employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco >>[gavel] > good afternoon and welcome

to the city of san francisco public utilities commission regular meeting. i would like to call the san francisco public utilities commission regular meeting of july 26, 2016 to order. mdm. sec., please call the roll. >> commissioner moller caen >> here. >> commissioner courtney >> here. >> commissioner kwon >> here. >> here. >> pres. vietor. >> and commissioner moran is expected shortly. >>next item is>>item 3 is approval of the minutes from the july 12, 2016 meeting. >>i have a motion and a second. minutes of been approved.

>>your wholesale customers last year were about 36 gallons per day which was very low. that's about half of what the wholesale customers use on average in less than six times what city shoes. the contract is limited. so limited that they don't know that they can approve the development projects within the community.

last week thecity approved a moratorium project because they can't guarantee enough water. i want to be clear it's not about the availability of water there is plenty availability within wholesale costs here but i seems unfair and on a and for years the system that they have been in, and we have been in and it needs to be fixed and as a result theaffordable housing is on the back burner in east palo alto. i'm hoping that you folks can work with boston and others to fix the situation thank you. >>thank you. we received quite a bit of testimony and a lot of letters from the east palo alto community in support of the issue that you have raised to try to address the water

allocation issue. we have directed our staff to move forward as quickly as possible to find some resolutions to these issue because we want to make palo alto hole and make sure the sticks. >>also we have a trip to meet with some officials >>that is right we have a trip to meet with some officials and tour palo alto and meet with the commissioner's. thank you, any other public comment or general, comment? seeing none

pleaseitem 5 is communications. >>we only really of two slides we see that hetch hetchy is

about 200 or 300 feet and were seeing this will come down throughout the summer and were meeting that demand with the two treatment plants down here and the water bank is about 73% so we're still in a decent position regarding the storage but obviously, we did not fill up and that is why we are calling for a 10% reduction in demand by all of our customers. then, my second slide is the one that is deliveries. that is the one that really is changing during this time of year. as you can see, it appears that the demand is starting to flatten out the summer. i just saw the report for last week and it was down another 3 1/2 million gallons per day about 200 or 300 feet and were seeing this will come down throughout the summer and were meeting that demand with the two treatment plants down here and the water bank is about 73% so we're still in a decent position regarding the storage but obviously, we did not fill up and that is why we are calling for a 10% reduction in demand by all of our customers. then, my second slide is the one that is deliveries. that is the one that really is changing during this time of year. as you can see, it appears that the demand is starting to flatten out the summer. i just saw the report for last week and it was down another 3 1/2 million gallons per day to about two 22 million gallons per day and demand is kind of leveled off during the

summer and it is well below the 10% reduction dash line that is on there. again, our customers are still conserving water which is good and our storage is seeming relatively good right now so basically we are going to just ride out the rest of the summer and probably not see much change in any of these things until we get into october or november. so, i would recommend potentially altering the frequency of the reports until we get a into a season where these things would start to happen again in less we get into a change in which we would report that to the commission and that is all thatwe have today. >>i would be fine with that. >>me and the commissioners of what the consumption levels are and keeping track.see if there is any slippage on that that we know about and we can address it >>at this point i think we should put a memo into the communications further? >>and when is that? >>october?

>>october. >>any public comment on the draft report. >> good afternoon michael himes i will be speaking on behalf of the power sf programs and be providing an update of our operations forkind enrollments and plans underway for future enrollment.clean power sf continues to serve we are in our 13th week of service and now there are about 7000 commercial accounts and about

