months of january and february. home page received 292,400 unique visitors, each of which was greeted with front page banner signs about the new rates and education on how they can learn, become involved in this highly transparent public process. we used our social media channels on linkedin, facebook and twitter to promote critical services that these rates are supporting. so the total number of impressions for those three social media channels during those three months was just over 700,000 total impressions. finally we also used -- oh, i also want to mention there was an interesting new -- brand new rate calculator that the agency developed and add toded to the rate page. so anybody would go and enter in their water usage and receive an estimated calculation of their new rates now and in the coming

4 years. we have 152,000 subscribers to our current digital and newsletters in which we've been included articles that our rates will support now and moving forward. finally, turning to media coverage, we had a two-prong approach to media coverage. for the last 6, 7 months we have been proacti proactively pitching print, radio and television out lets. these stories were not designed to focus on the rates because at that point last fall we didn't know what they were going to be. they were designed to create a drum beat of support among the public and a steady rising awareness amongst the public about our extensive sewer system and all the improvements to that; our water system, all the improvements through the rates and the things we plan to be doing. we were proud that we

received over the last several months dozens and dozens of very positive press stories both, again, throughout the newspapers, radio and television to raise the awareness of the critical services their rates will be supporting. we went further than that. we took out paid op eds in 12 smaller community newspapers that reach a total of 12,000 households. we explained what we are doing, what we were planning to do and what that money would go for. that's to use a goal of comprehensive strategy to raise the public's understanding and awareness not only of the services that we provide but of the critical needs for these upgrades that our new rate structure will support. finally, turning back as i said in addition to pushing that message out in all those many ways, turning back to a

fundamental philosophical approach, this should not be -- our communication should never be just one way. it should be two-way dialogue, getting feedback, considering that feedback from the public. here's a quick snapshot of community feedback we've received to this point. i know that commissioner kwon, i believe, and secretary hood will be doing a tally later on about the total number of protest letters that came in. again, in the 240,000-some thousand public notices there was ways to file protest if they would like to. we set up a general e-mail address for generates inquiries and our phone number. we received phone calls and e-mails. our public presentations in the various districts that we have been going to we provided comment cards to every single community member that was there. we tallied some responses. we have approximately 170 responses to

those comment cards that we received and i'll get into a snapshot of those in just a second. finally we've been very pleased to see a number of official letters of support coming in from community groups around the city. we had an official letter of support from the san francisco african-american chamber of commerce. we were also very pleased that the southeast community facility commission passed a resolution of support in favor of this rates increase. we just recently as today received letters of support from the building owners and managers association expressing support for the critical upgrades that these new rates packages will allow. finally the bay view merchants association also expressed their official support. we were pleased to hear from them. finally as did the bay area council submitted letters of support. finally i mentioned the comment cards that we were receiving directly from the community members that we

were standing up in front making our out reach to. we wanted to learn after these presentations did they better understand the services that the sf puc is providing and the need to deliver those services 24/7. again on the foundational level the next question, did they understand how -- after this presentation had they learned, did they understand how those critical services were going to be paid for by the rates, not by taxpayer money by the rates that we were talking about that we needed to raise? in response to those fundamental questions we received an overwhelming yes to both of those questions. 87% of the attendees who replied said yes, they did learn and have a greater understanding of what their water and sewer system was about. two, approximately 85% said, yes, they did learn through these presentations and

now they do have a better understanding of what those rates go for and why they are critical. so we were very, very pleased with that feedback. in summary, the combination of these many, many methods of getting the message out to the public, whether through social media or digital out reach, newsletters, earned media or paid media, public presentations all over the city, the bottom line take away that we've been hearing from folks, no one is ever pleased and jumping for joy when they hear about a rate increase. i know that we are all normal and that's the normal way. what we are hearing from people is they feel they understand now and they have a good understanding of what their rates are going for and why these new rate increases are necessary for these critical upgrades that need to be made. so that is what we were aiming for, a greater understanding of what we are doing and why we are doing it and what we need to be doing. finally, our next steps, we are not done. we plan to continue over the next month to

