as you know, the deferring site condition at calaveras has had very significant increase on the wsip budget as a whole. in this graph here shows you how big these impacts have been in regards to the proposed changes in front of you today. the cost increases on the calaveras project are shown in red while all the savings on all our other projects are shown in green. first set of bars are for the delivery and other costs, and second set of bars are for the construction costs. so, you can see that 88.2 million in additional funding is required for calaveras as part of these project program revision. on the other hand, the proposed budget for all other projects have savings totaling 32.6 million. and most of those savings, by the way, are in the construction costs.

now, given the magnitude and significance of the differing site conditions on calaveras, i wanted to recap for you the cost impact of that discovery. three months ago you approved an additional $117 million to cover the construction costs required to address this major change. as emelio mentioned, we have just completed the negotiation of a new change order for that issue, and it totals 126 million. so, the additional amount, the 88.2 million, we're asking you to approve today covers the 9 million difference between what you approved before and what we negotiated. $30 million in additional delivery costs as a result of extending the project two years. and about $8 million for a few other construction trends. that project increase also includes a $30 million in

contingency to address any unanticipated issues that may arise in the future. as indicated on the slide, total cost, construction and delivery cost associated with the geology condition adds up to $163 million. but what is important to realize here is that only $19 million of that total is due to the fact that the unknown geologic conditionses were discovered in construction instead of pre-construction. and again, if, when you think about it, if it wasn't for that one change, we still would have more than $100 million in savings on the program. okay. now what i'd like to do is walk you through a little bit what makes up the wsip budget and how we arrived at this $4.64 billion program cost. so, our budget includes the following. financing costs, which will

present the up front borrowing cost to construction until assets are put in service. other costs which include expenditures such as environmental mitigation, real estate purchases, contribution to art enrichment, and others. delivery costs includes program and project management, planning, design, environmental review and permitting, construction management, and environmental and engineering support during construction. and construction costs includes all the contractors' bid for the actual construction work as well as funding to cover any changes that may arise in the field as well as any city provided equipment or materials. since most of our remaining costs are construction related, i wanted to elaborate a little bit more on construction costs. and here's how those are built. so, the construction costs

for the three projects that are less than pre-construction are basically based on the latest available engineer estimates, and then to that we add 10% contingency to cover any potential changes during construction. so, all those projects that are in construction, the construction costs include the -- all the contractors' awarded bids, all change orders that have been recorded to date, all trends that identify issues that may later result in change orders as well as additional contingency to cover the risks that may materialize in the future. now, another way to look at our construction budget is to look at it as the sum of the actual expenditures incurred so far, as well as the forecast of future expenditures to complete all projects, plus contingency on top of that for unforeseen issues that may arise in the field.

now, taking into account all the [speaker not understood] issues we know at this time, the forecasted construction cost to complete all the program is 2.7 billion. you can see on this slide that nearly 1.7 billion, or about 62% of those costs are actual costs that have been incurred to date. construction costs also includes 64.7 million dollars contingency issues that may arise between now and the completion of the wsip. this is enough contingency to cover a significant portion of all the risks we identified on all our construction projects. specifically, that amount is equivalent to what we call the 88% risk confidence level. and what that means is that we have enough funding to cover the impacts of the risks associated with the 88% confidence level or probability of occurrence. now, if you wanted to go and

fund the 100% probability of occurrence, you would need 192, almost double the amount of funding. and this chart here shows why it is that you need so much more funding to go from 88% to 100% confidence level. this is the risk curve for the wsip and it's generated using again all the risks in our program, on all the projects that are in construction. on the vertical axis is the confidence level of risk occurrence and the zonal access is the total value of the risk or amount of funding you would need to cover those risks. so, you can see at the left side for very small investments, they would lead to very fast increase in the confidence level. but then when you get around 80% or so, the curve really flattens out so you need to make much more significant investments at the right side to be able to get closer to the

