options and increase multialternatives, and deduce -- reduce the carbon footprint. it continues to improve the systems. during this sen -- centennial year we reflect on the transit system. driven not

>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the tuesday september, i'm sorry, not september. april 24th meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission. so, madam secretary. roll call please. >> president kwan. >> here. >> commissioner and we have a quorum. >> we have a full roster. unlike the giants, sad to say. >> what's up, bro? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> the cubs are healthy and that's all that matters. number three, approval of minutes from april 10th. is there any discussion? >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> any public comment before we take our vote? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. approved. item number 4 is general public

comments. members of the public may address the commission on matters of the commission but not on today's agenda. do we have anyone for this item? >> seeing none. item 5, communications. any discussion, commissioners? any public comments on communication? item 6 is other commission business. is there any public comment on other items? nothing. ok. item 7, it is our pleasure to call up someone. >> item 7 is a presentation of the ceremonial resolution for former citizens add vis recommittee chair wendy aragon for her dedicated service. >> is ms. aragon in the room.

would she come up please? >> so someone has -- you have it, right. ok. so, i just wanted to express our appreciation for a job well done as being the chair of the c.a.c. you definitely set a new standard, definitely by really working with the mayor's office and all the boards to actually get a full, i think every seat is full, right. pretty much. [laughter] >> so you know, we really appreciate you taking the efforts of making sure that the c.a.c. hears what our concerns are and then also express other concerns of the c.a.c. i just want to thank you for your leadership and with that i'll turn it over to ike. >> i too want to echo the praise of general manager kelly.

you did a lot when you took over. you went from the frying pan to the fire. i would argue that all the issues you allowed to simmer and saute and you made something great out of it. along with the entire c.a.c. you know, a lot of the issues are unwielding, often times it's not just listening you want folks it feel they're listened t we want to share our appreciation for your hard work and your care for the community. it expressed itself in all the work you showed up and it's a big deal. so thank you. at this time, we're going to ask you to sing a song. [laughter] >> and do a dance? >> and so, we'd like to present this to you. and i think we're going to do a group photo here.

[laughter] >> i'll trade you. >> all right. >> congratulations. >> wonderful job. >> you can say a few words? >> yeah, i guess i just want to say -- >> you can go up there. >> before you start, i did -- i thought that we missed an opportunity last meeting.

i did want to say, i've only known you for a long time and i don't think it's just about your role at the c.a.c., and the p.c. but it's your role city wide that is impressed me. it's hard to find leadership in this town sometimes because there's a lot of competing interests. i think you've shown yourself to be someone who is independent, somebody who is committed and somebody who is going to be a leader that we can all count on moving into the future. i wanted to make sure we took this time to recognize your work for the p.u.c. and we know that we know you will be successful in whatever endeavors and you can count on our support. >> thank you so much. ace said last time when i was here giving my final report, i think that people underestimate c.a.c.s. it's volunteer work. it's after work, after people's

jobs most of the time and they're putting extra hours in and not getting paid for it and sitting in these meetings. i think the people who are on c.a.c. really care about the issues and that's why they're there because they want to be there and they're passionate. i really want every citizen to know they can make a difference sitting on an advisory committee and have real input and help make changes in an agency. i really admire the culture of the p. u.c. as a whole. i think it's a wonderful dynamic organization that really engages a community. i think that other agencies can look up to that and these are the example. thank you so much for the last four years. it's been really great and i'm sure i'll see you when you are at the c.a.c. and i'm in a regular member chair. thank you, i really love working with all of you guys. >> thank you. thank you for the c.a.c. as well as a whole.

we are open to public comment as we command ms. aragon. >> hi, commissioners. jennifer clearly is one of our c.a.c. members who represents district 11 and works at clean water action. as a member of the sfp.u.c. citizen advisory committee i would like to thank you for welcoming wendy aragon. as served with wendy on the c.a.c. for nearly five years and found her to be an excellent representative of her direct and our city. she transformed a largely white-male committee into a diverse body that represents and advocates for all san franciscans. she promoted issues including clean power s.u. and improved communications with a southeast facility commission. she also established an annual retreat for our officers and subcommittee chairs to discuss

