it also asked that this material was in response to a request of some time ago with we first went to chloramine disinfection to be apprised on a periodic basis. they have asked that saying as though the implementation issues have been resolved and that the state of the art is not changing over time, that the regular reporting be stopped and that they report to us on an as needed basis, so i would support their request. >> are they here? are they here? >> i don't know that they need to be here. >> okay, i was wondering. >> they all work for mr. keller and i'm sure he'll be glad to pass that on. >> any other comments? >> on 5c, but i don't see many mr. richie here.

>> he's trying to hide from you. >> mr. richie, this is not church, you don't have to hide in the back. [laughter]. >> okay, i found this very interesting, the desalination projts comparison, could you tell me what it means so i can understand about the energy use, how they compare the different -- >> yes, in this case, we compared the bay area regional desalination projts to the santa cruz project t marine project in san diego county on an energy and cost basis, and basically what this shows is that the energy uses for the regional desalination project is lower than the others and that's gr*ifrn by the fact that we would be if we proceeded with this project, we would be desail baiting brackish water, you're getting more water per

unit and having to separate out less salt so the energy usage is lower because of that, it increases because it has to go to the east bay mud system to be pumped up to get into our system, it shows the desalination cost itself is much less for that project than other projects which use ocean water for desalination. >> is that a lot of energy or does it require a large amount of energy? >> when we looked at this, this is comparable to our proposed recycled water projects in san francisco. it's far less energy uses thaj hechechi water but it's come probable to the recycled water projects. >> that's good to know, thank you: i'd like to follow up on that because i think it would be interesting to see a comparison not just with the other desalt projects but with the other proposed projects we're looking at, whether it's

ground water management or recycle or rainwater harvest or the energy comparison as well as the cost comparison. >> we'll definitely do that, this was a response to a direct question about desal projects, that's one of the basis of the comparison of which projects are better to pursue, relative energy uses is a component of that. >> great, thank you. >> any other questions on anything on the communications? >> mr. president? >> yes. >> i would like to for the record make note of the letters we've received to date update today the letter summary for cleanpowersf, august 12 received a report from sustainable, august 12, received correspondence from lean energy us, august 12 received an e-mail from rebecca solnat regarding a shell shock petition that she signed inner

ror, august 12, we received correspondence from energy shell america regarding the energy supply agreement, august 12, we received an e-mail from the san francisco league of pissed off voters, that's their official title, asking for approval of cleanpowersf, august 13, this morning, we received correspondence from senator mark leno, senator steven lee and ammiano regarding of cleanpowersf, august 13, we received a letter from ibw1245 in opposition, this morning, we received correspondence which i placed on your desk from the law offices adams, broad well, joseph and car doze sa on behalf of ibw1245 and you also received an updated list of 379 individuals that signed the sierra club petition in support

and 379 as of this morning and also four phone call that is i received this morning, so for the record, i wanted to put those in. >> [inaudible]. >> and that's all. >> this is regarding billing, i can give this to mr. raoes? >> he's in charge of billing, he would be happy to receive that. >> i have a question on one of those communication that is i would like to direct to our general manager which is the letter from shell. would you mind explaining the nature of that let e i read it but i would like some interpretation of what that means? >> so, i can barbara to go up, but basically what the letter is saying is that shell is

offering to reduce a million dollars and put it towards the build-out and then 500 thousand towards build-out, so as it relates to the not to exceed rate, the rate will be the same, however, it would put more of the money towards local build-out. you want to -- >> barbara hale, yes, that, and in addition, they are indicating in their letter that they are in active conversation with counterparties that operate power plants in california and are proposing those plants as part of the supply portfolio and i think they indicated, i don't want to misrepresent what they say here , they indicated that they are

carbon neutral and are -- i'm looking for the language with respect to the operating status, mr. kelly. in state renewable i see here. >> [inaudible]. >> here it is, facilities operated by union lay boxer i didn't want to misrepresent how they characterized these facilities, so they are carbon neutral wind and in-state hydro, those are the two elements that they point out in their letter. >> great, thank you, i appreciate that. >> do you have a proposal to sonoma county? >> i don't, i haven't seen the proposal they put before sonoma county, they haven't reviewed