100% confidence level. >> what is the confidence level when we found out about the geological problematical various? >> we always -- the common practice in the industry is to include funding for 80%. so, that's where we've been, you know, trying to achieve and it varied from project to project as. as new issues arise, you start drawing on the contingency so the availability goes below 80%. >> the confidence level was below the 80% norm -- >> yes. tell you the truth, when i did this analysis, i didn't know where we were going to land and i was pleased to see -- ~ i did not come up with the 64 to come up with 88. i didn't pick 88. as i look at things -- i look at the contingency on a project by project basis and we ran the whole analysis program wide and this is where we landed, which, in my professional experience, i feel is a very good place to be. again, if you would want to go,

you know, towards the right here, you would need to make incredibly larger investments to gain only couple percentage points. >> so, at the end of the day when a rate payer comes up to you on the corner of goth and sutter and says, ms. labonte, why are we spending all this money on this project, what does it do for us? >> well, the additional funding here will allow us -- >> i know what the additional funding -- the calaveras dam, why do we need to worry about that? >> there's a reason for each project. in the case of calaveras dam, it is a key component of our overall water supply stratejai. without it, you lose incredible flexibility into the overall operation of the system. and you would become especially vulnerable during drought conditions. >> good answer. question. >> what happened with hetch hetchy -- >> it's a buffer, it definitely

provides -- yes. so, there's -- and the dam currently -- >> that's even a better answer. >> the dam has been found to be seismically vulnerable so we cannot operate it at full capacity right now. >> okay. i just think it's important people may be or may not be watching on television, to make sure we help them understand why this expenditure is so necessary. >> and bear with me. i've got only three or four remaining slides. so, you know, the impacts on the rates, of course, is it's an important issue to address. and the $54.9 million increase in the wsip project -- in the wsip budget will not have any further impacts on rates. this is because the water enterprise will make some adjustment to its 10 year capital program to compensate for this increase in the wsip budget. also, as todd reported in multiple presentation in recent

years, we have realized some very significant cost savings in our borrowing rates and these savings will result in lower than otherwise needed future rates to repay the wsip [speaker not understood]. when you approved the revisions to the calaveras dam project back in january, bawsca made 10 different recommendations that were added to the commission resolution. the [speaker not understood] of assessment that led to today's march 2013 revised wsip addresses a great number of these recommendations, however, there are a few recommendations we plan to address separately in amendments to the commission that will be forthcoming. this slide here shows the three topics this memo will address. now, in closing here in summary are the actions that we are asking -- seeking your approval for today. and essentially, we are asking

you to approve the scope, schedule, and budget revisions that are part of the march 2013 revised wsip and those were documented in detail in the 30-day notice of public hearing that was part of your packet. and thank you for giving me the time. >> no, thank you. any questions? commissioner caen. >> is it fair to say -- at the beginning of your presentation you listed the projects that need additional funding. >> um-hm. >> but they're compensated for by savings on other projects, correct? >> partly compensated for. the increases are greater than the savings. >> okay. so -- >> that's why we end up with a net, a net $54.9 million shortfall.

>> okay. so, one can't say that that 55 million is just for calaveras. >> no. calaveras itself was 88.2. so, calaveras itself, under this revision, was 88.2. and savings on other projects partially offset that. so, what we did is you look at all the increases forecasted on certain projects, look at all the savings forecasted on others, and came back with a revised program budget that has a net increase of 54.9. >> anything further. >> emelio cruz. if you took the step back to january where you approved a $117 million increase because of calaveras, today we're coming to you and recommending an additional $88 million to cover all of calaveras. and then we also presented to you the savings that we've seen on all the other projects

combined in the neighborhood of 36 million. so, you can definitely say that the entirety of the increase is the result of calaveras and that, in fact, without calaveras, we would be coming in over 100 million under budget at this point. and for members of the public who might be listening to give this scope, $200 million change is a significant change. ~ $100 million because of the landscape underground on the original design, calaveras is moving 3 million cubic yards of soil more than the original design. that translates to 3 billion pounds of dirt. so, $200 million is a large impact to the program, but it's primarily the result of needing to move 3 billion pounds of soil in order to complete the calaveras dam. and, again, the completion of calaveras dam allows us to go back to our historic reservoir levels as opposed to the 35%

that we've been currently under because of the seismic condition of the existing dam. >> that's the 1500 football field? >> i've not heard that reference, but i'm getting head shakes. yes. [laughter] >> okay. so, the only part that i'm not clear on, i thought that you said the savings were not covering completely the additional cost excluding calaveras. is that what you just said to me? >> no, there's a site, actually, that shows that if you take calaveras out of the picture and you just look at all the other projects, we are netting $32 million in savings or so. i could look at my notes. yeah. so, take calaveras out of the picture. the net-net on all of the projects is actually a savings. but the overrun at calaveras is so big that we eat up all that

savings and then some. >> i see. >> and that further supports what emelio just said. calaveras itself is the problem. >> so, just -- it's a tale of two stories. if you don't include the calaveras overrun, i think the program experience, i think over $100 million -- take out all of calaveras -- >> i think it is important, and that goes a little bit to the question of -- commissioner torres' question. and i mention that in my presentation. if we knew ahead of time, during pre-construction about the deferring site condition, let's say we had boring and we identified this slide. i mentioned that all but -- all the changes we have here on calaveras, all but $19 million would have been incurred.

