commission, public comment and a vote. we have to -- the commissioner has to vote on each individual nomination and we start with the office of the president. so we go in the order of where the positions are in the bylaws. so we start with the office of the president and move on to the office of vice president. >> commissioner walls. >> thank you. i would like -- i would like to nominate commissioner for another term as the president of this commission. i do that for any number of reasons but they include her un failing good humor. particularly at very long

meetings. her commitment to the department , herren enthusiasm learning everything a department does. all of the challenges that it faces and her willingness to get in there and try to solve or to advance ordeal with those challenges all the while maintaining her wonderful sense of humor. and because i think this is a job that takes well more than a year to master. i've been really impressed by the degree to which she has mastered the jobs and the inns and outs of the department and the commission and the confidence she shows now in running meetings with lots of people in the room, compared to when she did it in the beginning i think that she's earned another year in this position.

i think she deserves another year in in this commission. i think we will all benefit from having her as our president again. >> i am so humbled. >> we need a second. >> commissioner. >> do you accept the nomination? >> i do, yes. thank you. [laughter] gladly. >> i was surprised. thank you. >> any further discussion? >> it would be wonderful to have you serve another year. >> thank you. >> commissioners at this late hour speak into the mics. we move slowly back. so, is there no further

discussion, is there public comment on this item? seeing none, all those in favor of the -- i'm going to do a roll call. on the nomination of the commissioner as president commissioner bermaho. >> aye. >> commission commissioner waltz >> aye. >> oyoys. >> stevenson. >> aye. >> stevenson aye. >> the nomination passes. [applause] i'm very proud. thank you so much. >> did you hear what she said? she has i love this place. >> and now commissioner stevenson. we are on the next nomination, ok. >> so as she always does, commissioner waltz takes all the good words and makes them sound perfect. which is part of why i would like to nominate her to continue as our vice president of the

commission. i think that her lifelong commitment and this category, her devotion to this commission for how many years now? >> um teen. >> a lot. [laughter] >> has just done nothing but benefit this city day in and day out. even though she will always steel the beautiful articulate way of saying things, i would like her to continue on as our vice president. >> thank you. >> i would like to accept. >> ok. is there any discussion? >> second. >> discussion or second. >> i'd like to second the motion >> ok. >> is there any further discussion? >> seeing none. is there any public comment? >> seeing none. we will do roll call vote on the nomination of commissioner waltz for vice president. aye. >> waltz. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> commissioner stevenson.

>> yes. >> commissioner juan is excused. nomination carries. [applause] congratulations. >> could i just say something. i want to thank you all. and i also just want to say that i know, this is a very unusual time. we're all in it together. and we'll see as we march forward with our new mayor and what will happen in six months, i think that the things that i know i want to focus on is the future of the commission and making sure that everybody in san francisco knows the great work that we do here and how we reach out to so many communities and we don't leave anyone behind i think that's the best of san francisco. and i look forward to continuing with all of you. so thank you very much. [applause]

>> i just want to say ditto for me. >> ok. >> thank you. i see no further discussion. we will now move onto the next item which is item 13. highlights of the january 17th, 2018 operations committee meeting and the december 11th, 2017 and january 8th, 2018 policy committee meetings. >> ok. so we had a meeting last week, most of which you got the highlights today. we did a big dive into the budget and we got to talk about short falls, funding and we went through department area by area and saw how the funding was working there. we did our homework. i'm glad we passed everything today. we had a great presentation on help me remember the name of th. a presentation but the name of

the -- >> the equity initiative is a cross departmental initiative in the city to make sure all of our communities are being considered with all of the different deficient we're making as a department. so what i loved was that they now every initiative we undertake as a department there are questions that we have to ask and the questions are things like who does it serve? what are we not thinking about? making sure that the equity lens over lays everything so we don't have environmental justice program that is mostly thinking about environmental justice but that everything we do as a department has a justice lens over laid. the several of the staff have been trained in it and the training will be on going over the next year and it's actually happening across the city and all the departments, that was very exciting to see that.