continue on with all of the out reach that we've been discussing here today with city wide presentations, customer out reach, digital out reach, media coverage. we will continue this as part of our dialogue with the community that we are proud president obama serve. i'll take any questions. >> commissioner kwon: commissioners anything? >> commissioner vietor: i read all the protest letters and they didn't have the advantage of learning the water necessary, our sewer system for public health and of course lastly and to me most importantly is we need the moneys to upgrade and we have critical work that has to be done. seemingly, the people with the protest letters don't have any knowledge of that or refuse to listen to it. i do

want to commend the out reach that we have done. unfortunately, it just doesn't hit everyone although we try. >> that's true. thank you. >> commissioner kwon: anyone else? the process question, madame secretary, are we doing 10 first? or public comment now? >> i believe we have one more presentation from the rate fairness board chair. >> yes, followed by howard ash who is the chair of the rate fairness board at the time. >> commissioner kwon: mr. ash, thank you. >> thank you, it's my pleasure to be here again. i'm here to

give you an over view of our process, our recommendation, some longer term thoughts and comments about the rates package that was prevesented to us in ts cycle. who is the rate fairness board? we are six members, one vacant, a mix of civilians and city employees. i would like to recognize several of them in the audien audience, jamie cariban is here as well as our vice chair scott ungerman who represents large customers. he's from the anchor brewing company. moving to the next slide we take a lot into the consideration when we think about the fairness of rates.

rates need to be fair to the enterprise so the revenue is sufficient enough to comply with laws, prop 218, et cetera but rates need to be fair to the consumers and customers so the customer equity considerations come before us. the bill impacts and affordability as well as ease of understanding and public acceptance by the customers who pay these rates. if you'll indulge me a minute or two, i happened to -- about 18 months ago i had the opportunity to speak to a bunch of city hall fellows regarding the rate fairness board. i've been there since the inception and about the puc. in 2001 before the rate fairness board enforced some the changes we had a pretty change system in that if you could look at what is going on with the puc at the time that the general funds did not pay for water. the general fund department did not pay for water. there were transfers

from this agency to the general fund, no annual rates for water and waste water, no rates for conservation and no civilian oversight and rate and revenue transparency. over the intervening now 17 years, but really in the first 8 or 9 years since 2001, a lot of that has changed. so we are now at a position where a lot of the work that the rate fairness board does, i think we are on our third or fourth rate cycle so a lot of the changes that were necessary in terms of rates, in terms of transparency have been completed and now we are just looking at the numbers change every year because the revenue requirements change, the debt amount changes but the process is fairly stable and the main changes to the rates, getting tiered rates, getting the general fund to pay for water, those things have all been settled so now it's just about the over all written numbers.

next slide. i want to talk our purpose. it's been mentioned we were established by the charter to hold hearings which we do and we are reporting on our rates proposal, which is what we are doing today. we serve as the eyes and the ears of the first cut at this for the commission. we get into great detail with the staff. we are a fresh set of eyes and we also present an opportunity for public comment in our many meetings in addition to all the other avenues for public comment. moving on, our process. we've had 14 meetings in this rates cycle since september of 2014. we've seen the consultant, the report, the staff reports and the -- all the charts and tables and everything else. we hold our meetings here at the headquarters of the commission. we try to create a very transparent and open process. unfortunately we've

had very limited public attendance and very limited public comment at our meetings, however, we are aware of comments from the 218 process as well as several of us attended the cac meetings where they gots the rates package and there was a lot of comments from that very vocal group, which we've taken into consideration. when we look at what is -- what the -- the out comes of the rate proposal, we really have confidence in the staff. they have been very open, they have been very detailed. they answer all the questions, they are very timely with everything. we know that there's really a modest reallocation of cost and a lot of that may be consultant driven. we have a different consultant and they have slightly different views on allocations of cost, they are mostly the same but some of the changes are just due to interpretation -- consultant interpretation and we all note that the rates have to rise to cover the additional debt being taken on for these important projects, particularly on the

water waste side. we note that the current rates maintain the current rate design fundamentals that we developed over the last 17 years with the tiered rates and the waste water based on flow factor and we are also seeing now the adoption of a fixed charge on the waste water to mimic the fixed charge on the water side for billing and customer service and things of that nature. revenue requireme.

