>> good morning, everyone. welcome to the june 13th, 2018, egular meeting of the public safety and neighborhood service committee. i am the vice chicago o'haring -- vice chair chairing the meeting today. i would like to thank sfgov tv for staffing the meeting. do you have any announcements? >> yes. [ reading of rules ] >> great. and can you call item number one. >> clerk: number one. 180616 ordinance amending the health code to allow the director of the department of public health to extend, for multiple 90-day periods rather than a single 90-day period, the 120-day authorization for medical cannabis dispensaries to

sell adult use cannabis. >> thank you. i understand we have sophia kitler -- i think she's going to present -- >> actually. we'll be speaking in support. >> thank you so much. please. thank you. >> supervisors ronen and peskin, thank you for having me here today. my name is eugene hillsman. i would like to thank ms. cohen. the health code currently allows one 90-day extension. this proposal would amend the health code to allow for additional 90-day extensions. this is necessary to transition our dispensaries to adult-use

sales and move them to the office of cannabis. it has allowed them to stay in operation and remain in compliance while supporting the broad broader equity goals. further, while we'll continue to build the regulatory apparatus and open our system. this ordinance cou affect 55 article xvmcds. 38 of them are retail store fronts. 38 operators have been provided an extension to date. we're going to see an increase in need in the future. these medical cannabis dispensaries have supported the equity goals and the temporary operati operation. you can find this on the equity page. examples of benefits of the goals are cultivation classes

for equity applicants. excuse me. supporting employees through mentoring, training, and technical assistance, including business plan development and raising capital from investors. holding resume-writing workshops, networking opportunities, and regulation information sessions. hosting job fairs and clinics thisr offered expungement opportunities and resource for applicants. examples of those i just shared requirommitment to the city's equity goals and the private-sector resources are being provided in the absence of the city appropriating funds to support the provision of additional city resources for verified equity accesses looking to start businesses here. this has ensured that the city's equity applicants are still

receiving some support, just through the private sector. thank you for taking the time to hear this item today. the office of cannabis respectfully requests your support. i'm happy to answer any tionsou may have. >> thank you very much. supervisor peskin, do you have any questions? >> i have no questions. subject to public comment, i would move this item to the full board. >> thank you so much. is there any member of the public would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. there's a notion move this forward with positive recommendation without objection. that motion passes. mr. clerk, can you please call item number two. >> 1851 hearing to learn more about pacific gas and electric company (pg&e) and san francisco public utilities commission roles in providing power to city projects and affordable housing and about the impact of pg&e requirements on project timelines, budgets, and power source decisions. >> thank you so much. i have called this hearing today

to examine pg&e's practices that are impeding our ability as a city to bring clean, affordable city power to city-funded projects. as my colleagues know, the city is committed through the charter and the admin code, chap 99, to utilize clean power gas to help achieve renewable energy goals. unfortunately, our public electric service delivery depends on pg&e's transmission infrastructure. in 2015, a long-standing interconnection agreement expired, and now critically important city projects are being del and saddled with requirements by pg&e that are interfering with building design functionality. i'm glad the mayor was able to reach a temporary truce with pg&e on a short list of projects under way. i hope that my call for this hearing back in april helped

prompt pg&e's cooperation. we have a much longer pipeline of projectses that extend well beyond this year, and the city needs to exceed with the assurance that we'll not again be facing the type of roadblocks we have seen in the past. frankly, the more i have dug into this issue, the more appalled i am at how pg&e demands are impacting the cost and functionality of critically important city projects. in addition to the well-publicized delays on the balboa park pool and museum. affordable housing and construction projects, and even the desperately needed navigation center on the central waterfront. i've also learned that these disputes are affecting school district projects, properties and waterfront parks. emergency public safety

facilities like the police academy and the ambulance dispatch center. these are literally life-or-death essential public resources. and when these shenanigans on theart of pg&e delay these projects, it literally impacts the safety and the health of our residents. the city produces inexpensive clean power, and we have an obligation to use this power on city projects. we cannot let pg&e continue to stand in our way. thank you to city representatives who are here today to share their experiences, and i look forward to hearing from pg&e as well. first, i would like -- unless supervisor peskin has any opening comments? >> i want to thank you for bringing the hearing. this has been a long-standing issue. i've been watch it on and off for the last decade and a half, we're getting on 20 years. i want to actually commend the