400 a residential. as of the beginning of this week the opt out rate for the amine enrollment was 1.6%. the last time that we were here we reported 1.7% opt out rate. so a 10% update. i believe we build every customer that was enrolled in may by this time. the super green participation rate is currently 3% that was the same that it was the last time that we reported. i wanted to state that we continue to promote the super green offering and we will be sending outa notice soon for existing customers to encourage their friends and neighbors to sign up as well. we will also

be doing an advertising campaign in the fall to educate and specifically to promote the super green enrollment in the auto enrollment areas that we will be serving. can forward to our next enrollment we have 551 customers signed up for the august enrollment period last month ms. hale reported that it was 497 so we've had 54 new sign-ups in the last couple of weeks. customers and they are super green and 28% are super green and we are also finalizing our notice for the next enrollment period and we

have worked at a little bit differently this time so thatit still informs customers of the terms and conditions of services that were trying to put more emphasis on super green to encourage and opt up. we have also launched a bill calculator on the clean power sf website. and, that is available for both green and super green rates. i'd like to thank sfpuc it staff for making that happen in a short order. we are also helpinghave .customers understand their utility bill and enroll customers started to understand all bill and rate omparison as

mandated by sb 790. the comparison shows average rates for residential and commercial customers and provides a comparison of the average, monthly bill.. staff is also in the midst of procuring additionalto meet approximately

30. during planning, assumed a 30% opt out rate that due to

the opt out they were seeing we are considering a 20 megawatt reduction megawatt reduction in the fall. what you we viewing later today will allow clean power sf to meet our program policy objectives and regulatory requirements consistent with the commission adopted business practice policies. action also set a new limit on the initial size of the program to approximately 75 mw average. this would allow clean power sf to continue to enroll customers to sign up for the program until the next auto enrollment

is established this would allow the program to an additional 50 to 20 mw of demand and we expect that to come in in the form of small, periodic enrollments that serve customer enrollments. so not like massive for trying to provide for customers in the fall. we are preparing a growth plan to identify all options to expain cleanpower sf service citywide and were working to have that program completed by the end of

the year. >> if the first phase is expanded beyond the 50, this action is intended to allow clean power sf to procure short-term supplies to meet our customer demand and not delegate authority over multi-year supply commitments which we would intend to bring to the commission.. which we would bring to the commission. furthermore any supply commitments under this authority would be done in a manner consistent with the power enterprise existing trading and risk management policy and the business policy that was created and opted in december. then finally, related to this action today i wanted to express that now that program is actually operating and not in launch planning mode we realize that it would be

beneficial to come back to the commission, again, likely in the next couple of months to layout authority delegated to the manager to meet its policy objectives and regulatory requirements and act at a pace to take advantage of cost-effective supplies that we see on the market. but again,, bringing again to the commission large supply contracts and multi-year supply contracts distant with what we've done so far. and, that does conclude my report. i just wanted to show you what the bill comparison looks like an any of you that are cleanpower sf should be seeing me soon.

>>i got mine. it looks great. >>could you please pass it around? >>sure. >>commissioners do you have any questions? >>i have one question. anybody that signs up by the first will be included in what,november?>>that is right. >>and anyone that is interested should sign up? >>yes, please sign up and encourage your friends to sign up too. >>i think it is great news and i think that we will talk about it when we talk about the resolution again but i'm thrilled that 75 is on the table appreciate the staff and all of the effort that has gotten us this far. and, i am pleased that in the next couple of months we will get more from you from the power agreements authority. i would like to

understand better how it's going to affect the rollout of the program overall and the different components and how they will fit and i know it's a moving target but i don't know how that will affect the local buildout schedule or the financial and revenue picture is so if you could continue to feed us the information as you get it in real time and i think that is ambitious just keep us informed in what the implications are that we stay ahead of it and if we need support from a policy perspective please let us know. >>that is great. thank you. >>our super green is 100% wind? >>it is 100% wind as of now. >>it actually changes. >>so yeah, our super green product will evolve as we

employee additional products over time. in the distant future i think we will see a lot more solar, mostly because solar represents the new resource opportunity and development opportunity it's also the most competitive from a cost standpoint today. what we had to do for this program was to execute a contract with an operating resource and it turned out that wind energy was the most competitive operating resource available to us. >>so, the 30 we are involved in now what is the composition of that renewable? >>all of the renewable supplies that we are using today are 100% renewables we are also receiving supplies from hetch

hetchy and also from the natural gas and electricity through our combine process as well. >>where we using the hydro? it is ours. >> that combined with the lower oi opt out rate will incorporate into our portfolio and to utilize the patch had she resource in the clean power resource.