>> the waste water. the proposed. without a meter. you heard from general public comment. we like the fact this assigns cost. we understand that it is not intended to penalize the owners.

we think it's fair. we approve as we mentioned before. it's getting troubling. we need to increase the out reach enrealollmentenrollment. some of the prop 218 notes say this is a financial hardship and the direct out reach are you enrolled in cap and if not, can we get that. these are customers who have identified financial hardship as

reason to protest rates. with respect to the -- i happen to pay this rate every month. we've had three meaningful rate chang changes. i think it's consultant driven. the staff believes they got it right. each year they've gone down. cost get allocated. the staff thinks they got it right. we trust them on this but we were concerned it changes a lot relative to size. not a big portion of revenue, but within itself it's changed several times the other past 10 or 12 years. finally we look forward to the new pilot program for the waste water program with the vacant lots, et cetera. we would suggest they provide -- and whether there's any money for rebates if someone changes

their impermeable parking lot to a permeable surface. if we can find money for that to help mitigate costs and resepec to the drought surcharge we ask that you use it with great care. finally, and this is my last long term thought. over the past 15, 16, 17 years always talked about the issue, many of the multi family residences people in the apartment buildings do not pr e pricing for water. it's not individually metered. how do we incentivize the rates. but it turns out, as you all know in the past several year drought t water consumption has dropped among all customer class classes. seems like the public information out there and just the goodness of the customers

has not -- we motorway may not necessarily -- we may not necessarily need to meter all of them. it maybe an expensive solution to the problem. again the affordability. you've seen, i think, from the staff this issue with the metric of 2 .5% of household area medin income as well don't want to go above with respect to the mon monthly bill. we think given the high ami the 2 .5% might be too high. it might be hiding real affordability issues among the population. we recommend to the staff other metrics of affordability and improving the exspend edg-- of . the funding with the low income

program. so with that, i will con included and i am -- conclude and i am happy to answer questio questions. >> i just like to make a comment that this is probably one of the more thoughtful policy presentations that we've had come before us. i thank you for your work and doing that. certainly gives us some of the issues we've been wrestling with for a long time. i am interested in the drought surcharge carolly -- carefully. what specifically did you have in mind? >> i think from a customer standpoint there are concerns about over collects. one of the things the staff didn't say is you'll have this surcharge and then nobody wants to pay more money especially when they're using less because of the drought.

at some point after that they were being true over the course ove over the years there isn't extra money coming into the commission. if you over collect, if you will, during the drought surcharge you can make that up with a less of an increase the following year. >> i think that's the content of the staff. i don't know if it was draugbro to you in that level of detail. >> i also noticed it was refl t reflected in how do you spemuch surcharge could be proportional. >> right. don't over collect and try not -- we also note that the last drought the commission was able to do a lot of other things and without having a rate surcharge and maintain its fund balances and continue to provide servic services. there was some cuts in the budget they may have delayed

some projects or cut back on some of the cash funded. you can try to investigate those sorts of actions again before you start with the drought surchar surcharge. that becomes the last tool and maybe not the first tool. >> thank you. >> thank you and i was able to attend one of your meetings you're a thorough and conscious white house. thank you. >> >> i will convey that to them. >> at this time we will have public come -- comment. we will call each in order. starting with >> reporter: 10, is there >> is there any comment on item 10. item 10, adrianne co-better.