>> thank you. at our december 11th meeting the policy committee heard a presentation on the programs or the movement towards use of renewable fuels and by city agencies in addition to hearing from the department. we heard from the sustainability with the support of san francisco and san francisco international airport discussing their various contributions to december. we also had a presentation by the citizens climate lobby regarding a proposed carbon feet and dividends, it's bipartisan support in congress this issue is going to come before the commission shortly. and then just earlier this month on january 8th, we received an update from chris giger and his

colleagues regarding the department's december hearing on the implementation of the 2017 reduced risk pesticide list and we received the first version of the 2018 pesticide list. we reviewed a document that summarized the issues raised in public comments to date as well as the department's responses and we heard from chris that there has been a 95% reduction in the use of the most hazardous herbicides within city limits. we also began a discussion of the new restrictions under the reduced risk pesticide list and those of you who had been here before, but not you, know that this will come before us as well but not until may, right.

>> july. >> ok. >> we have some work to do. it will be a few months before we actually are finished with the recommendations for you to take action on. >> questions for the committee report? >> thank you for all the hard work. >> i had a question regarding when the c.c.l. carbon fee and dividend issue will come before the full commission. do you know when? >> i think in march. >> march should be the earlyest. this commission meeting had been full and the february meeting was full so march would be the earliest. >> ok. >> i can't make a comment about it can be?

>> why not? >> i just think it's interesting i think we need like it's a policy committee meeting it was one of those passive presentations where you hear what they have to say. i just do know that car been feet and dividend is taking the carbon revenues giving them to the general public like done in alaska around fossil fuels. there's other groups out there including the 350s of the world and a lot of groups that don't think it's the best use of the money. i am a little reluctant to -- we can have that discussion that's the protocol but i love the opportunity to engage it more before we have to take a vote. i don't know what the process or path pathway is. i don't feel like we got asked at the policy committee meeting or did we have a chance to invite other people who feel differently. they're smart, committed, aggressive, they got on our agenda. plus it already passed here a while ago, which is also

interesting. >> sure. in this conversation it would be kind of a recaping of the conversation that was had in the committee meeting. the conversation of the merits of whether or not the action item should come before the commission would be a conversation for new business. >> which is later. >> which is next. >> rafael. >> i agree with you commissioner at the end of the policy committee meeting the policy committee did not affirmly act. he was hoping you would but you did not. i feel like there's room here to talk about whether a resolution would come forward and what it would say. we have not started crafting anything. so if we would like to, we could revisit perhaps at the next policy committee meeting. to have a discussion. >> i'd like to do that. there's a lot of ways to invest carbon revenues and lots of wayt

interrogate the other ways and a lot of those ways are ways environmental justice allies prefer. which is investment into low income communities and those kinds of things. >> and there are other environmental groups have other ideas. >> new energy. >> i'm going to interrupt the conversation. this has to be just a recap of the conversation that had happened in the committee meeting. again, if we want to have a discussion about the merits of whether or not this discussion should continue at the commission that would be for new business. >> which is next. >> which is next. >> any public comments. or any other comments? or next item. >> seeing no public comments seeing no further discussion, we'll move onto the next item. the next item is announcements. this item is for discussion.

>> all right. >> meeting tomorrow. we'll meet tomorrow and what is the address? the retirement. >> market. >> into the microphone. >> ok, yes. >> let me pull out my calender. >> i believe it's 1145 market street on the sixth floor. >> ok. thank you. >> seeing no further discussion an announcements, seeing no public comments. we move onto the next item, item 15 new business agenda items. the speaker is anthony val december this is for discussion

and possible action. excuse me. commissioners, the next meeting of the commission will be a special meeting on wednesday february 21st at 2:00 p.m. and we are having it at the port of san francisco offices bay side conference room peer pier 1 we've had a flurry of meeting here at city hall so the department has decided the offer the opportunity to take the meeting out into the community into one of the city facilities there at the beautiful offices there at the port of san francisco. so at the commission's request the department is doing a deeper dive into the information that was received at the community meetings. so, the outreach team will present more of the data received during the community meetings. the commission will also be considering the annual report, the commission on the environment annual report,