>> so, this is a commitment that we have made and also based on the information of the contracts that we've had executed. that will be trued up in next year's report to customers. it will be a historical summary of our power content actually is delivered in 2016so staff is working very hard to make sure that pans out. >>okay thank you. >>any other questions or comments? >>i have a comment. >>i just want to say again that the work that you are doing is pretty amazing and also given

all of the background that we have had i know we deal mostly with the workforce. i did have a conversation with jason earlier today. i still want to stay very much on top of the employment items and staffing and whatnot as we go down that road just so we have a kind of deliberate- not necessarily conversation but that we just keep touching on that as we go. but, even materials they think are impressive and i think it's a job well done up into this point. >>thank you very much and on that point, i want to emphasize, or clarify, that the staffing- the staff resourcing will be a major part of our growth plan because we need to have strong staffing to meet the needs of this program and meet the needs as we expand citywide's and to make sure that it meets all the

comprehensive needs ofour service and that will be part of the conversations we will have as we develop that plan throughout the year. >>and also to actually identify resources and positions to cca as we roll out the program. >>thank you very much. any public comments? >> jason fried,executive officer for san francisco lascaux. we just had rain forest network encouraging them

to join super green so there's a lot of buzz and effort out there to get folks into the super green projects. that is what we want to get everyone into. were very excited when we get them into supporting the program as well. hopefully over the next few weeks or months we will see those emails but if you are not on their email list you won't get those emails but if you are you will get that type of female. i am also happy to hear the working towards expanding the program and seeing how we get the program enrolled in a quicker way i think going from 50 to 75 is a very positive way to go. i don't see them getting up to 75 because the policies in place that will keep them from getting to that 75 number right away i think it's a good step in the right direction instead scaling back to residential just

figuring out how to get that same amount of numbers while building more into this mix. the staff has figured out how to address that and get some of the hetch hetchy power to help supplement the needs your water team will tell you that you never know if next year will be a drought are not. you never know if you have that drought have that energy available. i think that your staff is an excellent job and i congratulate them on doing so. >>tany other public comments on this item? thank you.anything else from the general manager?

>>next item is theall matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. 8a,approve endment no. 1 to agreement no. cs-1007, structural engineering services for 525 golden gate, with soha engineers for continued structural engineering support during construction of building modifications; and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment, increasing the agreement by $60,000, for a total not-to-exceed agreement amount of $160,000, and with a time extension of one year, for a total agreement duration of four years. (how) b) award job order contractno.

joc-60.approve amendment no. 1 to general engineering

(a-license) for san francisco, san mateo, santa clara, and alameda counties, for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,000,000, to the lowest, qualified, responsible, and responsive bidder, cal state constructors, inc., to perform general engineering construction tasks for all san francisco public utilities commission enterprise operations and bureaus. (how) c) accept work performed by michels/jay dee/coluccio, joint venture, for contract no. wd-2531, bay division pipelines reliability upgrade bay tunnel; approve modification no. 48 (final), decreasing the contract amount by $401,175, for a total contract amount of $217,619,067, with a time extension of 319 non-compensable consecutive calendar days (approximately 10 months), for a total contract duration of 2,252 consecutive calendar days (approximately six years, two months); and authorize final payment to the contractor. (how) d) accept work performed by jdb & sons construction inc., for contract no. wd-2779, college hill learning garden; approve modification no. 1 (final),