>> thank you. good afternoon. i wanted to submit a letter on behalf of the bay area council. the multi segment business and plannied a viaing advocacy plai organization. we respect and urge the commission to adopt the rate changes proposed by council. we observed several years ago the devastation in new orleans and new york by their lack of preparedness for a major d disaster and the community is -- . >> uniquely vulnerable. we are reliant on imported water and we have a sewer system that is ageing at sea level rise and we're vulnerable for extreme storm events. so the rate changes are

thoughtfully been put forward to fund making our water system diversified and more locally reliant and improving our sewer system for sea level rise and extreme weather events. we respectfully urge the commission to adopt the changes. thank you>> president kwon: thank you we have mr. ted l lawenberk. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm a member of the paccac and having studied this package i understand how the results that you see before you are achieved. but i think in putting this together the commission really needs to understand the larger picture. i expressed my concern about the affordability of the rates.

so if you look at what these rates do. they make our city less affordable and at a time in which people are complaining about various costs, housing, food, transportation, et cetera ri rising. that this adds full to that -- fuel to that fire vrather than quench it. it false largely to the rate payers while ignoring the fact we have lots of people in this city 65% who are renters who don't pay any of the city service. key among them being the water and waste water system. this rate increase, you know, you hate the statement of faoft the numbers again. it increases the projected

inflation rate by more than three times so that at the end of 2022 the average user, as mr. sandler said, would be p paying 50% more than they're y paying today. we don't expect inflation to hit that kind of rate. so i think the point is that you need to be thinking about other strategies in which to recover costs and spread the burden to all of the people who use the system. i would offer that, for example, in france they use a habitation tax where everybody in a residence of any kind, rented, owned, multi, single family pays a fee for that address to sustain a city services of the town or city for police, fire,

infrastructu infrastructure. schools, government and so on. and this would spread the load of these costs across the entire population and give you much better vehicle for doing this. i would urge that you talk to the political leadership about looking at this as a way of making costs in this city more equitable by the people brown g browning. >> any other public comment? item 10. i will close public comment on 10. we' to go on public comment on 11. for item 11 i call like to.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i like to submit a letter on behalf of the southeast community. i am the acting director of the southeast community facility. and yesterday our commissioners passed resolution in support of our raised package. i like to formally submit this letter first. thank you. and also like to take a moment to read key parts of the resolution that are in particularly important to the southeast community. so whereas the neighborhood bears the most social and environmental tax operations in the southeast treats 80% of the

city's waste water. provide necessary upgrades to perform the facility to ensure environmental safety. if the drats not increase they would not be able to implement the capital projects and programs for the community. the commission recognizes the importance of increasing rates to support the projects in the southeast community suches a the community center. head works and projects. the southeast facility commission recognizes the capital project ben being undertaken also provide employment opportunities for residen residents. a community assistance program offering qualifying customers a 50% discount on water and a 335

discount on sewer charges as well. shows that there is a significant number of residents available for the program. they are not currently enrolled. despite growing economic disparity in san francisco. based on that analysis as well, the based on the american community survey indicates that the southeast portion of san francisco has the highest rates of households that spend more than 2 .5% of the household income on the bill. that pay directly. [ . by the cost of the water and sewer -- sorry. essential waste water service and resolved that the facility.

to support the implementation of critical projects businesses of southeast and the southeast community acquisiticommission u to under take efforts. [ bell rings ] >> the next item is ms. i lean fult fulton. >> i'll be using the overhead. i am here today to oppose the water rates being proposed. it's my understanding that the rates are being set without renegotiating the master sales water agreement with the

peninsu peninsula. the agency has been [ indiscernible ] not been renegotiated for many years when it should have been. it was also my understanding that renegotiating agreement would make the use of blend water from ground water sources unnecessary. blend water remains highly controversia controversial. people don't want it, fish don't want it. on the overhead is from the academy of sciences. this was part of the presentation at the capital p n planning committee on april 2nd. there's a line item request for sign theheart foist fate removal system. needed to increased -- increase levels of phosphate which would be harmful to aquatic creatures. it's my understanding that some of the cost of the proposed