general manager and assistant general manager for standing up and fighting for whats right. looking for a productive hearing and cooperation from pacific gas and electric going forward. >> thank you. with that, i would like to call up harlin kelly, the director of puc. >> good morning, supervisors. this is harlin kelly, general manager. i want to thank you for calling this hearing today. today we'll talk about the history of our city-owned and operated power system and the financial and community benefits it provided our residents for over the past 100 years. we'll also detail the challenges we have experienced in delivering our clean energy to our customers and the steps we're taking to overcome these

challenges. before we start, i would like to thank the board and the mayor's office in theireffor to facility better partnership between pg&e and the puc to help ensure that city power -- i mean the city projects receive city power. recently the mayor facilitated a meeting with myself and ms. williams to help put a short-term plan together to energize city construction projects with the city power more quickly. and so therefore there's hope that we can work together to resolve a lot of the short-termed and work on the long-time. i'm definitely honored to meet ms. williams. she seems very committed. i'm very opt -- optimistic.

we have discussed a shared interest in negotiating a long-term settlement of issues. to this end, together, pg&e and puc have identified a process that we hope will address current challenges with the number of city projects that need more power in 2018. this short-term arrangement will allow us to focus on the efforts for long-term resolution through the preferred process. we're hopeful that we can work together. we're looking forward to seeing the results on the ground soon. but i believe both puc and the pg&e agree that accountability is the key in assuring we move forward together. i hope that the board will ask

us and pg&e to come back to present to you in the upcoming months so that we can provide you w an update of how the implementation is going and if progress is manager made on our discussions. with that, i would like to invite barbara hill to the mike. assistant general manager of power enterprise so she can provide you with more detail. thank you. >> good morning. barbara hale, assistant manager for power. thanks for having us today. see if i can get arranged here. just a little bit of background. you know, our customers, the customers of the san francisco public utilities commission include general fund apartments whose activities are largely funded through taxes, like police, fire, and muni.

it includes activities from revenues they collect from services they provide. like theirport and water department. we're expanding our customer base to include new green communities like pier 70 and the shipyard. all of these customers receive carbon free electric. we generate that power as we flow water from the sierra to san francisco, putting our water to work. we transmit it on big power lines we operate connected to big power lines operated by the california independent system operator to get the electricity to san francisco. pg&e provides distribution services to move power within san francisco, and then we deliver it to our customers. we meter and bill our customers. we pay pg&e about $10 million each year for this wholesale

distribution service. containing that cost and ensuring affordable access to pg&e's grid is a key strategy of our business plan. pg&e controls the grid. there have been disagreements since san francisco began providing electric service in 1918. it's been challenging for the city. here is the condensed summary of the efforts the city has undertaken to overcome those difficulties in accessing distribution service. with the expiration in 2015 of the interconnection agreement. san francisco now has two ways to get power to our customers under federal law and the associated pg&e tariff. first, through a grandfathering treatment of the customers we

serve. second, through ownership or control of facilities. >> and that's prior to 1992? hat's correct. that's when the act was changed to create an open-access framework for distribution service provided by utilities. pg&e and san francisco disagree about how grandfathering applies. san francisco does not see in the pg&e tariff documents what pg&e says is required for electrical facilities. i will expand on that point more in slide nine. but as general manager kelly just stated, based on our recent discussion with the mayor's office, puc, pg&e, we believe we've identified a process on how to treat project as we work to resolve larger issues. it's the benefits to the city that make it important to persist in our efforts to assure

affordable access to distribution. those benefits are summarized here along with some of the lost opportunities if we don't prevail. when san francisco uses cheap an reduces our greenhouse gas emission. $40 million a year to taxpayer. carbon emission is equivalent to 40,000 cars off the road each year. those savings occur throughout the city in every neighborhood and apartment. the yellow dots on this map represent the 2,500 metered customers we serve in san francisco. you see the geographic dispersion here. the benefits are every in san francisco. >> these are grandfathered pre-'92? >> some most prior to 1992.