the bid packages, sonoma county hasn't. >> alright, mr. [inaudible], you wanted to comment on item 5e? >> i wanted to thank one of the commissioners, commissioner anson moran for mentioning about item 5e which is chloramine that is put in our waters, and i want to state very clearly that when we talk about hatch hatch khao*e right at the source, we have some of the finest water in the whole world, but then as the water comes closer to san francisco, we mix it with other type of waters from the rivers and we also treat our patter with

chemicals. up to today, there are many people who cannot stand chloramine, and they have to filter their water to take a bath and so on and so forth, so even though we have certain so-called experts at sfpuc and experts a t the san francisco health department, we need to post the findings on the internet so that we have full transparency and accountability. the water, hatch hatch khao*e water is sacred water and i've said this before o the commissioners, every time i go and meet the first people, they offer me that water always. they don't offer me anything else but that water.

that's how much they respect that water. as for the chloramine, we need to address that so that fewer people are adversely impacted by chloramine, thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. decosta, any further comments on the communications item in the agenda? alright, there being none, we'll move forward to item number 6. other commission business? any public comment on other commission business? item number 7, we move to report of the general manager. >> i have nothing to report. >> nothing to report. consent calendar? i know there was a witness that wanted to testify on an item on the consent calendar but it has to be removed by a member. .ing -- >> shall i read the items? >> yes, please read them and we'll go to commissioner -- >> item 8a, accept the work performed by shau line

incorporated for contract ww480 and improve modification number 4 by increasing the..[reading].. a fiem extension of calendar day, item b, accept work performed by proven management inc. for contract number ww482 and authorize final payment to the contract torx item c, accept work performed by precision engineering for contract ww504 with an express reservation of rights related to work performed on 15th avenue to west portal avenue and increase the contract by 138 thousand 918 in a time extension of 55 consecutive calendar days and authorize payment to the contractor. item d, approve the proposed memorandum of agreement between the san francisco public utilities commission and the san francisco housing authority and authorize the general manager to execute the agreement and to amend the agreement if necessary.

>> commissioner caen? >> i would just like to discuss this item. i don't understand how they're going to be getting the money to pay us back if they're not getting federal funds? >> which item is this? >> d. >> item 8d, and your question is to the general manager? >> no, my question would be to mr. rydstrom. >> oh. >> good afternoon, commissioners, today ride stro*m, general manager and cfo, so item d is a proposed memorandum of agreement between the housing authority and the sfpuc, the housing authority has been hit with additional federal budget cuts which has even more seriously affected their budget. they are already operating in very lean times because they typically only receive about 70 cents on the dollar of their

application to the federal government. that being said, we do have timely water and sewer payments from the housing authority, they have however because of the additional federal budget cuts fallen short in their electric payment sos the item before you is to authorize the general manager to negotiate an up to 4 year repayment plan for them to have time to work with their commission, to go through their budget setting prioritization process and then to include in that a way to become timely again with their electric payments. their calendar for their budget operates on the federal fiscal year starting october 1 and i have discussed this with their staff and so we are looking forward to your approval if that's before you today and your will today to successfully negotiate a one, two, three, or four year term to repay us to be timely on electric. >> so, this has not been done yet?

>> it has not been done yet, it is subject to your approval so this is one of those items where you have to approve it because it is a negotiated memorandum of agreement. >> i see, thank you. >> ms. huggins, it's your turn now. >> thank you so much, commissioners. my name is karen huggins, i'm the president of the holly courts president council and i'm president of the tenant and san francisco housing authority tenants union. now, i do agree with this resolution, but i believe you ought to hold the fete to the fire of the housing authority, as we know, the management of that housing authority is in the reason it's in the trouble it's in, it will not look at residents as resident leaders the way it should, it would not

look into resident management the way it should and also resident empowerment and they need to do that to fix the problems that they have or they will continue to come to you for help and bail-out. as i mentioned before, holly courts has a panels for just heating hot water, i've gone to the housing authority and its commission and it's acting ed several times and i've asked them about the solar panel that is we need to change to. i asked them about the charging stations where we need to enact that for charging of electric cars. i have met with -- it's too costly, we can't do it, well, i know there's programs out there that they can try to work with to get this done. all development, senior and family developments needs solar panels on their developments and with we're going through rehab, it's an excellent time