water rates may not comply with this proposition such as tiered water rates and water for the auction sillry water fly system. -- . >> when the -- there was public comment by myself focusing on a single solution for the issues. the solution was decell plant during normal operations prov e providing drinking water to the posable water system to be plann planneded. this would be another method to avoid ground water. during fires the d-cell planted would by pass and provide to the awss system. when i contacted their facilities manager about the

footprint, noise level and if located under ground, i also asked for a dual purposes plant was feasible. the answer was yes. >> president kwon: thank you. we have one other public comment card here for this item. tracy thompson. welco welcome. >> hi i live in the inner sunset. i'm here to protest this water rate increase. i read your sfpc minutes. i find that there's a huge waste of money that gets peeled away by the sfpuc and you're turning this over on us late payers. in addition i'm finding if i protest this, i don't understand how this rate increase is critical. the rate pay -- the rate payers

pay a lot for water. our rates have gone up sxi consistently. this is a basic service and how can we afford to live here if we can't even afford the basic services. the method in which to protest has been made incredibly difficult. i came to sfpuc to drop off my letter and no one knew what to do with it. and it says in this notice to bring it to the commission secretary. but i couldn't. no one knew what to do with it. we're in the year 2018 and we're only allowed to mail protest lettereds and you -- letters and you wonder why you only get a tiny stack and the people not protest religion the ones who the ones protesting don't understand how essential it is. this is an eye opener coming to

this hearing and i just really don't understand how you can continue to increase our rates that this gentleman has pointed out. >> president kwon: thank you. any other public comment on item 11? i'm closing public on item 11. public comment on item 12 adoption of a four year rate to take effect on or after july 1st. i'm sorry we did 11 already. moving to 12. sorry. i repeated myself. so item 12. that was the waste water rates. any public comment on item 12? no? okay. closing public comment on 12. now 13. adopt adoption or revisions to water capacity charge increase service or change in service to take effect on or after july 1,

2018. any comment? closing public comment on item 1 13. bear with me i will read a statement here prior to our commission deliberationened vote on 11, 12sh, 13. with regard to 11 and 12 we are holding the pro -- for fiscal year in accordance with article 8d section 6 of the california constitution. prop 218 says all protests against the proposed rates shall not impose the rates if written protests are given. provided written notice of the proposed rates and the date, time and location of the hearing. advised property owners of their rights to protest the rates and

instructed any written protest be mailed to the commission secretary or hand delivered at today's hearing to be counted. also instructed that any written protest must state property owner or customer in opposition to the increase, two, provide the location of the property by the parcel number, street address or customer account and include the name and signature of the person submitting the protest. the notice stated that oral arguments at the public hearing would not qualify as a formal protest unless companied by -- accompanied by a written protest. we welcome all input from the community. the commission received 190 written protests by mail and four were hand delivered today. we have approximately 167,000

property owners with waste water accounts. the total number does not amount of the majority of the affected property owners or customers. considered all protest in accordance to prop 218 the commission may act to adopt the proposed rates. so commissioners, any discussion on items 10, 11, 12, 13? okay. so as such,ly call for -- >> vy one comment. the issue of rate increases disproportion at to the rate of inflation. one thing we've talked about is how we have on one hand [ indiscernible ] and have threats people can be comfortable don't represent the burge burgeoning proxy and the policies say for the operating part of the budget which is

staff, facilities, routine maintenance, chemicals. tho that those be limited to the rate of inflation and in this rate analysis that have been limited to a rate of inflation soon to be about 3%. so that's a pretty fundamental constraint on staff and the budgeting process the make sure that the midst of all of the money we spent that that piece somehow not get out of control. that also turns out to be a small part of what the rate increase is about. most of the rate increase is about capital projects. there have -- that vow v been -- that have been approved in a variety of ways. and is nun is spent to -- is money that is sfoent obtain a very specific facility or an