followed by a discussion with the city attorney also at the commissioners about meeting laws so if there are any -- i'm sorry >> meeting laws. the brown act and sunshine act rules surrounding meetings. so if any of you have any questions, please submit them to me so the city attorney can prepare. you may also ask questions at the meeting but just in case there's any particular issues that you would like covered, please let us know. and the commission is also planning on having its regular meeting in march. right now the date is march 27th , 2018. but we are in the process of polling commissioners to find a date because there's a conflict with that date. so just a heads-up we will look to change that date as well.

thank you. >> so this is new business. so to pick up where i left off. i think i just want to be clear that i feel like we need to investigate, interrogate if you will, examine, other carbon investment pathways before inviting one where there's just a very active and engage organization pushing for it. city resolutions and commission resolutions are part of the strategy so they sought us out. i don't think that's a valid reason to invite them to present it here without looking at other

investment pathway through revenue and considering the constituency. i am not saying i oppose it but groups and other environmental groups have other investment ideas about how to use carbon revenues. in the state of california has been a leader in an equity based investment strategy and it's distinct from what citizens lobby is proposing. having said that, they do really good work around around the bipartisan solution caucus and other exciting things but i didn't feel like we can leap frog from the policy committee meeting from this meeting without a broader examination of other policies. or whether we want to take action on that. i think it's just something we have to realize that they were pushing an agenda and we have to discuss what our vision is.

>> comments? >> new business. >> can i have a clarification question. i understand just, i thought that they said that the supervisors several years ago, had supported a resolution in support of the end dividend. is that correct? in which case, it might already be on the books and i don't know why we would need to renew that commitment. >> that is my recollection too. i do agree the chair of the committee can decide whether or not to calender this item at all for discussion or to go deeper and that will be something that we can discuss at the policy committee under new business as well. >> ok. >> think about it so that you have a view. >> my view is that i definitely would want to invite other groups up to the plate. >> i understand that. i just meant whether or not you have a view on whether or not we should do this. because it doesn't make any

sense why think. to begin this process if at the end, you are going to feel that it isn't worth it for us to do it. >> i don't think it's a high priority. especially if we can get the question answered about whether there's already action on the books a few years ago in which case it doesn't seem like the best use of our time, i feel like we can discuss this at the policy committee meeting but there's a lot of other things where we are moving the ball or where are we on the waste questions we've come up with or just a lot of things. >> so could we ask you director rafael to at least find out the answer to that. >> certainly. >> and would it be possible for you to e-mail me and lisa and maybe we will not write that. >> i will let anthony know and

he will figure out how the best way to get the information out. >> with the answer to that question. has the city already gone on record on that matter. >> yes, we will find that out. >> thank you. >> any other items under new business? future agenda items? any public comment? >> all right. >> ok. >> i know we're late. i guess one question i have is about -- i guess in the state of play around where we are in zero waste, not for something that has to come up right away, i know it's an issue that comes up with the policy committee first. it's an issue that continues to be vexing and there's been technological upgrades and good things that are happening and at the same time, there's still issues and so i'd love an update there. at some point in some venue that makes sense. >> our plan is to actually do a

fairly deeper dive on the zero waste plan and what kind of metrics makes sense and get the commission guidance on that. we haven't determined how best to do that yet. is it the policy committee first and the full commission or is it some separate meeting we're trying to workout right now with the best way is to first frame the questions and the problem statement and figure out how to engage the commission. but you are absolutely right. it's time this year in 2018 is the time to really look into zero waste policy. >> it would be good to take up our climate summit, how we are going to engage around that. i know that jennifer was dealing with the mayor's office on it. but it might be nice to take that up in mayor something so it's a few months out. >> i've asked you about that before. and there was still a lot of things that were up in the air

but maybe by may. >> i wasn't trying to -- >> no, no, no. >> why think that maybe not the next one or the one after that i don't know the right time but i'd love an update on green purchasing now that we have the new technology system in place and we're supposed to be able to track that appropriately now. so i'd love to know how that's going. >> see no further discussion. and seeing no public comments. we will now move on to item 16, adjournment, the time is 9:46p. m. thank you, everyone.