all of them are classes of customers we served in 1992 and prior, but some of them will be new facilities as well. i didn't make a distinction on this slide between those two. they do represent both past and current active department facilities that need access to pg&e's grid as they implement facility maintenance and upgrades. some projects have been energized like the randall museum and unmetered traffic lights and signals. at least for the projects taking place in 2018, as the general manager mentioned, we've identified a path, or a process, on how these projects will be treated in hopes that will prevent further delays. >> can you describe what that path is? >> so we've come to an understanding that pg&e will require electrical equipment

that's better to find for us for facilities that are of a 500 kva size. >> what do you mean better defined. >> well, so we have in the wholesale distribution tariff that pg&e has on file at firk, electric electrical configurations. for these projects that are pending and expect to be through the pg&e application process before the end of 2018. >> i know you're going to get to this in your presentation, but any understanding is one of the biggest issues that have caused delays in many city projects is the sort of seemingly arbitrary

requirement of whether or not pg&e requires us to have a primary or secondary distribution system. at what point in the project development timeline does pg&e even let us know what it is that they're going to require? my understanding working with affordable housing developers in my district, talking with several city projects, in making sure the project delivery is on time -- like in schools where students are going to start in the middle of august, there's no delaying the start of the school year, or affordable housing projects when, you know, certain grants and federal funding opportunities will go away if the project timeline is not kept. they're having to spend extra money on distribution infrastructure because they

don't know what pg&e is going to require. so if you could talk a little bit more about, you know, what this -- it would help me understand if we know for these projects what has been improved through what the mayor has been able to negotiate, then it will help me understand in the future what it is the types of agreements that we need with pg&e. if that makes sense. >> yes. i think it will make more sense when i get to slide nine where you can see the range of size of load. it might be a little more relatable then. if i may get there and then be responsive. >> sure. >> thank you. thank you. i just wanted to close out by identifying what the icons mean on this map. you know, we have all these facilities that we are serving, these active department facilities that we're serving. they include civic institutions

luke the museums, recreation includes things like the pool and park facilities. health and safety icon is representing fire departments like our boat birthing project and the police academy. housing. that icon represents, for example, the city's low-income senior housing facilities. infrastructure includes all the utilities that the city operates, water, waste water, power, things like waste water pumps are what is listed here on this map. what's clear is that each disagreement on these projects results in delays and increases their costs. >> where is 350 amber on this map? >> 350 amber? >> i beg your pardon -- >> the police academy. >> oh, the police academy? it's in there. >> got it. >> i apologize. i wasn't relating the address and the customer.

most of these customer departments are connected to the grid at secondary. that's the lower voltage. pg&e is requiring connection at primary or high voltage. this is the requirement pg&e is imposing that we don't see in the tariff documents. it's a big roadblock for us. that's part of the confusion that you are referring to, supervisor ronen, about when do we know in the process what's required. it's been unclear to us what is required as pg&e has begun to implement their requirements. we refer to documents that had been filed at firk, and we can see representative electrical configurations. we don't see some of the requirements thatg&e and sort

of in realtime is telling us we need to meet. these requirements are increasing the costs of projects to connect. it's six times more expensive. the primary connection equipment takes up more space. and that can take away community space. it can take away revenue-generating space, for example, for affordable housing that needs to have tenants that help pay rent that offset the operating costs ofeir facilities. that equipment takes up nine times more space than secondary equipment. primary equipment to connect these customers is not necessary for safety, reliability, or legal reasons. >> and what is pg&e's stated rationale for what you are obviously contending is spurious, not necessary, not required for safety or reliability? what is their stated rationale,

other than they're screwing the city? >> pg&e has said, i think, in correspondence we've seen, as well as in dialogue, they view the secondary service treatment being treatment that would be appropriate for pg&e retail customers and that we're trying to receive wholesale service prices using retail service connections, and our disagreement there really goes to the federal law that says for classes of customers we've served before 1992, we don't need to include additional equipment at all. that's the grandfathering provisions of the federal power act. that's a point we have disagreed on. we're active as the general manager mentioned. the federal energy regulatory

commission, trying to litigate that out, work that out. we have numerous settlement conversations about these topics, and we just haven't gotten there yet. for pg&e retail -- >>ani go back to the question i had asked you a little while back. i understand one point of contention is whether primary or secondary service is needed and what equipment is needed to appropriate distribute power, whether it's primary or secondary. i understand that. but is there also an issue causing delays about when pg&e will even make their initial requirements known? so we have an issue with the requirements of the infrastructure that they're asking for, and that's one issue, but we also have an issue getting them to tell us at appropriate times what it is they're going to require. >> we have had some challenges