outco outcome. none reoccurring. once you've built the plant, you don't have to build it tomorrow. you've already got that. recognize the age of the system as well as maintain seismic reliabili reliability. our costs are considerable and the rate increases are large. no question about that. i think they are appropriate to what is purchased on the capital side and limited on the opera operating side to a rate of inflation which is what i think rate payers expect. so i thank you for your comment. i think we're addressing that. and i hope you're satisfaction perhaps not. >> president kwon: thank you. all right. motion on the approve item 11 new four year schedule for retail water services in san francisco and suburban areas to

be effective with meter readings on or after july 1, 2018. >> i'll move approval. >> president kwon: all in favor? pass passes. >> scene of the accident next is a motion on the approve -- >> moved. >> read item 12. >> four year schedule rates to take effect on or after july , 0 2018. so as stated all in favor? >> aye, oppose. >> passes. >> item 13. adoption of revisions to water and waste water capacity charges increase service or change in service provided by to take effect on july 1, 2018. >> move approval. >> all in favor.

it passes. >> ah okay. we are moving along here and we have the revised order. we will go to item 14. >> ] reading item 14 ]

>> good afternoon commissioners charles pearl deputy cfo. i'm here with my colleague mike heines to present our proposed electric rates for the program educative july 1, 2018. this represents our annual review and update to clean power rates for the the upcoming fiscal year. the rates as you may know change on march 1. so whenever that happens we want to make sure we look at our clean power program rates and make the necessary adjustments. so that is what the majority of this change represents. and i do want to highlight as chair mentioned this was pres t presented on march 23 and the body approved the proposal. so i just have a couple slides to share with you. the majority of the slides in your packet represent background xhf

information so i will skip to what is in front of you. if i could have the slides. >> this item does three things. it adjusts our basic green rates by approximately 5% on average. it maintains a 2% differential between what equivalent pg&e customers pay from what is kaurnt quarter per cent. able to wide body and provide greater savings as equivalent to the pg&e rate. the second thing we're proto the scene posing is -- proposing. when looking at how pg&e rates have changed we want to make sure the super green premiums. that is an additional change we. we are recommending to change our termination fees to zero while the program expands over the next two year period.

we don't want to capture someone by mistake and we want them to make a free decision to be part of the program. i will pass this on to mike heines who can provide more color to the proposal. >> thanks, charles. good afternoon. director of clean power sf. i am going to briefly run through tim plea occasions of the -- implications of the rate proposal then can take questi s questions. the next slide here summarizes what the resulting green product rates will look like as compared to the comparable pg&e service given their current rates. you can see the comparable rate for each rate class the first blue bar on this chart. and the clean power sf green

product rate is the green bar. on top of that is the pg&e and franchise sir charge in the d k darkdar darker blue. the bottom line is the green product rates will be 2% lower. excuse me. i should say green product costs will be 2% lower than comparable pg&e service after accounting for the fees. >> this slide summarizes our super green rate proposal using medium commercial rates as an example. this slide is helpful for understanding why staff is proposal to reduce the super green premium for these classes. the average cost of pg&e comparable renewed services

identified by the first bar on the left side of the slide. you can see that the cost of that service solar choice is 11 .694 cents. that is the number at the top of the first bar. that is per kilowatt hour. the second bar represents clean power sf for super green service to immediamedium commercial cus at current rates. 11 .481 cents per kilowatt hour. currently 1 .8% less after accounting for the pcia. the third bar the resulting average cost for super green service just over 12 cen$0.12 p kilowatt hour and 3% -- 3 .4% higher if adopting the proposal before you today without a reduction in the super green premi premium. these are additives components

to get to the super green total cost. finally the fourth bar summar e summarizes the resulting average cost under staff's rate proposal with customers saving approximately .8% under comparable pg&e service. without the reduction -- the increased green product rate will result in higher costs as compared to pg&e's offering. the super green cost to soap -- customer classes will continue to be lower than comparable service without an additional change to current rates. pun u one other -- one other point i wanted to make in the staff report, the proposed super green rate adjustments do recover super green incremental