>> look at that beautiful jellyfish. the way to speak to students and motivate them to take action, to save the planet, they do, they care and my job is to speak to them in a way that they can understand that touches their heart and makes them feel powerful with simple actions to take every day. ♪

♪ >> i was born and raised in the desert of palm springs, california. my dad was the rabbi in the community there. what i got from watching my father on stage talking to the community was learning how to be in the public. and learning how to do public speaking and i remember the first time i got up to give my first school assembly, i felt my dad over my shoulder saying pause for drama, deliver your words. when i was a kid, i wanted to be a teacher. and then when i got into high school, i decided i wanted to get into advertising and do

graphic art and taglines and stuff like that. by the time i was in college, i decided i wanted to be a decorator. but as i did more work, i realized working my way up meant a lot of physical labor. i only had so much energy to work with for the rest of my life and i could use that energy towards making a lot of money, helping someone else make a lot of money or doing something meaningful. i found the nonprofit working to save the rainforest was looking for volunteers. i went, volunteered and my life changed. suddenly everything i was doing had meaning. stuffing envelopes had meaning, faxing out requests had meaning. i eventually moved up to san francisco to work out of the office here, given a lot of assembly through los angeles county and then came up here and doing assemblies to kids about rainforest.

one of my jobs was to teach about recycle, teaching students to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost, i'm teaching them they have the power, and that motivates them. it was satisfying for me to work with for the department of environment to create a message that gets to the heart of the issue. the san francisco department of environment is the only agency that has a full time educational team, we go into the schools to help teach children how to protect nature and the environment. we realized we needed animal mascot to spark excitement with the students. the city during the gold rush days, the phoenix became part of the city feel and i love the symbolism of the phoenix, about transformation and the message that the theme of the phoenix provides, we all have the power

to transform our world for the better. we have to provide teachers with curriculum online, our curriculum is in two different languages and whether it's lesson plans or student fact sheets, teachers can use them and we've had great feedback. we have helped public and private schools in san francisco increase their waste use and students are working hard to sort waste at the end of the lunch and understand the power of reusing, reducing, recycling and composting. >> great job. >> i've been with the department for 15 years and an environmental educator for more than 23 years and i'm grateful for the work that i get to do, especially on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. i try to use my voice as

intentionally as possible to suppo support, i think of my grandmother who had a positive attitude and looked at things positively. try to do that as well in my work and with my words to be an uplifting force for myself and others. think of entering the job force as a treasure hunt. you can only go to your next clue and more will be revealed. follow your instincts, listen to your gut, follow your heart, do what makes you happy and pragmatic and see where it takes you and get to the next place. trust if you want to do good in this world, that

>> ready? ok. welcome, everyone. good afternoon to the january 23rd meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission. madame secretary, role call, please. >> president kwon, vice president courtney and item three? >> item three is approval of the minutes of january 9, 2018. >> we have a motion for that. >> so moved. >> ok. second. any discussion, commissioners?

is there any public comment? in all favour? >> ae. opposed? it passes. item number four is general public comments. so members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction but are not on today's agenda. so, do we have any folks from the public who would like to come up? ok. item five. >> item five is communications. any discussion, commissioners? any public comment? item six. >> item six is other commission business. >> i have one item. i just -- i know that we're in the midst of budget hearingses and i just wanted to make sure that the green infrastructure off-line meeting that we had

requested will happen before our february 13 date. >> yeah. we're actually trying to schedule that. i know brian and team is putting everything together. to have an off-line conversation with you. >> brian henderson, acting a.g.m. we're looking at trying to schedule for friday. this week. >> friday this week. ok. if you could let us know sooner rather than later. because i don't know if friday this week will work. >> we'll be prepared by friday and schedule anytime between then and -- >> great. so if we could get that scheduled, that would be great. thank you so much. >> yes. >> i'm sorry. may i go back to communications under water supply conditions? >> of course. >> an item and then go back to