with that, yes. so, for example, the concept that i want to get to here on this next slide is something that pg&e introduced in mi mid-2017. that's the concept of requiring primary equipment instead of secondary equipment for a load as small as 75kva. so pg&e requires primary equipment, high-voltage equipment when the connection is at 3,000 kva or more. a good example for that for the kind of customers we serve is zuckerburg hospital. that treatment, how pg&e connects customers -- retail commerce is described in pg&e's

green book. that kind of treatment, i think, is pretty well recognized as good utility practice. large loads require primary equit. san francisco has installed primary equipment when it's appropriate. an example is the zuckerburg general hospital. that's a large city facility. getting that level of equipment is appropriate. >> so in other words, your contention is they have an arbitrary double standard for the city? >> it does seem like a different treatment. it does feel arbitrary. and to that point, you know, private sector engineers hired to work on city projects are told by pg&e that secondary service is acceptable until they make it clear the project is

taking service from us. then primary is required at 75kva or more versus the 3,000 example i gave with zuckerburg. here are some specific examples of that. ball woe way pool -- balboa pool, the towers, pbn affordable housing. these are projects where second dare service was described as required until it became clear to pg&e that the service provider was ultimately going to be the city. they originally said secondary service would be appropriate. then they changed the direction and indicated that primary was required when san francisco was going to become the service provider. >> so how did they first indicate that secondary services were needed? >> that was communicated between

pg&e and project teams. >> i see. >> so this is what i would characterize as a growing pains issue. the city departments and project teams, sometimes they go to pg&e when they should come to us. so they start down a road with pg&e until they realize, oh, wait, balboa pool, for example, had a contractor who was working with them. the contractor started talking to pg&e. the city team says, oh, no, no. we take service from the puc because we get these reduced rates. so the team switches focus, and then we file an application with pg&e requesting wholesale distribution service. that's when it becomes clear, i think, for the pg&e folks that the project is a city customer.

>> okay. and can we go back to slide 10? >> uh-huh. >> so pg&e, if i'm reading this right, is requiring primary service, which in your previous graph you said basically the infrastructure takes up the size of a one-bedroom apartment. that is right? >> that's right. >> for an mta employee toilet? >> yes. yeah. that was one of the more challenging projectiscussions we had. >> you mean egregious is the word you're looking for. >> so we have the project that serves as a comfort station to bus drivers, basically, right. pg&e indicated that there was no ability to -- no capacity nearby

to connect the lode and the only way would be through a primary connection point. so, to give you some sense of what the lode is, the restroom had lighting and a hand blow dryer. so that was the load we were talking about. as i mentioned before, the primary switch gear would appropriately serve load like zuckerburg general hospital. >> so they were requiring the same amount of distribution infrastructure for general hospital that they are to provide energy to lights and a hand dryer in a single-stall bathro

bathroom? wow. >> we found a workaround in the city facilities and didn't connect to pg&e's distribution grid for that to find a way forward. >> so there was infrastructure nearby that we could -- >> behind the meter for us, that we were able to access. >> okay. >> i want to make sure i don't repeat what i've already said in answering your questions. >> sorry. this is just unbelievable. so i also want to just focus on a couple of other projects on slide 10. so you said for many of these projects when the project sponsor didn't feel like they should be coordinating with puc

and went to pg&e, they were told it would need secondary service. for jfk tower,boa pool, can you say which one of those projects received that initial assessment? >> those are listed here because they all received that initial assessment. >> okay. thank you. >> i think the reason i highlight that is i think it helps us understand that the equipment is not needed for safety reliability purposes. it's informative, i think, on that point. each of these projects is significantly impacted by these pg&e requirements. i already mentioned some of the project cost increases. each project experiences delays in opening the facilities and

providing city services. given the size of the equipment as we've just been talking about, each faces the loss of potential benefits as scarce valuable will be taken up. the community room as planned for part of improvements had to be forfeited in the argument. these are uncomfortable trade-offs for us, and they are very impactful to our residents. we think that these are negative impacts that are avoidable. we're trying to work with pg&e, as the general manager mentioned, come furth agreement so we can avoid them together. they are, frankly, accumulating, though, affecting many san franciscoens. there's a loss in revenue, waste in city funds in trying to remove the roadblocks and