the committee and identify priorities. a practice i hope will continue. she showed respect and courtesy towards her fellow committee members while still returning an effective meet. they will advise commission, staff and city officials about s.f. p.u.c. plans and priorities but the c.a.c. served another important function as a training ground for citizens leaders. this is a role in which she most ex sells and for which i have the greatest respect. sincerely, jennifer clearly, water program manager at clean water action. >> thank you. >> are there any other public comments? a couple more folks. >> my name is jordan davis. i am a friend of wendy araagon's. i want to thank you for honoring her. she's the conscience of the city and has a great equity lens. she went through the board commission institute last year,

which i am on now, she's just really a great at calling out what it is and talking about like you know, these issues that are affecting our most vulnerable citizens. even in in something as cut and dry like nothing is as cut and dry so thank you wendy, you deserve this honor. >> thank you. yes, good afternoon commissioners. i'm matthew steen, i'm the new vice-chair of the p.u.c. c.a.c. i would like to second the comments that jennifer clearly gave and thank you for recognizing went' aragon for her long service, her complex issues because p.u.c. does span wide number of areas of our infrastructure in san francisco and so i would just want to

express my appreciation for your recognition of wendy. >> thank you, very much. >> yes, hi. >> i'm mira coley. i work with wendy on the board of the richmond district democratic club. she's our president and our leader and we are so proud of her and just wanted to say publicly that we wouldn't be who we are without you, wendy. thank you. thank you. >> do we have any other public comments? ok. terrific. we'll move on to item number 8, report of the general manager. >> the first item is update for clean power s.f. barbara hill. >> good afternoon, commissioners. bobra hale. today's clean power s.f. update

will cover regulatory activities. a little more on the regulatories this time. with vee respect to enrollment we're serving 81,000 accounts. our opt out percentage and upgrade rate to super green have not changed. 3.2% for opt out and 4.2% of our customers are upgrading to 100% renewable in our super green program. everything is moving along successfully. we are preparing our power source disclosure report for 2017. this report is required to be filed with the california energy commission. after your review and approval. the report will be a again diesed for the next commission meeting. i want to give you a preview. i'm happy to report our base product, which we committed to be 40% renewable it's renewable

product and with our hydro production year in 2017, 100% carbon free. so customers who participated last year in our green product, got little more for their money than we told them they would get with that better renewable ngh3 product. looking ahead, our nexe next enrollment is july of 2018. it will increase the customer account to 105,000 with the addition of mostly commercial accounts. the average mega watt served is projected to be about 235. we've brought to the general manager some master agreements and confirmations which builds the power supply portfolio.

i thought we would share more of that information with you today but it's taking us a little bit longer to ink some of those last few contracts. so i expect we will share a picture of the contracts, supply, supplying our programs and the perform and results at our next meeting. on the regulatory front, the commission, the california public utilities commission efforts to reform the pcia charge on customers, that pg&e place is called the pcia continues. working with city attorney and the california community choice trade association we serve testimony which i summarized at the last meeting and questioned we served our rebuttle testimony. it focused on a disconnect between the value as described to the contact by the california

p.u.c. when they entered the contracts and the i.o.u.'s proposed valuations of those contracts for purposes of calculating the pcia. the next steps will be hearings that are set to take place during the week of may seventh. believes will bbriefs will be sa proposed decision by the administrative law judge in late august and early of this year. the next proceedings is the bond proposed decision. the bond proceedings. a proposed decision in that case was issued on april 6th. the proposed decision updates the california p.u.c. implementation of law that requires c.a.s to satisfy some financial security requirements. by posting a bond or cash sufficient to cover the cost of

returning customers from the cca to the utility supply portfolio. in compliance of that law since we started operating, we've posted a $100,000 cash deposit with the california p.u.c., we did that in 2012. now that they're looking at revising the numbers, the proposed decision has broken the financial security requirement out into two components, two catagories of cost. they're proposing to assess an administrative cost as well as a cost that would cover incremental procurement for that set of customers for a six-month period. so on the administrative cost front, pg&e proposed and the proposed decision would authorize them to charge a reentry fee per customer of