it. >> that all right? >> someone call for public comment? any public comment? ok. seeing none. >> my question is why -- to steve -- why is the cherry reservoir so low? i probably should know the answer to that. but it doesn't come into my mind. >> steve richie. assistant general manager for water. cherry reservoir is on the way back up now. we lowered it to 5,000 acre feet to do work on the valve that are at the bottom of the front of the dam. and we just replaced the butterfly valve adjacent to the reservoir so those are now sealed up so we can begin bringing up the reservoir. we'll be replacing two valves in front of those that are downstream of the butterfly valve. but we got through that first chunk of construction so we can begin filling the reservoir and it is starting to fill up.

>> thank you. i just noticed that it was very low. >> ok. number six? other commission business. is there any discussion from the commissioners? any public comment? ok. so item number seven. >> i'm seven is report of the general manager. >> the first item i have is a clean power s.f. update. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. on enrollment, we have no change in statistics since reporting january 9. we're sefrk about 8500 customer site. our opt-out percentage is 3.2%. the super green upgrade rate continues to exceed our opt-out rate at 4.1% of our customers. so things going smoothly there. looking ahead our next small enrollment will be april 2018. we're closing the wait list now.

and submitting the enrollment information to pg&e this week. so moving ahead with that small enrollment. meanwhile, we're continuing to prepare for our big enrollment in july. that includes contracting for growth. we'll be coming back to you on february 13 for supply contract authorization. we will bring along with that the portfolio assessment and risk management portfolio assessment and proforma results. and we are also before the board of supervisors today on our ordinance. you recall that on november 14, an ordinance was introduced at the board requesting that the board provide a limited delegated authority to the p.c. to enter into supply contracts that would support completion of the programme enrollment. the delegated authority described in that ordinance

would include annual expenditure limitations and conditions imposed by the commission on the general manager. that ordinance is at the full board today for its second reading so we're on course for adoption of that, which gives us the necessary authority to move forward with supply contracts. and then, of course, we're also before you with our bank credit facility. that is an action item today, item 11. with respect to legislative and regulatory activities, i can report that we are at the capital with cal c.c.a. for lobbying days tomorrow and thursday. the focus there is to educate and raise awareness about community choice interest in advance of the next legislative session. make sure that folks are aware of our interest on local energy agregation programmes. and then, you know, the regulatory activities are

largely consumed by our pcia efforts. the cpuc held work shops on january 16 and 17. on that exit fee reform, we're now preparing testimony, getting ready for hearings on that case. we've been in strong collaboration with cal c.c.a., the rest of the community choice aggregators that are operating in the state and planning to operate. so we're putting together a nice team, a good approach, i think. the staff of the cpuc, i mentioned last time, a draft resolution on resource adequacy in december and i just wanted to report that we've been active on that. the stated objective of that resolution is to avoid cost shifts from departing customers to remaining customers. remaining utility customers by aligning the expansion of c.c.a.s and the startup dates

of those expansions and new programmes with the p.u.c.'s planning cycle for setting resource a adequacy obligations. we filed comment and reply comments both as the city on our own and in collaboration with cal c.c.a. so everything has been submitted to the cpuc for their consideration. they've indicated that they intend to take action on february 8. we don't know what that action will be at this point. so, we're keeping our ears to the ground on that. we have been invited to participate in a conversation with the cpuc energy divisions energy director about the resolution, together with the utilities and other interested parties tomorrow. in sacramento. so i understand the focus of that conversation will be to talk about potential solutions. it's not clear if those potential solutions are expected to be implemented in