increasing emissions -- >> ms. hale, before you move on. with the mta toilet, you found another way to provide that power, so that's up and running, but four months late, so who know what is the drivers did in those interim four months. >> i didn't inquire. >> the waste on the streets that i hear about on a daily basis from my constituents. the balboa pool, i would like to know what happened to all of these projects. >> balboa pool is under construction. what about the senior housing project. >> jfk tower is still under construction. we're trying to find a constructible solution consistent with the path forward that the general manager said

was discussed. we hope that will receive service. >> do you know if any funding has been lost because of this delay? >> oh, there's definitely been city expenditures associated with it. i don't know what the dollar figue is for that particular project, but there's definitely a delay in the overall construction. you know how city contracts work, you know, delay. every day of delay is money. >> and i understand that we're expending city funds, but i'm wandering if any, you know, for example, state or federal funding to fund these affordable housing projects has -- we've missed opportunities. >> i can't speak directly to whether there are speci missed opportunities. i know that it's a very important concern that the mayor's office of housing has addressed with us. the financing and grant deadlines for projects like this. i image it's not unique to the

mayor's office of housing. they've just been very clear that it is a real impact for them. they have to meet certain deadlines or they risk losing the funding source, so that's a big concern for the city as a whole. so it's slowing our affordable housing improvements. we're seeing compromised health and safety improvements in recreational activities we've bullpen talking about. we're helping customers through this challenging process. we're staffing up a new customer engagement team. we're identifying staff members to serve as representatives with different categories of different types of load.

we're engaging with commerce -- customers. we're making sure there's the kind of timelines we're experiencing with pg&e is on a timeline so it doesn't become a disrupter. we're expanding our support within the puc team, bringing on some new engineers. just in conclusion, i wanted to highlight that power service is critical to reaching san francisco's goals and really living our values. we'll continue our efforts to overcome these roadblocks. i'm happy to take further questions if you have them, and i will be here for the duration. >> i'm not sure how to phrase

this question, but -- and i would much rather get along with pacific gas and electric rather than fight with them, but what does the passage of proposition a mean tos entire discussion? g> to the t we're bui ribsttion facilities using those revenues to better connect our customers, like the project that we have in our budget that we refer to as the big corridor project. then we'll be in more control over the impacts of facilities, maintenance, and improvements that are connected to that grid will involve and what sort of behind the meter improvements that we can partner with our customers regarding. rooftop solar, storage, electric

vehicles, those are all the sorts of things that if we have a separate distribution from the distribution lines in the street that pg&e owns, we're have more control over. our capital improvement program that's been approved by the public utilities commission and by the board, we're going to be taking a look at that and seeing what we can more appropriately utilize prop a funds. those things are all on the capital plan. it should help. >> we have a few other representatives. did you want to say anything, mr. kelly? >> i just want to end our presentation. it kind of goes to prop a. when i came in as general manager, one of the first things we do is come up with a business plan. our plan, given the fact that we

provide low cost power to municipal customers and we have costs to enterprise departments is very hard to make additional revenues because we're constrained on both sides. so one of theestr w to go and get another 100 mega watts. so we're not trying to gras beyond that. we're just trying to get revenue to provide funds to our general departments and hopefully we can provide at a lower discount to the enterprise departments, city departments. so i just wanted to make it clear that that has been our plan. we've documented that plan. i would say that we have really experienced a lot of challenges, as you well documented, but

there is some hope. when the departments come up, they can talk about their pain and cost of projects, and i think that with the supervisors reaching out to pg&e, i think they begin to realize -- and maybe they can speak to it -- it's not the puc. it's not the city department, but it really affects the end users. that was one of the motivating factors to try to come together and work with the solutions. i'mhopeful. i think this hearing and fo- hearing to make sure that the talks are fruitful would be very appreciative. thank you. >> and now we're going to hear from nick castner from san francisco unified school district.