to try the windmill factor and the solar panel factor. thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. huggins. any further comments? yes, i didn't realize you wanted to comment on this. go ahead. >> espanola jackson from bayview hunter's point. >> dr. espanola. >> yes, thank you, sweetheart. i want to say this, we need to know the history of the housing authority like you need to know your history, you know, how you came to being. in the 40's, public housing did not pay pg&e and our gor -- garbage, that didn't change until the 70's and we need to find out why did it change in the 70's because during the wartime, and you can check and find out for yourself, when i bring you information, you know

i know what i'm talking about, also one of the things we really need to think about, you saw what happened in florida, the sinkholes, you know san francisco is having some of the same problems. >> right in front of my house. >> what you need to do, sir, is get staff to go to the city and get the maps of this city because this city has nothing but streams running all through it, so the water is going underneath and the bay is coming in and everything's going out and that's how these sinkholes is comes. let me say this, it frightens me, especially when everybody's talking about building, building building and talking about toxic sites as well as landfill sites and most of san francisco is landfill, we need to start thinking about the safety of the people here in

san francisco. now, get them to get the map because this would occur in bayview hunter's point when they were building the swimming pool when willie brown was mayor, they were bingeing and they kept digging understood water, so i said, they're not working, i said what's wrong, we're digging underwater and i said go to city hall and get the map, i said there's a lot of streams in the city, there's a lot of streams so we need to have some people who are qualified to look into the situation about the city of san francisco having sinkholes and i'm supporting solar and you know i'm your ambassador and i will be going to sacramento tomorrow. thank you. >> thank you. i will instruct without obstruction to design a sinkhole task force and come back to us appropriately. thank you. any other comments on the consent calendar? the chair will entertain a

motion. >> i'll move it. >> moved by commissioner moran, seconded by [inaudible]. >> everyone in favor, say aye. opposed? motion carries. >> item 9, approve an increase in the construction contract cost contingency for contract number wd2581 in the amount of 8 million 5495 thousand and an increase in the contract duration of up to 53 consecutive cal car days and authorize future modifications. >> my name is jif bajwa, the item in front of you is regarding the nit tunnel, in april of this year, you had actually approved a baseline in which this amount of 8 million dollar and 53 days was counted for. this is for you to transfer

that approved money into the concession contingencies and authorized general manager so we can start using it and the use of that is when we came for the notice of change, we explained to you that these are the potential or pending change orders, approved change orders, i think was approved somewhere in april 12, so that's what this item is, i would be glad to give you the response to your questions and reasons for these changes, you already have been briefed by julie, the gas tunnel is the water seepage as well as the harder rocks which we are encountering, for your information, the project now is 83% complete. we have lost less of 900 feet to do it, but this seems to be the most challenging at this moment because of the water seepage. >> not the harder rock, the

water seepage? >> the harder rock is also part of it but i think water is what's most challenging now. >> any questions? any public comment? is there a motion? >> so moved. >> moved by commissioner caen, seconded by commissioner moran, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. . er aye. >> opposed? thank you very much. >> item 10, approve the increase in the construction contract cost contingency for contract number wd2551 in the amount of 449 million 443, 646 dollars. >> okay, this item is similar to what i did discuss earlier. it was approved in april and what we are asking is that the approved amounts you had done in april was 88.7 million

dollars, we're asking part of that money to be transferred to the construction contingencies to cover all these pending change orders or potential change orders, trends and to some extent, some of the risk. >> alright. any public comment? is there a motion or discussion by the board? >> so moved. >> moved, seconded. >> seconded. >> commissioners, all those in favor, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. >> item 111, public hearing discussion and possible action regarding schedules of rate and is charges of the san francisco public utilities commission power enterprise for the phase one of the cleanpowersf community choice aggregation program for renewable power procurement within san francisco. >> manager kelly for some comments? >> good afternoon, commissioners, so, a little bit of what has been happening. as you remember on july 9, we