the resolution or in some subsequent, more formal proceedings where we'll have more of a chance to air our ideas and our interests and our concerns. another area we've been following is the solar choice and green tariff programme and we'll be submitting comments that address cost responsibility and allocation issues soon and that application that they filed. with that, i'll take any questions that you may have. >> yes. thank you. i know that you are going to be giving us information on my question from last time around. sort of i think i was couched it as demographics. but it is really around like who is our current customer base and then as we look towards this big push in june, where is that really being targeted towards, and just to build on that for when you do come back, i'm really curious

about these bigger developments that are coming online. like commission rocks, like we know sales forces enrolled in clean power. so, what are the other big opportunities, if you will, shipyard, treasure island that we're really tracking and what are the efforts that we're making to capture them as part of the clean power programme? >> i just want to be clear. those are part of the business plans. so, they're planned to be hetchi customers, not s.f. power customers. >> they're going to pay retail -- >> so you understand that hechi is 100% greenhouse gas-free where as clean power you start off at 40% and then you have an option to pay more to be 100% -- 100%.

the hec hi, helps pay for the infrastructure where as clean power s.f. is just a margin that we just get on a generation portion so, i just wanted to make sure that we are all clear as commissioners that our core sbiz our hechi and clean power s.f. is for the customers that we can't bring under the hechi to provide an opportunity for them to get 100% renewable or 40%, which by 2020 will get up to 50% of our basic offering. >> yeah. >> and the other thing i want to point out is, you know, c.c.a. is still risky right now with the pending legislation for the exit fees and all that. so, you know, and i know that is a challenge because when we talk about our power enterprise, we have two products or two major products and one is hechi where we actually give you the bill, the

bill is a hechi bill. therefore, we have the distribution and we're able to distribute it to a build where as we're part of the pg&e bill which is just a generation piece. and the bigger margin is with the hechi. >> i think's more, which i don't understand, is sort of the strategy behind -- and i understand that. but does that mean we're always offering hechi ?*irs >> typically what we try to do, so we're clear, we provide hechi to our general fund departments and airport and the municipal customers because we have an opportunity to give them a price reduction.

where as in -- we actually provide them with the bill. we look at opportunities to hook up. development because there is a larger area because we have to make an investment in the union facility or we can grandfather certain folks in to our hechi, but if folks who we can't get -- or make a hechi customer, we provide clean power s.f. as another alternative. so it's a secondary sthafs we provide. >> and commissioner, i'd be happy to have a set aside meeting where we can do a dive again into the business plan where we talked about this to give you a little bit in the context of the budgets and how we're approaching the kinds of

customers you are talk about. >> maybe it is part of the budget conversation to understand where the benefit really is in the offerings that we're making. >> thank you. >> thanks much. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? ok. seeing none, next item, please. >> that concludes my report. [laughter] >> ok. >> comment on the report. >> please. >> i kind of got lost a little bit, too. if there is any way for us to get a graphic because i thought i had a real clear understanding and then i didn't. is it possible for us to get a graphic prior to the next budget meeting? >> so i -- so that i'm clear on what we need to provide to make things clear, i mean one of the things that we could do is give

you an update on the power business plan which talks about pier 70, mission rock. it talks about all the development that we'll pursue as hechi customers so we can definitely provide you that but it is in the business plan which i think you have a link to. and then we talk about the municipal customers, city hall and all of our customers that we have under hechi. like, you know, the rec centres, the hospitals. those are hechi customers. and then all the other customers -- there is few exceptions, but all the other customers are clean power s.f. so, maybe what we could do is maybe on one map show you the areas where they're hechi and

making the investment to do the distribution and hook customers directly up with hechi and then writ's not possible that we're offering clean power s.f. >> i think to the point of a simple visual without getting too deep into it that shows overall city use and need of power, how much of it is hech-hechi and how much of it is clean power and breaking it up into municipal buildings, residential customer, commercial customer, new developments and projected growth. something like that that just captures it in one vishlg i think would be helpful. >> no, we can actually do that. >> that would be great. that would help get us grounded. and because of this growing new line, i don't get a sense of when a new development comes on, do you first offer them hechi because of the distribution question or whie.s