$4.24. that contrast with southern california edson proposal of an administrative cost of 50 cents per customer. so we're not quite sure why pg&e's cost is so much more than edsons but that is what was proposed and that's the proposed decision is recommending the california p.u.c. adopt. on the incremental procurement cost front the proposed decision would require -- let me back up a little bit and put this in context. right now, the market prices for power are below pg&e's average cost of supply. so as the commission looks to implement a cost to recover the utilities cost of returning

customers, the financial security requirement there would actually be negative for us in today's market. and so, we understand then that the proposed decision, if adopted, would decrease our payment to pg&e of returning customers to zero. it's not allowed to go negative. and that is because as i said, the market price of power that pg&e would procure to cover these customers that are unexpected, would actually be cheaper than pg&e's current portfolio's cost. if the world were different, and that's how these rules work, and let's say five years from now, procurement, 10 years from now procurement costs are higher, then pg&e's portfolio we estimate that our bond

requirement would increase to approximately $500,000. if we were serving the july enrollment, that i just described, and it would be $1.6 million once city widen rollment is complete. that is at the 300 some odd customer accounts. the proposed clean power sf budget that we put before you and is going through the review process here at city hall, includes funding for a bond price at this $1.6 million level. what we consider the outside dollar amount. and the city is working to prepare comments on this proposed decisions and those are due on april 26th. so together with cal c.c.a. we hope to have a strong voice in influencing the proposed decision.

so with that i'm happy to take any questions you might have. thank you. >> commissioners. >> i didn't quite follow. by returning customers, do you mean the people that are notten rolling, they're opting out? >> not exactly. this is the scenario where the expectation would be there wouldn't be a planned transition of customers saying no thank you, to our program. i want to go back to the investors utility that orderly transition is already covered by other rules. this is a situation where the commission is trying, the california p.u.c. is trying address the scenario where something dramatic happens and a c.c.a. collapses in a disorderly way and all the customers are sort of unceremoniously thrown back to service from the

investors and utility. that scenario, they're considering there will be administrative costs, the utility hadn't planned for and power supply costs the utility hadn't planned for. these two catagories of the financial security requirements would be intended to cover those costs so that customers of the investors utility who had been receiving service all along wouldn't be disadvantaged by their costs going up by this disruptive customers from a cca to the investors and utility. >> so you are talking about our specific situation where if our c.c.a. collapsed for whatever reason, we would be ensured if you will, by the bond measure? >> right. the other rate payers would be insured by the bond, not us. >> right. >> so barbara, how does the exit

fee tie into this? the exit fee is sort of where they purchase contracts and people are leaving, and now you are paying a fee and now they are coming back and they want to charge you again so. >> or we get reimbursed. >> there's no proposal before. there's no -- the proposed decision doesn't have law for reimbursement for a cca for the cost they insured. it's just trying to cover the cost that rate payers would be on the hook for. so customers who would return under the scenario like this, would then pay assigned to them as a pcia in their regular pg&e bill. all customers are paying the costs of the utility supply portfolio when they leave they take it with them. even though it's not listed

separately on your bill as a pg&e customer, you are paying those costs. when they leave and join a c.c.a. program, it gets a new name, pcia and it's charged separately. listed separately on the bill. so customers would continue to pay their share existing supply costs and the bond would cover any additional costs above that that might need to be covered. >> doesn't mean the other rate payers are paying for that cost? >> let me try that again. clearly it's not clear. all customers pay the cost, the utilities incurring for supply. some of that supply is contracted out for the future, right. and so if you say i'm going to leave the utility supply and join a c.c.a., the utility with

the commission and state law endorsement says you need to take your share of those future costs with you. that is what the pcia is. if you are a customer who decided to stay with the utility, you continue to pay those forward costs but it doesn't show up on your bill separately like it does when you are a cca customer. >> can i ask about the reentry fee, the $4.24. if approved, will there be a itemized list as to what goes into that cost or is this something that will remain vague? >> the california public utilities commission will need to dig in more i think to understand why pg&e's costs are so much higher than edsons and how to improve the profile for

pg&e. i haven't dug into the elements. it's things like the staff time to reestablish the account as a bundled utility account. >> ok. it's a dodging, complicated issue. thank you for that. any other comments, commissioners? >> thank you. >> thank you, very much. any public comments on this item? >> thank you, president kwan, commissioners, senior policy analyst. been watching the last several on sf gov tv. thank you very much, sf gov tv. nice to see you all. really just want to thank this staff. i think finding out that clean

power was providing ghp free energy for 2017 is something we should get out in the major way. i know that i saw a presentation recently from the communications folks about kind of their outreach about this upcoming enrollment and without cannibalizing the impotence for folks who care to sign up for super green, i think it's pretty cool that we were able to kind of trounce pg&e in this environmental respect even with our base program and we should let people know about that. i would say that we need to keep it up. there's a weird paradox that as more customer load departs pg&e for ccas their perjury knew able increased without them needing to do anything. for us to beat them we need to always be upping our game on procurement and i know that the