increasing the contract amount by $57,252, for a total contract amount of $580,652, with a time extension of 119 consecutive calendar days (approximately four months), for a total contract duration of 189 consecutive calendar days (approximately six months); and authorize final payment to the contractor. (how) e) accept work performed by shimmick construction company, inc., for contract no. ww-490, oceanside water pollution control plant 620 digesters sbr tpad conversion and facility improvements; approve modification no. 11 (final), increasing the contract amount by $158,021, for a total contract amount of $19,034,533, and with a time extension of 167 consecutive calendar days (approximately five months), for a total contract duration of 1337 consecutive calendar days (approximately three years, eight months); and authorize final payment to the contractor. (how) f) authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, a memorandum of agreement (moa) with the california department of fish and wildlife (cdfw), for an amount not to exceed $585,000, and with a duration of 12 months, which will allow for the sfpuc to provide funding to cdfw for the design, procurement, and installation of a temporary water treatment and reuse system (pilot recirculation system) at moccasin creek fish hatchery. cdfw intends to implement the pilot recirculation system to enable the hatchery to successfully operate from january 3, 2017 through march 4, 2017, a period in which water deliveries through mountain tunnel will be interrupted due to maintenance, and consequently, water deliveries to the hatchery will be significantly reduced. (ritchie) regular session 9. authorize the general manager to exceed 50 mw average demand for the cleanpowersf program and set the new program enrollment cap at approximately 75 mw average, as long as the additional demand can be met in accordance with the adopted cleanpowersf power content and phasing policies. >> i would urge the commission to remove the full load of san francisco and i think that staff should be free to move at whatever pace is expeditious and i'm not sure whether you would get this information from anywhere else so i will run through this with a couple of things to buy comparison our neighbors in the peninsula will offer a 50% renewable and 70% gst three default product for 2 1/2% cheaper than pg&e's rates. they're going from the date of serving customers to full

rollout to their service territory will be six months. further down, the silicon valley cca further default product will offer a 50% renewable and ghd project that will be closer to ours and again, that rollout from the date of serving to total rollout to the whole service territory will be six months. that will be october 2017 schedule for both of them. so, this achievement in our neighbors and we are the leader in the south bay and were talking about the rollout staff i support your staff i support being prudent and fluid i think we can do both. i urge you to support your staff and following the policies that you have it adopted to bring them as expeditiously as possible to full enrollment in the city with a priority of as soon as possible these will be fully enrolled in shorter time than we are generated a program growth plan thank you very much. >>thank you. yes, commissioner

moran. >>yes, a question and a comment. is there a rate impact for existing customers with the expansion? >>we will be assessing that went before we make any supply commitments to serve the expansion. that is part of the business practice policy is the commission adopted. the supplies that we looked at to support fall enrollment do not cause a rate impact. >>okay and if we were getting into a position where the market might require a rate change the commission would know about it for those changes were made? >>absolutely >>the other thing that want to mention is if we go out to purchase power and it is so expensive that we have to take

pause. so, that is why we have to be very cautious because we talked about affordability and that is why that has to be measured instead of trying to roll it out just to roll it out. we made a promise to try to make this affordable. so when we do come up with a rate to expand and it's more expensive than pg we will have to have you come and we will have a dialogue. >>that didn't expand beyond that. and finally understand why we have a cap of approximately anything. i don't know how on earth you would administer that. if 75 isn't enough then-

approximately 75 is meaningless. >>question to straight. >>yeah, i agree with that. i think we could amend that. >>that would be my proposal. >>it sounds like you also have another proposed amendment that is not addressed in this resolution that has to do with the rates. >>i want to make sure that there was reference to existing policy and unless you have read the policy, it's not altogether clear what that entails. i want to make sure explicitly that those polities were such that by extending the program we were not obligating ourselves to a rate increase. if the answer from staff was that the existing policies cover that it would not result in a rate increase i don't think there was an amendment

there necessarily. but, i appreciate your support on the approximately and i would make an amendment to move the word approximately in the resolution. >>and, to delete the number 75? >>as long as 75 can sufficient to get us to that point i don't see any point in deleting that. >>and when would we get updates on that? >>the end of this year. >>i think again, the most important part of this rollout is the ability to find the capital or the reserve that we need to continue to purchase contracts and i mean, that is