so, 163 minus 19, that's 144. so, the original program costs would have been $144 million more to begin with if we knew about this because we would have had to move all that dirt. we would have had to take-two more years. and guess what, we have conferred with our general managers and all our water supply experts, and we would still have proceeded with that project. this is how critical that project is. so, really, that change here that was discovered during construction is worth 19 million. ~ when i think about it. because if we had known about it from the beginning, we would have committed the additional funding. yes. i'm not sure if i explained this right. >> yes, commissioner moran. >> thank you. the additional 54.9 million -- >> um-hm. >> -- where does that come from? >> well, when we issue bonds, there's no differentiation between water bonds or wsip bonds. so, we have a schedule for, you

know, how we're going to issue bonds over the next several years. and we don't plan on changing that. so, what we're going to do, though, we are going to shift or change around some of the improvements that are being planned under the ten-year $1.5 billion water enterprise cip to allow these wsip improvements to proceed first because, again, the top priority is to fund projects that contribute directly to the level of service [speaker not understood]. >> have you identified all of those changes that need to be made? >> we are in the process of doing that. so, what we did is the 54.9 million is not a one-shot thing. you need to look at your cash flow and from this cash flow basically our finance group is going to tell us exactly what here we need to make these reductions. and i know dave briggs and his team are now starting to look at what exactly that means. i know he's identified some

good candidates already, but we haven't finalized those adjustments yet. >> so that's pretty much still a work in progress. >> yes. >> mr. president, we received correspondence from bawsca raising a series of issues. and the first of those issues was about wsip scope. i think what we heard today is that there is no abandonment of any project that's in wsip. there is no change of scope to any project in wsip that would impact the level of service provided by that project. >> yes. >> and that the only impact to levels of service is that some of them -- because the project is delayed, some of them are are available to us later than previously planned. >> yes. >> the process is the same, but the plan is a unavoidable some of the benefit will be delayed. the last piece of that logic is that we are not in the

reprogramming of things proposing that any of those level of service projects be delayed more than is physically necessary. >> absolutely. >> okay. >> so, there is no change to the level of service ultimately to be derived. there is some delay in some elements of the level of service . >> right. >> do you have any quantification of that? >> we started quantifying those. specifically, there were two memos sent to the commission. one on the calaveras dam and one on the [speaker not understood] creek recapture that quantify those. based on modeling of our water supply. as part of our change noted, we will have to provide the state of california, i think we will look into doing further assessments of what those delays mean. and in general, whenever you delay achieving full benefits

of those level of service goals, you are dealing with an increased risk to not have the full reliability that you're looking for. now, trying to quantify those risks is not an easy task, but one that we have attempted to take on in the past. and i will look into how best to do that as part of the change notice to the state. >> i think that -- the first point is our objective has not changed at all, and our commitment to meeting those levels of service has not changed at all. to the extent that you can describe the effect of the delay, i think that's useful. it doesn't change a single decision we would make because we're going to try to get everything done as quickly as we can. but i think in terms of just full disclosure, i think that's useful. second area that was raised was budget by bawsca. and i think as was discussed, that is a work in progress.

what we know is that we have enough tools at our disposal to come up with the plan that funds this [speaker not understood]. we don't know the particulars of that yet. i think that is the area where some of the choices the letter talked about, having -- in front of the commission, this is the way we think we should reprogram funds with minimum impact to our customers. i think that's something that should come back to the commission for our review before the 10 year capital program is changed, before the funds are obligated, to make sure that the level of impact is something that we think is acceptable. >> yes, commissioner. and also again, we believe we have prudently put forward a budget which includes a contingency for potentially future unforeseen conditions of $30 million. if we, in fact, do not run into problems and do not spend that 30 million, then the 54.9 million comes down by that

much. so, when we are working with the water enterprise and identifying potential projects for deferral, then we would also show them in priority and you would know that it, depending on the impacts that we have to our current contingency, the impact is [speaker not understood] will be minimized accordingly. >> the only other thing i'd like to put out on the budget side, this is just a marker, it's not a suggestion. if in the attempt to reprogram funds to make necessary money available, if we find ourselves considering something that we think is harmful, we should not take as ironclad that we would not adjust rates to cover that. if there is harm to be done, we need to know that and know that we have the option. we're about at the end of the five-year rate commitment. as we set up the next five years, we can consider changes. again, that's not a suggestion.