staff is planning to do that but i hope we can beat the 50% by 2020 goal and then just want to thank ultimately ace stated many times, the regulatory situation is a total moras and call c.c.a. has changed the entire ball games in terms of anyone but the i.o.u. is having a choice so i want to thank the sfp.u.c. staff that is for that purpose. as far as the bonding is concerned, i mean, getting this program off the ground was hairy and i think if there had been a million plus of additional costs, you know, i'm not saying this would have prevented the program from launching but for smaller programs and new programs, i think having a big hunking bond that is required is something that will make city or county staff be more reticent to launch these programs.

i guess this would be in the purview of the commission but i would say if as c.c.a.s work together more, which is something that i think will be a trend going forward, the idea of a joint fund among c.c.a.s for this bonding or insurance would kind of be a good use of collective action to protect energy choice. >> thank you. >> i had a similar thought and i don't know if i need a response right now but the idea if c.c.a. collapsed or would have you as you put it, if there's possibility for those customers to then join an additional c.c.a. and so this idea of c.c.a.s collaborating whether it's for funding or bonding purposes or as a safety net so that they don't need to go back

to the i.o.u. is an interesting one to consider. i don't know if it's come up in the regulatory environment but it seems like with the way things are going, with i don't know, what those projections were, 80% of the state going c.c.a. in the next 10 years that might be posed that that could be a possibility. >> barbar barbara hale. the safety net hasn't come up as a safety net. it's more described as a who is responsible to perform as the provider of last resort. the expectation understate law and practice today is that the investors-owned utilities serve that function. they don't get to say no, i'm not going to provide electric service within their territories. so state law assumes that if a cca were to disassemble, it

would naturally be the underlying investors utility who is responsible for providing them on going service. there has been discussions in the regulatory environment about here in california. if they would then assume that responsibility instead of the investors-owned utility. that the balance would sort of be shifting from the investors-owned utility being the dominant provider from and does it make sense in that scenario for the c.c.a. to take on the obligation of provider of last resort. that's been the way it's been described. mr. holtsman's suggestion that perhaps the c.c.a. communities

could all characterize it as co found the bonding responsibility, is one of the things that kind of goes hand and hand of the shift of provider of last resort going to the c.c.a. community as opposed to the investors-owned utility. those conversations are happening and more informal workshops at the california p.u.c. and at legislature, as opposed in an active proceeding where a decision is expected. more what the california p.u.c. has had and legislative hearings, these things have come up. >> keep us posted. >> you bet. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? next item. >> that would conclude my report. >> dave on the general manager's report. generally not specifically on

cca. last week i attended the committee on information technology meeting here at city hall, and one of the items that was discussed and approved was i think about 22 million for the customer care and billing system extending that to retail electric customers not cca customers but the municipal direct and redevelopment area customers of which we have roughly 3,000, i believe. hopefully many more in the future. and i support having a new billing solution there clearly what we're doing now is extremely archaic and difficult and all of that. my concern is whether spending more than $20 million to get to a better solution is the best approach and my comment is prior

to choosing orical or whatever it is to extend cc and b in that direction it would be prudent to check with other agencies that have these kinds of customers, whether it's sacramento m.u.d., alameda, santa clara to see if they have a billing solution that we could perhaps participate in at much lower costs understanding it would get us less functionality than having our own but it would clearly be more functionality than what we have now and would be substantially less cost. it just doesn't make a lot of sense to spend like $6,000 per customer in current dollars for this billing solution understanding we may expand overtime but it just seems like a lot to invest in that particular billing solution. it's something for barbara and her team and erik and his team

to look at going forward. but clearly, there's the approval this place and i'm sure they'll be looking at all the opportunities and getting it right. thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> it was some large amount. >> i don't know. >> i just need to, it's barbra hale and i need to make sure, i'll talk off line but i want to be clear that the budget proposal we put before the commission was less than $3 million. to modify the cb system. >> this was over a longer period of time. >> yes, this will improve our system for us to provide state of the art billing services for power both as we grow. so we don't invest off line so we can chat off line. >> we'll figure it out. >> thank you.