>> good morning. my name is nick castner. we have benefitted from clean power through the puc for a long time now. we also benefit from the fact that the puc provides support for the sustainability office, for the director, for energy audits, efficiency work, panels, and for water bottle filling stations. and the puc also supports our garden education and environmental science efforts. so we've had a long road trip with the puc. that's why we've been troubled by some of the problems that have occurred recently in terms of electrical service upgrades. they cost us delay, space, and cost, as has already been mentioned. as you can image, we allow for school construction to be completed before school starts. what could we do when we had 350 students that could no longer attend their school because the project is not complete.

the uncertainty about the electrical requirements causes a delay in the design process and causes us to worry about whether we can meet our own internal deadlines. just as an example as the inability to change schedules, where we first found out about these new requirements, we actually received approval for secondary service, which is what we had requested after we went out to bid. if we had not received that approval, we would have been slapped with a huge change order. the space issue is another big one for us. schools are generally filled to capacity. we can't afford to have low enrollment schools from a cost perspect they don't have room for primary equipment. one, because there's limited outdoor space. two, because requirements insist we have a certain number of classes that can occur at any given time. we have play structures that take place up on the yard. and we can't give up a classroom

for electrical equipment. so we would not be able to kay come pan any -- accompany that without giving up space. we would be required to ask our design teams to carry two possible designs. one for primary service, one for secondary, which adds to the design costs. also, as you know, the requirement would be $3 million. the bond program is already underfunded because we're in a strong economicalal time. the projects are costing more than intended. any additional costs would cut into the additional schools we could service. if we switched to pg&e to avoid these costs, if we were to become one of their customers, that would inclusion bills by

100% between now and 2030. it would be more expensive than paying for the primary service to begin with. >> as nick mentioned, fall scott was the first elementary school of the upgrades to be impacted. that project has been improved and moving forward. after the agreement, the process for improvement has been going much smoother with staff. i commend them on their efforts. i want to go over all the other projects coming down the pipeline. that's washington high school, which is not a modernization project. it was originally put forward because of major structural problems we were having to do. unfortunately, those upgrades

impact the electrical service that requires us to receive approval. part of the student efforts to build up new kitchens that can provide cooked food for students throughout the district. west porta elementary school and hillcrest are -- portable buildings. those are requiring upgrades as well. two major modernizations. we're basically replacing the entire campus gut from mechanical, electrical, plumbing. and those efforts are moving forward. i can go down. washington high school has received approval of their service application.

mol -- i thank puc staff for their efforts in working with pg&e. it has relieved a lot of ostress on -- a lot of stress on our end. barbara is going to get back up here and explain what that lks like. it's a cost to the project. it's good news. it's been happening early enough in the design process we're not having to carry the dual design or submit for a change o after the bid. >> so lillianthal, did you have to do a design? >> we did not. the project was stuck in between interconnection agreement expiring and these coming on board. we submitted originally just under the standard secondary service. that was how it went out to bid.

after the fact, we had to do some minor modifications. unfortunately, that has not caused a huge change order. that was a stressful situation not knowing what the requirements were going to be for that. >> and so for the remaining projects that have not received approval, are you designing based on the assumption that secondary service would be required? >> yes. correct. we're hoping that secondary service with any minor modifications would be approved and move forward. that's how we've been submitting these. >> thank you. >> touchlite -- thank you. oh, my name is nate kinscy. >> i wouldike t call up sarah madeleine. >> good morning. i'm going to take you through just a couple of brief slides, all of which show three projects

where originally pg&e required primary service for us and the impacts of those projects. so the first is the randall museum. that's a free museum we operate in partnership with a nonprofit, the friends of the randall. it serves over 100,000 people annually. just through their field trip alone, 12,000 students in san francisco. again, no admission to this science and nature museum. it underwent a $9 million renovation. a majority of that funding was provided by state grant funds. there was also philanthropy in the general fund for that project. as you've been hearing, originally primary service was required. as you see on the slide, that's what was actually negotiated and

implemented. >> primary or secondary? >> secondary is what they were asking for. where we landed is what you see on the slide. essentially secondary. it cost us a year and $800,000. the second example has been discussed. i won't spend too much time on it. the balboa pool located in balboa park. it's a 24-acre park in our system. playgrounds, ball fields are included. and this project was delayed and costs us an additional $800,000. again because of the same conversation. that negotiation, if you will, was only concluded by the intervention of the district