really the main reason why we've been doing it in phases because we want this program to be self-sufficient. the other thing is, we talked about lockbox versus not lockbox and advantages and reassessing that so there's a lot of moving parts and things that we want to include into the program that were talking about that. so, it is a lot of stuff and remember, we shift from residential to commercial and it sometime this year you want to do commercial so all of that we're trying to put together and as we mentioned today, we will come back and talk to you about the things that we are thinking about so that you will at least know what we are planning to include and look at the different options and stuff like that. >>i wanted to make one comment on the approximately term and to explain why that is in there might be helpful. so, a couple

things that are at play, whenever we do an auto enrollment there are opt outs. in order to meet a targeted resulting demand we enroll more customers then our demand.we use the data that we have citywide to make projections for customer enrollments and because we are serving a subset of the customers in the city we might have outliers in there so there is an amount of variability that's created due to that. so, the approximate wasn't intended to be5-10%

movement necessarily, but what we didn't want is if we ended up point megawatts to be in that regulation. >>if you need more headroom we'll give you more headroom to deal with that availability it sounds like you don't need that initially and if you do you come have plenty of time to come back for an amendment for that.

i motion to approve that. >>do i hear a second? >>i second. >>there is motion and a second is there a public comment? >>i think the approximate 20 we should leave that approximate 20 if we get a higher opt out it will be less. you are talking about paul 75. >>i will agree with that >>amendment to my amendment. only if it is above the 75.

>>jason fried, michael can correct me on this if i'm wrong but there is a formula to between the two but if you want to get rid of the word approximate that is fine and i personally agree with some of the comments that the public made about the being there and it's as long as you are staying within the pricing policy goal is you should encourage staff to get as big as it can well stay in the procedure in some ways i think take out the word

75 because as long as you stay within your policies and procedures because as long as her staying within your policies and procedures it shouldn't matter if it is 75 or not. >>this is just bad drafting. at least is clear drafting to take the word out. it should be something else and come forward with something else. >>yes? >>jed holtzman i didn't identify myself for the tv earlier but i would like to set can officer fried's comment on the amendment because if we remove the number 75 or commenting on the established policies and proceduresthat your staff is approving and were counting on that to move us forward and of course any report if there is a significant

retribution and that path. i would urge you to take officer freid's suggestion and remove the number 75 ae thank you. >>what is the disadvantage of 75? do so with the unlimited. and will be governed by the policies and practices we've already adopted civic to be read impact or purchase and supply issues that could potentially come up.-feeling this will come up again if we go to 100 are to 200 at some point. >>they said they are going to

come back and address the long-term growth issues and hopefully it will come back in a way that we don't have to keep rehashing this. staff hasn't said that they need more than 75. so, i don't see where we need to give them unlimited. if we were giving them unlimited authority i would want to review the policies to make sure they were consistent with that kind of authorization and absent the kind of review i'm not ready to give them unlimited authorization. >>it removes checks and balances of its unlimited. >>if i could just comment that this authority is important for our next enrollment and, 75 does give us room to grow the program in a manner that is responsive to customer proactive demand. customers are reaching out to us and saying they want to be in the program and a staff, one thing we could really use is additional headroom to say that will get you into the program.

and, this will help that. and, i think that i can understand the comments of the public and we want to grow the program as quickly as we can and as prudent and that will come out of our planning effort and we do see with the other cc are doing and we are in touch with them and i think that the 75 will help us to be responsive to the customer demand that we are seeing and ensure that we stay on track too with this current phase. >>i think the issue is if we are limited and the limiting factor is their ability to support above 75. so our son

everybody to understand what our top margin is now and we need to reevaluate that if we do something differently may come back and propose changing some of those policies so that we can expand faster. so, that is why we put the 75 in there. is there any other- >>that is helpful. maybe when we have a rollout plan we can understand what some of those implications are and the rate of rollout if we were to go to 100 or 300 whatever that might be that's a very important consideration. >>and, there are different options for scaling the program. we actually took a path that no other cca has taken to date. we secured power outside of secure account with a single counterparty in a single supplier that was the model