>> thank you. any other public comment on the general manager's report before we move on? >> item 9 is a bay area water conservation agency report. >> good afternoon, president kwan, commissioner nicole sandkulla crow. c.e.o. i'm pleased to be before you today. first you see in front of you an updated graphic of water use and this is the one i've conditioned to use. interestingly enough, it does have now the february 2018 data on it which shows that in the service area, in the wholesale customer service area, water use was still down 10% in

february 2018 compared to the pre drought levels of 2013. it doesn't seem like a big number but by comparison the state-wide number went up 2% compared to 2013. seeing a difference in what is going on in the service area compared to what is going on state wide it's too early to draw conclusions but it was something that while i was talking with my staff about it and trying to understand what went on it was a dry february certainly. but the numbers were significant and something they were actually quite excited to see. lastly, i do appreciate the commission's action when you adopted the proposed changes. incorporating our recommendations. i informed the board and they were appreciative of it as well. i look forward to getting the financial information on june 1st so we can all fully understand what is in that financing cost forecast. and as well as the report next

january on the ground water storage and recovery project and the test well yields and what that might mean for our drought year supplies. we look for forward to those ani appreciate your action. >> thank you. >> any public comments on ms. sandkulla's item. next item, please. >> item 10 is the consent calender. all matters are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be act upon by a single vote of the commissioner. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so request in which event the matter will be removed from calender and considered as a separate item. >> i move approval. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. >> approved. next item, please.

item 11 is confirm and approve analysis and conclusion set for in the water supply assessment for the proposed potrero power station project. >> steve richy. this is a standard water supply assessment that we're required to do under the process for new development that we're not included in the prior urban water management plan. it's an assessment of the water demands that a development project would incur and our ability to meet those demands. this is provided to the planning department for the ceqa document. it's not an approval or disapproval or any action. it's transmitting this report to the planning department for the ceqa process for the development. >> can i ask a question about

this? because i'm, i know that peter is not here but there was a question that was raised that i'm still not clear on around sort of the water supply assessments. it's not so much it's the allocations and how those are really determined as we're seeing so much development in san francisco. i know that we have our caps that we've got to meet but, i just don't and mean we need to have further conversation around it because the assessment is different than the allocation per what you just said, as far as making an approval it feels like a big development comes along and we approve additional water allocation or assessment and then how close does that bring us to our cap and just to get a better understanding of that question? >> yeah, in the attachment to the agenda item itself, there is

a memorandum we provide for each of these development projects and the final information here comes from an assessment by the developer that they perform on their anticipated demands and then within there we assess where we are relative to our supplies so table four on that document, which is on page 6, gives the over all score card of where we are at relative to providing supplies in this case, we actually in normal years are able to provide the supply. we do have a challenge when we get into multiple supply years but that's true of our supply. if we take any other action relative to it we're not making an allocation we're just indicating that this will be the demand and this is where it appears to fit within our over all demand that we are able to supply for the city. >> and so as we move closer to

this bigger state question of water allocation for the river, that will then appear in some format like this as well, correct? because even though it's not a direct allocation, it's an continued demand. it's a request. the state has made a q i know it's being negotiated. but i just in the big picture i'm trying to understand how all of these individuals developments and a request also coming in around water for the river. all fit into our over all cap? >> i would indicate that what the state would do is not request. that's regulation and it's a whole different kettle of fish. this is all based on our assessment back in the e.i. r. for the which is i am where we looked at what we felt was achievable at that time and we

were talking about the cap of 265 million gallons a day and for in city and that anticipated us being able to bring demands down by 10mgd which we were able to do and when i started this job eight and a half years ago now, we had plenty of room in there that we were not going to use all of the water allocated to the city. since that time, with the growth and demand we're up against that so it's putting us right there so we're going to have to make decisions going forward how we want to feet future demands but it's a further conversation we'll have and of course it does take place in the context of what any i couldn't regulation might present and what settlement relative to that potential regulation might present. that's going to be a whole discussion unto itself. >> when is that discussion? >> well, it's really depends on

the timeline for the state to take an action or not take an action but as soon as something is clear there, either a settlement or a state action, we will have a basis for having a hard, serious discussion about how we will comply with that regulation. >> and i guess may concern is that we're seeing because of the growth and we're seeing quite a few of these come through and this question then of sitting up against our numbers is a bit concerning since we don't know what is going to happen at the state level yet. >> well, we had a meeting with peter drugmire and others last week and they kept coming back and saying what i think we've said in the public meeting that whatever the outcome is, you know, our job is to meet the demands of both environmental

and actual by our wholesale customers and our customers in san francisco. so, will we meet those demands? yes, we will find find a way tt those demands. it may be through additional unorthodox supplies we might not have anticipated in the fast but if the demand is there, jor jobs is to find ways to meet those demands if the plans of the city are to generate those demands.