cos costs. here's our financial projection for 18-19. total green and super green revenue projection including contribution to the program's financial reservice and proje projected year-end fund balance. the first no dmraj current ra s rates. -- no change undercurrent rates. the second the current rate proposal and the third is a rate featuring a .25% rate discount from pg&e which is the margin we had previously been setting the rates to. we wanted to show you these for comparis comparison. the staff is proposal to -- which will help the program achieve a year end fund balance

of 33.3 million or 60% of our goal. a major step forward. we're projecting the program can fund the financial reservice by 2021. >> the other thing that is fortunate point out is that we're delivering a greater st e savings than we have previously. so we're excited to be able to both address our reserve funding needs requirement and deliver materia material savings to rate. with that we're happy to take questions you ask. >> thank you. >> so we are not doing any cl e

closed session items. do we need public comments? okay. we're not doing closed session given our time. >> we need a public chaomment a vote on 14. >> okay. >> president kwon: is there any public comment? i have a motion? [ roll call ] >> 14 passes. thank you. >> are we to vote on that? i don't see the -- >> it is an action item. >> on time how are we doing?

madam secretary we're good. >> let's move to item communicati communication. public comment on communicati s communications? >> president kwon: okay. next item, number 6. other commission business. commissione commissioners? moving right along. general manager, kelly. item 7. >> mr. kelly: update on clean power sf. >> you just had a rate item on the clean power sf program. i'll focus on enrollment and service to customers and regulatory activities. we are serving 81 thousand accoun accounts. we just finished out our april enrollme

enrollment. that small enrollment of 230 accoun accounts. that we've decision talking -- accounts that we've been talking abo about. our opt out percentage is 3 .2% so retaining about 96 .8% of could y customers. exceeding the rate of 4 .2% of customers. 0 0.1 up tick since i last repo reported. we're making great progress there. looking ahead, our next enrollment will be july 2018. on february 13th you reviewed our risk management and financial feasibility and you affirmed the conditions needed to procure have been met. you approved modifications to the supply management policy and the reserves policy. that enrollment is now as mike

heines mentioned is now incre e increasing our customer account. planned to increase the customer account to about 105,000. with the addition of mostly commercial accounts in july of 2018. the average megawatt served is projected to total 235 megawa s megawatts. that's about 170 megawatt increase. a steep ramp there. as a result of the activities, our general manager has begun to sign master agreements and come fir medications. we have three more we have three more contracts to execu execute. i hope to share a complete picture of projections at the april 24th meeting. you got a preview there with the rate changes. we're on course to enroll all

eligible san francisco electric accounts by july of 2019. that will bring the customer account to 365 accounts and the average megawatts served to 404. that's about 3.5 million megawatt hours a year. that's the enrollment. and supply efforts that we have und underway. i will give you a snapshot on c pcia. the commission at the state level the california puc, has had their efforts to reform the pcia charge through rule making. earlier in april working with the city attorney and cal cca we prepared testimony. and i just wanted to give you a quick highlight on the cal cca programs principles that were approaching the participation at

the cpuc list. first order of business is to minimize the cost born by all customers. second is protecting customers from rate shocks by program changes that result in predictable and stable rates. third, ensuring transparency and the solution to allocate cost responsibili responsibility. fourth, accurately reflecting long-term and short-term value streams in the p gishgs a eligible portfolios. making sure our calmeustomers sn the method that the pcia is calculated the value of the resources that were procured bi while they were utility customers. inve investing. looking out into the future. and

and enabling california to continue the make progress toward achieving our environmental and climate goals. those what we're interacting with other parties in the cpi case. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. or i'm available for separate briefings if you want more detail on the pcia case. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner, anything? doyne any public comment -- doy >> president kwon: any public comment? next item. >> madam secretary: considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and acted upon by a single vote. there will be no discussion unless the public questions in which it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a

separate item. >> i'll move approval. >> second. >> second. >> discussion? public comments? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. pass passes. no closed session. do we have any other new business from the commissioners? with that, this meeting is adjou adjourned. thank you.