don't want to be caught off guard. are there any other comments on the climate change presentation? >> that will be discussed over the course of our careers.

>> i am very happy to come to report on the status of the closure of the petro power plant. the predecessor entity that owns the plant filed cancellation of their contracts that require them to be available to run here in san francisco with a contract that they have with the california independent system operator. they made that filing back the federal regulatory commission did adopt that request, did endorse that request, so effective midnight, february 28, the plant shut down. >> yay. [applause] >> so, hopefully, the next time you hear about it, it will be

about the improvements. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hale. president vietor: comment? >> you guys have so much on the agenda. this is the coolest one. i remember when my organization fought the power plant being put in at bayview hunters point. they said, "there is no way that you can stop that power plant." , "it is a done deal -- >"it is a done deal."

we did it. we shot down the paltrow -- potrero plant, and we made sure that it would get close quickly, because a lot of people that if you are going to stop us from building a new one, this one will stay open forever. this is not true. we could not have gotten there without ms. hale and director harrington, who helped us to get rid of the old one, so this is a big deal. i will just add a little

cautionary note, that whatever jurisdiction the puc has, and i am not sure how much you have, but, please, exercise whatever jurisdiction you have got to make sure pg -- pg&e gets it done quickly so we can have that part of the city back, where they used to be a power plant, so, thanks. president vietor: director beach: -- president vietor: thank you. and they also want to thank the staff we do we also want to thank the staff -- we also want to thank the staff at puc. there is the climate change, so that is exciting to be able to see this extent in the right direction.

thank you. >> that concludes our port, but it is a great lady -- leading to our next item. -- a great lead-in. secretary housh: the resource plan. >> this is our third time talking about this item. we came to you at the beginning of our report development with the findings of the rocky mountain institute. we came back to you after input from a select group of folks, with specific recommendations. now, we are coming back to you again with the final work product that has the benefit of much public input, so let me take a moment, if i may. i know the time is long in our meeting already.

to go over the outline of the report and where we are in our efforts to bring it to you. this report builds on the 2002 report the commission endorsed. that was actually were the policy was laid out, with the primary focus being the closure of the two power plants, that we just talked about. the board guidance is very strong in this report. we have been urged to update the plan by the board, with a focus on addressing the goal of san francisco having a greenhouse gas free, a fossil fuel for korea electric supply by 2013. that is -- a fossil fuel free electricity supplied by 2013. that is the goal. we have provid