incorporate conservation that is built in and required now so we're on the trajectory where per-capita demand is going to stay low and get lower but the number of capita is going up. and that is the growth that we're looking at and we have to find a way to deal with that if

we can squeeze out additional conservation it's great if we have to go to more recycling or some form of portable use or wastewater that's great and if we have to develop a con junk tive use project that's our job. >> all right. i hope that those conversations can happen sooner than later even if the state requirements have not been settled. because it just gives me pause when i keep seeing these coming forward and knowing we're heading up against those numbers without really, i know we have some plans that are out there and that we're to meet our needs but just to approach it from a cautionary perspective. >> it doesn't come into play seriously until 2035-2040 where we run up against those challenges more than anything else. but these projects take a long time to develop so they have to get started early.

>> thank you. >> any other comments or questions? >> ok. do we have any public comment on this item? we have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. aye. >> opposed. approved. next item, please. >> item 12 authorizing the general manager to execute modification 1 to the memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior national park service, yosemite national increasing the amount to 14,677,857 and extend the duration for two years for four years such as to board of supervisors approval under 9.118. >> steve richy assistant general manager for water. this is an extension of a memorandum of agreement that we have had on this most recent

with the national parks service going back to 2016, i believe it was. this is another two-year extension. we troy to do these in five-year increments but the national park service has had lots of personal changes and policy changes going on and they have a new superintendent so this is another two-year extension and is roughly for about $7.3 million per year. so, this includes the cost-of-living increases which was not included in the prior two years so we're watching up a little bit and doing activities with the park. the vast majority relate to our filtration exemption. it's watershed protection activities as well as security as well as scientific work, we do with the park. i'm happy to answer questions about this but this is part of our package for our filtration exemption. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second.

>> public comment? all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. approved. ex next item, please. >> item 13, approve the 2018 revised baseline scope, secretary and budget for phase 1, the sewer system improvement program project a subset of projects within the adopted sfpuc10-year capital plan for fiscal year 2018-2019 through 2027-2028 hugh the wastewater enterprise. >> good afternoon, president kwan, commissioners. i'm karen, director of wastewater capital phase 1, the $2.9 billion baseline scope schedule and budget for the 70 projects we have on going was approved in march 2016. today i'll be presenting the proposed 2018 revised baseline scope schedule and budget for the phase 1 projects.

in your commission package, there's a full report that has all the details behind it. if you can bring the slides up, please. revisions is a map of how we got to where we are today as shown here. the results of all the work is months and months of work with wastewater operations. we want to make sure the most urgent needs are being met. we also had opportunities to meet on wastewater treatment and collection system priorities last year. the financial revisions were included in the wastewater 10-year c.i.p. which was approved in february by the commission. the revisions are consistent with the quarterly reports when i come up and give the red dot reports on scope schedule and costs each quarter.

there's a number of reasons why we want to do this on a periodic basis. for a large program like we have, we want to look at the market and tracking impacts of that external tees they're having. we have changes and challenges with the bidding environment. this is consistent with how it was handled. we have 70 different projects with lots and lots of different challenges. we want to make sure that the program is consistent with our 10-year c.i.p. and we want to continue to have our baseline that report against what the reasonable schedule scope and budget are so moving forward, we would be reporting against the revised baseline if approved today. so a significant amount of progress has been made on our 70 projects. since we baselined the program in 2016. in 2016 we had 49 projects in pre construction.