and if not, is there opportunity to choose clean power and why would choose that instead. does that make ?ens >> yeah. >> any other discussion? >> thank you. >> any other public comment on the g.m.'s report? next item, please. >> item eight is the water supply and conservation agency report. >> if i could have the slides, please. good afternoon, commissioners. happy new year. i didn't get a chance to talk to you at your last meeting. my comment will be brief today. i just recently showed this slide to my board in their continuing interests in trying to track what is going on in the service area with drought rebound. so just as reminder, the top blue line is the 2013 months by

month use. all supplies for the agencies. the total use, the bottom red line, is the last full year of the drought. and then the green line is the current 2017 use. not on a calendar year basis. so, the most recent data is for november 2017 and that water use shows us 13% lower than the predrought use in 2013. and really trending downward back to that redline, which is quite interesting and something we're continuing to watch and the ongoing question is how much rebound do we end up having if anything in the wintertime. one of the things we are starting to see is a little bit of spread between total water use and savings, and water use and savings, meaning they're using slightly more p.u.c. suspect please than they usually do. two thing we're investigating for this.

there's northern san ma toy yo county that are taking supplemental surface supplies and in november they were all taking that water. so that impacts that. the other thing is there are four agencis that have put in a minimum purchase requirement from you and they have all been put on notice as of this july that they have to achieve that. each and every one of them is making -- when they have a choice to make, purchasing more p.u.c. water in an attempt to meet that minimum purchase requirement. overall for fiscal year 17-18 to date, we have a 30% reduction. so still continuing to see a significant water use reduction w.s, that i'll conclude my comment and take any questions you might have. >> i have a question. what are the four agencis that had the minimum requirement?

>> alameda county water dlaikt serves free monlts, union city and newark. city of melpides, city of sunnyvale and mountainview. >> why is that? >> they've had an original purchase contract since 1984 and the reason is those agencies have access to another significant imported supply. primarily water through the department directly or the other three have access to imported supplies at the santa clara valley water district brings in. because they're in santa clara county. the thinking in '84 was -- actually it predated that when you went and did your bonds for new don pedro, the proof of the commitment that you had a customer base to repay the bonds and so those agencies that had a choice had to say, look, i promise to buy a

minimum amount, basically guaranteeing a revenue stream. so, that was the reason for that. and it has been carried over from their individual contracts before the '84 contract, the 1984 contract and the 2009 contract as well. >> thank you. i wasn't aware of that. >> commissioners, any other discussion? thank you, nicole. >> thank you. >> there any public comment on this item? ok. we move on to consent calendar. >> item nine is the consent calendar and today we only have one item. approve the plans and specifications and award contract number ww637 in the amount of $4,107,083 to the lowest qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, shaw pipeline. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> any discussion, commissioners? >> i would just like to say

that it's nice to see that shaw is still participating in a lot of our projects. and doing so for many years. >> any other public comments on this item? all in favour? aye? opposed? all right. carries. next item, please. >> item 10 is public hearing. approve the revised super green rate premiums for the clean power s.f. programme and proposed modifications to the clean power s.f.'s net energy metring tariffs to be effective march 1, 2018. >> today we have a few small changes to the programme to stay competitive. these changes that we're proposing would be effective march 1. so you see in the action item

changes that are programme matic and changes to rates. it would affect our net energy metring programme. that is the programme that provides bill credits to clean power s.f. customers that own solar panels on their roofs. and then changes to the rates would be to reduce the supergreen rate premium. i'm going to give you a little bit of context for these actions. our objectives with these rate changes are to streamline and simplify the net energy metring programme. we want to -- we want to make sure that the programme's user friendly and administratively efficient. especially in advance of enrolling the rest of san francisco's net energy metring customers city-wide. and then we want to ensure that our supergreen programme rates recover costs and remain competitive with the solar