heard a presentation about not to exceed rate for cleanpowersf program, at that meeting, you asked staff to look at reducing the not to exceed rate to 11.5 and now the rate before you is that for your consideration. you also asked us to meet with the labor groups to determine if we could address their concerns and that they had raised about the proposed cc a program, and so i would like to call up robert hale, our assistant general manager of power to give you an update on that subject. >> thank you, general manager kelly, general manager for power, as the general manager just said, we have been meeting in recent weeks with managers for labor representing various labor unions with our ren s*ept t*if team, at our meetings, we

talked about implementing the labor council's principles and to remind you what those principles w the labor council adopted a resolution with the three principles that power purchase by cleanpowersf be from unionized california facilities, secondly, that renewable energy generation projects be subject to projects labor agreements so that component of the local build, and also that energy efficiency projects, another component of our local build be subject to project labor agreements as well. i can report that with respect to the first item, the puc cannot limit procurement to unionized california facilities and in our discussion, members of the labor council agreed with that assessment. with regard to the issue of pla's for energy projects both generation and energy efficiency, you know, the labor

representatives were helpful in sharing some examples of project labor agreements that they have with other jurisdictions, both private and public, but nothing has been resolved in these conversations. city rules require certain requirements to be met before a city agency could enter into a pla, it's certainly a considerable amount of work on our part if we were to engage in that effort and quite honestly, we're not sure that all conditions could be met, and so with that, i'll turn it back to the general manager, thank you. >> so, the last thing i would like to say is i really want to thank our staff who has worked tirelessly in coming up with the balancing the three items about being a green, affordable and have opportunity for green jobs and i just want to commend

the staff and say thank you for all your hard work, it's been a pleasure working with you guys. so, with that, i'll turn it over to you. >> alright, i have a question for our city attorney who's here with us today. does the board ordinance compel this commission to set rates and sign a contract with shell or merely authorize this commission to do so with certain goals and standards are met? >> [inaudible] city attorney's office, the board resolution and i'm referring to the one from 2012 authorized the general manager to execute the contract with shell subject to certain conditions, one of which was adopting rates and forwarding those to the board for their subsequent action, so it doesn't compel the signing

of the contract, it authorizes you after you set rates which is the item that's before you today, whether or not to adopt the not to exceed rate. >> so, if we choose not to adopt, what is the impact? >> you won't meet the condition to the effectiveness of the shell contract and the general manager won't be able to implement the contract. >> so, the board vote was actually an authorization, not a compulsory compelling to act? >> correct. >> i will recognize fran chess ka vita for a motion? >> thank you, mr. president. so, i'm so pleased to be able to put this motion on the table because i feel like today is a historic moment for the san francisco commission as well as the city of san francisco to

show its dedication to reduce greenhouse gas emission and being a leader in climate change, this is only a vote to approve the not to exceed rate, it represents an unprecedented opportunity for san francisco to lead the country by example and show our determination to protect our city and residents from the impacts of emerging climate, we'll also be able to create a new generation of green collar workers and build our own clean power system. we wouldn't have arrived at this historic moment without the leadership of the city and this commission, this commission brings a range of expertise, relationships and perspective and has allowed us to set a not to exceed rate that will allow for 100% certified renewable power by the state, real job and local build-out and job creation at a competitive price. i also want to acknowledge the hard work of the staff as well.

we asked them to find a comfortable compromise with this program in order to address the various concerns that have emerged from labor to the power mix to the affordability of this program. we have before us a sweet spot rate that will allow us to meet our city and state policy objectives, move the program forward and resolve any outstanding questions. this is only a not to exceed rate vote. community choice aggregation is proven to be the fastest and most effective way for us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as a municipality. the cc a model is being implemented not only across the state but across the country. we need to act now. i understand that the current program proposal is not final and that today's vote is simply not a not to exceed rate vote. i also know we cannot determine the final program details until

we set the rate, so it is with a great sense of urgency, responsibility and honor that i make the motion to approve the not to exceed rate without further delay. >> 11.5 is what you're suggesting? >> is there a second? >> i second. >> okay, we'll move to -- is there a finance presentation? there's none. why is it on the agenda then? >> we have staff, we have proposed not to exceed rates, finance presentation and a rate fairness board presentation. are those still on task? >> if i may, today rydstrom,, those were the same materials presented before, so for the completion of the packet, we then forwarded it and included them. >> this is not a reconfiguration or reassessment f,