now only 27 projects are in the planing and design phase. in 2016, we had 15 projects bid in construction now we have 19. most notably n.2016 only six projects were complete now we have 24 on track to be wrapped up this year. within your packet on page 6, you can see the project statuses. work in the city is challenging, as we've been implementing the program there's been a number things we've been running into. some of our work is performed under contracts with other city departments, namely m.t.a. and public works, vanness is one example. we have a project that goes along with that and central subway also. we have a project going along with that. our projects are subject to things that are out of our

control, priorities from other departments. when we're doing work at the treatment plants, our projectses are sharing space, it's pretty tight out there, there's little staging area. access routes, we've had challenges with shut downs and that means you are turning off electrical, shutting down the flows, getting the plant to come back on. in some cases we have very complex interfaces where something has to be built by one project and connect to another. some projects can only be built during driveway weather because we have to have everything operating and they have to be tested during wet weather and that can push things out as well. it's october 13th to the 18th. on your typical year. some facilities can't be taken out of service so we have bypasses and projects and public streets can be more challenges and we're working on the embark adair yo and thanksgiving

through m.l.k. we can't work on the cruise ships or when the giants are playing and soon they won't work when the warriors are playing also. when they're here. in the right of way, is very tough. i talked to you about some of the projects we had challenges with those and the store projects. basically it's to relief flooding in district 10. we had to chain our alignment because we couldn't come to an agreement and we had a can challenge, we had a change to our power strategy going to a single power provider and enterprise expressed interest in being our power provider so we took a step back and that change has impacted our scheduling and for southeast projects. this is from a very high level. this is where we were when we baselined 2016 and the end date

for our phase 1 projects were may first, 2025. now, where we are today, our end day projects and commission kaen, it has not changed, it's the same schedule. i want to highlight things that are different. let's start with treatment. the head work schedule on this particular slide reflects a nine-month extension because we added in a demolition of our existing dry weather head works after our new head works is built. i'm going to show you more information on that later in our presentation. the old head works must remain functional until we know our new head works will work and it's passed all our tests and it meets the satisfaction of the wastewater enterprise. over all, all our projects at southeast plants are still on track when we roll all of them up and underlying in that, by switching power provider our power redundancy contracts that

project has an extension or delay of 29 months. that so that we can do it sequentially and have the power enterprise build their supply and woel follow with an upgrade from the hunters point side. i'll show you a slide on what that looks like. with that pump station, it was extended because of our issues with staying in dry weather periods and for construction because the facility must all be operational during wet weather. unchanged on the collection system side, we took a little step back on central bay side system improvement projects and we've extended our preliminary design, 35% design by 18 months. because the land challenges. we're working to get an agreement with caltrans. we took time to do some geo tech. we take a little pause to reduce risk so we can reduce costs

later. if i can just go to the cost slides. these budget revisions were discussed in the capital budget presentation that agm how and sandler presented and reflects the 68 million-dollar increase to the phase 1 projects. collection system has no net change. there are some ups and downs. treatment projects have an increase of that 68 and what i'm going to explain to you tracks well with the red dots that i present typically but i'd like to just run through some of the details on the treatment projects. again, no budget revision. the changes are within head works southeast plants, oceanside and north point. and what i'm going to do is run through the projects that are greater than $10 million. and let's start with southeast

plants. we have two head works and power feed. and i want to run through details on the head works projects. it's an increase of $60 million. this project is located, this facility is at southeast plant on the evans. it's a very critical pre treatment process. this is where all the flows end the plant. it is easily our most complex construction project that we have in phase 1. and this is for a number of reasons because we are going to be operating while we are taking it sought of service. consecutively, we're taking the heart out of the patient and keeping the patient running for about five years. this project has dependencies on other projects. we were originally looking at crossings in evans and evans is a very, very busy road. a lot of people are traveling on

evans in order to build the new facility, we were looking at all improving a pump station across the street and building another new pump station. we spent a lot of time with our contractor, with our designers and with our c.m. teams to figure out how we can minimize risk on this because there are so many complexities. i want to just walk you through what this looks like if we're talking about what we've got now. right now, the facilities we have out at the plant are influence control structure where the flows come into the plant and we have a dry weather headworks with the capacity of 150 million gallons. we have a wet weather headworks so if it's raining, not raining, where we are with the flow, a flow will be conveyed right in from the collection system to the dry weather headworks or it will from from the pump station, a deep pump station, lift the flow up and gets it over to headworks as well so both would

be running in a wet weather situation. so, what we're going to be doing is we're going to be building the new headworks right where the wet weather headworks is shown on this side. we're going to have to build a work around, we're going to build a by pass, wore going to have to build another pump station to maintain capacity and we can stay in permit complian compliance. ultimately, this is the red where now we'll be demolished our old headworks and the new headworks will be built in that same location. here is the new headworks. incredible ability to remove grit in all different flow regiments and we piloted this at full scale. for myself personally, i don't know how a.g.m. henderson feels but this is my least favorite rt