that we were investigating earlier and in earlier efforts to launch the cca program. will we did here there was that we solicited from and ultimately a broader pool of suppliers in order to create as competitive of solicitation as we could. but, there has been a lot of motivation happening because we are learning there are multiparty out boxes and there are many paths we can take to scale the program up and it might be that we take multiple options. it might be smaller phases or even larger auto enrollments. there might be smaller options available to us now but i just want the planning commission to understand what the options are now because i want this to remain competitive. >>i don't love natural gas i

think that is a fuel we should be moving away from. with the solar and all of the great news and supply questions that will give us an opportunity to clean up our green. >>i should say there is a companion plan to our expansion plan and that is an integrated resource plan and that is actually part of our business practice policies but we will develop an integrated resource plan that provides supply, demand, and the resources going forward. it will make a projection of that plan going citywide and this is really a buildout place of that program aspirations and supply needs and that will bedone in conjunction with the growth plan. it may follow it a little bit because we want to do is lay out some low growth projections and put some inputs

into the resource plan. so, i wanted to put that out there and with respect to natural gas something that i wanted to do is have as many specified resources as possible rather than just leaning on the grid where you can lean on a mix of unspecified supply projects. that is one of the emphasis of what we had done before and that is to specify within the mix. >>yeah, but you specify with natural gas? isn't that right? there is a third option you can go with the grid, you can specify or you can specify without the gas. >>the natural gas would have to go 20. >>as part of the growth plan is

it the same as the rollout plan? >>the two together is what i think you think of as the rollout plan. the growth plan is whether we meet the demand and the rollout plan is the supply and resources and technology and type of energy supplies that we will want to procure or developed to meet that plan. >>i think the integrated resource plan we can't even have have them done in the exact amount of time as the

power energy enterprise. >>the silicon valley plan is how much less than pg&e? well, the question is how did they achieve that because we aren't there, are we? >>just to be clear, silicon valley has right now just one product. is 100% ghd free but it is only 50% clean power. in that area it's in 50% below. >>we have an amendment on the floor. are there any other questions or comments? and, the proposed amendment is to remove the word approximately

before 75. >>i think we have a motion and a second already on the main resolution. any public comment on the resolution? all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay. >>can you read the next item please? >>10. approve the revised

records retention schedule and record retention policy of the san francisco public utilities commission. (sandler) >>is there a motion to move the revised schedule? >>i will move it. >>i will second it. >>is there any public comment? >>is there any public comment on the retention schedule? >>[indecipherable] >>

thank you. are there any other public comments on this item? all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay. the motion carries. next item please. >>11. approve amendments to agreement nos. cs-211a-d, specialized and technical services, , natural resources division, water enterprise, with cdm smith/ats, joint venture (cs-211a); icf+avila, joint venture (cs-211b); shaw environmental and infrastructure, inc., (cs-211c); and urs corporation (cs-211d), to provide continuing permit compliance monitoring of water system improvement program (wsip) habitat mitigation sites; and authorize the general manager to execute future amendments within the existing contract capacity of $20,000,000, with no single contract exceeding $7,500,000. >>is there a motion? >>i motion >>i will second. all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay.

the motion carries. the next item will be closed session16. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation federal insurance co., et al v. san francisco independent taxi assoc., et al. san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-543173 city attorney file no.: 150762 17. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation federal insurance co., et al v. san francisco independent taxi assoc., et al. san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-543173 city attorney file no.: 150762

19. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation stacey a. lawrence v. city and county of san francisco, et al san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-542269 city attorney file no.: 151275 20. conference with legal counsel pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) existing litigation civil service employees insurance co. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-14-538389pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 (d) (1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d) (1) (ambrose) >>and items 23 through 25 will not be heard today. >>thank you. are there any public comment on the closed session items? >>[indecipherable] >>we have to learn about our

earthquake issues. we have proceeded in these kind of ways and they say they don't understand that there are understandings that they have to clarify on this request. i think there would be a lot of problems for getting an officer in city hall and, to

[inaudible] the supervisors because we really need this office in tune to our needs it we haven't been getting answered >>[timer >>[gavel] >>we are back in open session. and we have settled on the items is there a motion on whether or not todiscuss the items