supervisor who helped us drive this to conclusion so we could move forward with the project and get the pool open. and the challenge for us here is not just that it delayed this pool project, but we operate nine pools throughout the system. we're upgrading these pools, many of them through the 2012 bond. what we intended to do was sequence them so that there's only one pool down at a time so that people have another facility to access. and because of this delay, we're now going to have to take down garfield and rossi pool at the same time which has a reverb impact throughout our system. the other thing i would like to point out, balboa is an interesting example because it is this large complex. the requirement of primary service would have essentially put substation with wires over a park. so in addition to all the things that have been talked about there's the safety aspect, or the perception of safety, for

our users that's a concern. another example is the same disagreement. the geneva car barn. old muni building. we're working with a series of partners to transform it into a performing arts center. this resolved quickly. only took us about three months. so overall, this conversation around primary versus secondary has cost the taxpayer just in our department, one of the smaller departments you're going to hear from today, over $2 million and at least two years of lost access to our facilities. not to make a complicated subject even more complicated, but there are also other challenges with pg&e that i just wanted to point out outside of this primary-secondary question. just letting you know about who projects. we currently have a restroom at

state street which does not have any power. it's simply a matter of hooking it up. there's not a dispute. it just hadn't made the list for pg&e. what we have to do is custodians shut it down at sundown because it's not safe for people to be in there at dark. and the project where there's a dispute over transmission lines. so a little more run of the mill and mundane, but challenges are not limited to the primary-seconda primary-secondary. i'm available if you have any questions about these projects. >> okay. thank you. and then i just wanted to note that dan adams, the deputy director is here. did you want to make any statements or just be available for questions? >> yes, i would, actually. first of all, i just want to appreciate supervisors calling this hearing and shedding light on this issue. this is something a that we

encounter on all of our projects. i won't repeat the statements earlier, but all of them apply to pretty much every project we do. we have cost overruns and delays, given lack of specificity and clarity on the requirements. this has a direct impact on our ability to provide housing quickly and affordably. i just want to appreciate your work, appreciate the work of our sister agency at the puc. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thanks. i just have one question. because of the delays in the dispute over primary and secondary services, have we lost any projects that the city is funding, have those projects lost the opportunity to receive state or federal funding to realize the affordable housing project? >> i don't know of any specific examples where we've lost a federal or state grant application possibility. i do know that we've had

numerous delays on our rad conversion, public housing ansformation work that's placed in service and has a tax credit implication as well as a construction re so we're seeing those delays result in cost implications on the back end. >> fantastic. thank you. >> in the interest of moving the hearing along, i did want to recognize that edgar is here from dpw. and i think that elaine forbes was supposed to be here, but i don't see her. >> thank you very being here. we'll call you up if we have any questions. so with that, i would like to invite representatives from pg&e that are here. i understand that jess brown and

john [indiscernible] are here. i appreciate you're here. we are veryeresntd to hear from you. good morning, supervisors ronen and peskin. my name is jess brown. i'm the director of the san francisco pg&e. i'm joined by my colleague who serves as director of service planning and design at pg&e. we're bothed at harrison on mission. thank you for inviting us. first off, i would like to express that we share the city's concerns about the delays to important projects and agree that disputes are unfortunate and need to be addressed.

we're encouraged that we have an interim agreement, a path forward, if you will, and hopefu w use that as a foundation for a long-term agreement. i think as barbara articulated, and i will cover these pieces as well, the nature of the utility business at the retail, wholesale, and transmission level is complex. that's why we have many without the sfpuc having to take on what is required by other utilities. many of these disputes are

subject to settlement negotiations at furk. under both the state law, pg&e has the duty to treat customers equitiab equitiablely. in 2015, they became subject to [indiscernible] in order to receive lower cost wholesale electric service. the federal power act exists to ensure all utilities have access to existing grid infrastructure, deliver energy, and make sure each utility bears a financial responsibilities in serving

customers. puc and pg&e have continued to disagree about the scope of those requirements. as you are likely aware, the parties litigated these disputes at firk in 2016. we continue to wait for that ruling. acknowledgment of our long shared history in san francisco -- i've been with pg&e for 34 years, most recently in the san francisco division. they've made additions to legacy service. most significant was the agreement to grandfather all city loads prior to 2015 by not requiring the city to own and control infrastructure known as these facilities in order to continue taking wholesale service. pg&e only requires the city to own or control facilities on an ongoing forward basis for major load increases or greenfield li