choice programme that pg&e runs, that's their 100% renewable product offering. pg&e is expected to update their generation rates on march 1 of this year. they're proposing to increase their spending on the rate class, to increase the power charge and indifference adjustment, that exit fee we talk about by about 12 or 14%. again, depending on the rate class and significantly reduce their premium for their solar choice programme. we don't know yet what the final rates will be but we have been planning and using the pg&e projection. we may come back to you later in march with proposal on the green rates depending on what happens at the cpuc with the proposal that pg&e put before them. and we would do that to the have the rates that are

effective july 1 to be sure that customers that are enrolled in the programme in july with that new big enrollment of this year aren't paying higher bills by being enrolled in clean power s.f. so there may be some more rate action. at this point, we're making some proposals to you to make adjustments that would be effective march 1. so that provides you with some context for the change and i want to do a little bit of more detail on the programmatic change and then deputy c.f.o.s charles pearl will share a deeper dive on the actual rate changes that are before you. so on the net energy metring programme, we're proposing three changes that are really rooted in the experience we gained, having operated net energy metring programme for over a year now. year, year and a half. first off, we're proposing to offer one compensation rate.

for customers who, who i call spill energy on to the grid. if they're generating more than they're actually consuming over the course of a year, we pay them for that. we're proposing to offer just one compensation rate now, which would be the average supergreen rate for all that annual surplus energy. what we have been doing is offering two different rates depending on whether a customer surrenders their renewable energy credits to us. that process has been administratively cumbersome. it's hard to explain to customers. often times they don't know if they own the renewable energy credits on -- associated with their rooftop system. and so we're not really getting a lot of value out of that. the state doesn't allow us to count those renewable energy credits as part of our compliance to the renewable portfolio standard so we don't

get economic value for it either. seems to be just frustrating customers and so we decided let's simplify the programme and we're proposing to use just one compensation rate and that would be the average supergreen rate for all of the annual surplus energy. the second change we're proposing on the net energy metring programme goes to the method of compensation. so i told you what the value would be. the supergreen rate. average supergreen rate. now how are we going to realise that for our customers? we're proposing for the net plus compensation via a bill credit by default rather than a check. so that kind of flips the programme. we had been providing it as a check. that becomes administratively cumbersome. it turns out the city requires our customers to register as vendors in other words for us to pay them to give them that rebate check. or pay them for that net surplus energy. we recognize that some customers may still prefer a

check and so we're going to retain that option. but the default will be you'll get your annual surplus compensation credited to you on your bill. and then the final change, to the net energy metring programme that we're proposing, is to roll over the credit balances for new customers with less than 10 months of participation in the clean power s.f. programme. we're proposing that to make sure that customers don't lose any value when they're transitioned into clean power s.f. so we're putting a 10-months period on the photo so the credit value will be retained over that 10 months. so that covers the programmatic change and with, that i'll hand the microphone over to deputy c.f.o. charles pearl. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the other piece of what's in front of you is related to the

rate side of the clean power programme. so this item, it's what we consider to be an intra year rate change. we -- when we last talked to you about rates for clean power, it was to establish rates for the beginning of the fiscal year. and we will still do that for the upcoming fiscal year the '19 and you'll hear from us in a couple of months after we get through the budget process first. so, the now "entertainment tonight canada", part of the most-watched entertainment news franchise in the world. programme folks wanted to have an adjust tonight the premium or the difference between the supergreen rate and the basic green rate and that difference -- that change that is being proposed here is to respond to a proposed pg&e solar choice change. with the intents being that we want to keep our programme competitive. and so what is included in the item before you is a reduction in the supergreen premium for residential customers from the current two cents to one and a

half cents and the supergreen premium will be reduced from 1.4 cents to one cent. so, that change is, as ms. hale mentioned, proposed to go into effect on march 1. the value of that change is about $137,000. the programme has sufficient reserves to cover the cost of this change and, of course, we will roll this into our rates package that we come forward to talk to you about in the next couple of months. as ms. hale mentioned there's also administrative changes included in this item. also i wanted to let you know we did speak to the rate fairness board on the 19th last friday about. this they didn't seem to raise any concern about this proposal in front of you. and then lastly we will make sure that any changes that are reflected in this change are ef