i just want to make sure that we don't feel burdened to do something that we shouldn't do because of that. and the last thing is a question of timing on some issues. i think that gets back into the level of service issue, that the timing issues are ones of when level of service will be provided. so, i think that's something that would be hepful. >> any other questions? we'll proceed to public comment. [speaker not understood]. item number 11. you defer to others? if you do, you lose your space. that's all i have to tell you right now. all right. [speaker not understood] rosencrans, welcome to the commission. you're with restore hetch hetchy? that's right, president torres. thank you for allowing me to speak today. >> thank you. president torres and commissioners, i'm going to say three quick things. first of all, i want to congratulate the commission and

the staff for its work these past 10 or so years on the water system improvement plan. i'll leave some of the calaveras issues aside because i know there are some environmental [speaker not understood] from -- jeff miller might want to talk about. my understanding of the discovery of the previous land slide is valid and i think that's something that you need to accept. but more over, increased reliability from rebuilding all those pipes around the bay, under the bay and so forth, the water treatment, that's all important stuff and it's good that you're providing increased reliability to your customers. secondly, i want to thank mr. jensen for his earlier offer to withdraw a proposal to rejiger the funding for the wbip and i appreciate he's willing to listen to the conservation community in doing that. and i would suggest maybe this

commission might want to reconsider its intended -- any intention to accept mr. jensen'ses are [-eug/] resignation. -- resignation. thirdly, i did not get a chance earlier to make comments on the letter ~ that your attorney and consultant sent to the state board. i was at that hearing, and i will make some detailed communications in writing and some suggestions and concerns about the way you presented the potential impacts to the state board that i hope you'll pay attention to. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. mr. peter widmeier, drt. good afternoon, mr. president and commissioners. peter dutmeier of the [speaker not understood]. i, too, have concerns about the proposal of bawsca to transfer funds from the watershed

environmental improvement program into capital programs. i, too, thank mr. jensen for pulling back on that. it does give me a chance to comment on the annual report for the wiip that was presented last december, i wasn't able to come, but i thought it was a great report. really exciting things happening throughout the watershed. we personally appreciated the puc's contribution tox acquisition of dos rios at tuolumne and san joaquin. that will be a [speaker not understood] to the san joaquin river wildlife refuge. i want to congratulate staff, especially tim ramirez who is here for the good work they've been doing. we had a good meeting up in moccasin on friday, [speaker not understood]. progress is made on the upper tuolumne river [speaker not understood] system. it is a little behind schedule.

every three years, or 20-year. progress is being made, and this is really all helping the puc meet the obligations of the environmental stewardship policy. so, we really appreciate you taking that seriously and let's keep moving on these. ~ wiip projects. thank you. >> thank you, peter. mr. jeff millerv, alameda creek alliance. ~ welcome. this one, is this one on? good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity. jeff miller, alameda creek alliance. i want to echo [speaker not understood]. it's doing good things in the alameda creek watershed. i'm glad mr. jensen withdrew that suggestion. i certainly hope the commission doesn't view the improvement program as a slush fund to be looted, to cover other overruns. in fact, i believe wiip is one of the wisest improvement

program elements that is not over budget. so, i hope that it won't be looted. and it also is less than 1% of the funding for the wsip, a pretty modest amount. so, please keep that intact. then i also wanted to address the project that was -- the alameda creek recapture project which was called out as probably the last wsip project to be completed on alameda creek. we've been interacting with that project for about 10 years or no longer than that, probably about 13 years. i've come here a couple times before you. we've been in pretty constant communication with your staff. we see some good things industry wise, project particularly t new design. there will be no infrastructure in the creek. it's passive infiltration to a quarry pit and simply requires a pump. we like that element of it. we also see some potential problems with the goal of the project recapturing bypass [speaker not understood].

we absolutely support recapture of the flows that are released from calaveras reservoir for fishery restoration. those are summer flows, the very low flow. it's cold water that would not make it all the way down alameda creek anyhow. and there's no environmental benefit to be gained if that water were not recap toured. so, recapture that water makes sense. the water that's bypassed from alameda diversion dam due to the new operations, that's water that's intended to assist fish migration all the way down alameda creek to the mount. and we see some problems if there is an intent to capture that much water. that water bypassed is -- we believe some of it is mitigation for the calaveras dam and some of it is required for federal permits to comply with the federal fish species act for fish passage. we have to work out what water is going to be recap toured and how much, but we like the new design. thank you. >> what kind of fish? [speaker not understood] trout and [speaker not understood]