requests from elected officials and working with the three enterprises all constituent requests in timely manner. at the state legislature, they marked the end of a second year of a two-year session. it was a busy year with pga reviewing over 400 bills, tracking nearly 300 and actively engaging on 70. for the water enterprise we worked on several conservation bills including securing amendments to move a bill we and fellow water agencies across the state oppose to one we supported in the end. for water, we successfully sponsored sb966, which was carried by scott wiener. with risk base water quality standards for on site systems that align with the most advance and protective health nation wide. this is helping local communities establish consistent oversight and management programs for these on site water

systems. this bill is a continuation of our leadership primarily of paul keyhoe and on site water reuse. first at local level mandating every project over 250,000 square feet on site. and now paving the way for other local tees to do it with this bill across the state. finally, we engage on high-impact and complex bills for the power enterprise around regionalization, wildfires and direct access. much of our activity, however, lately, has been focused around the cpuc's reform of the power charge indifference adjustment or exit fee. on october 11th, however, the cpuc passed a exit fee modification harmful including clean power. pga working with a team of coalition of stakeholders helped organize a joint letter and three press statements from the mayors of san francisco, oakland and san jose calling for delay or no vote.

we were able to secure signatures from mayor breed and all 11 supervisors opposing the modification to the exit fee. the team is working closely with enterprise with the power enterprise folks to determine next steps in appealing the decision. on the federal level, the pga team helped finance achieve the largest loan in the country at almost $700 million and work closely with the leaders nation wide to get a pilot grant program to fund water workforce coalitions in the water bill which the president just signed today. and last but not least, we continue to engage our elected officials at the local state and federal level on the state water board's proposal. so we're working with enterprise staff to communicate the impact of this proposal and also securing support of elected officials for the negotiated settlement process and to mitigate the board of

supervisors current revolution n on this issue. >> colleagues. >> any questions? >> is there a report on what we just heard, item number 7? francisco. >> i have the real report. in san francisco we have tax paying constituents and i feel that it's important that we have a town hall meeting on this

issue. it's about time. because, i was reading at the policies but i'm missing in the policies are how we subsidize large entities like cell force and so on and so fourth. and i know y'all get some benefits from it. the citizens, the taxpayers want to know that if initiatives and incentives that are given to sales force and all, why can they adversely impact us in this totality. and they do. people don't know that. that's like y'all have the 525 self-contained mechanisms where y'all save on energy and sewer, et cetera, et cetera. sales force is depriving the

city of thousands of dollars. which will lead to millions of dollars. and where we need to talk about that in a very general manner but also in a very definitive manner. so i was looking at this document. it makes for interesting reading. i was trained in the military. if you want to the general with such a report, he would really make you rewrite it. i'll tell you why. we have standard operating procedures and we look at each of the paragraphs and we see, ok, you are talking the talk but are you walking the walk? and i like to walk the walk. so you know that sfu is an enterprise department. there are over 2,000 employees. a lot of your employees are retiring. i spoke a little bit about that.

we want to know, in the short term and long-term how do these policies really have the community. about 850 residents in san francisco. in general, one and a half million in the daytime and people come here to work. they still use our water and still use our sewer. that's what i want to know. thank you, very much. >> thank you, francisco. that's public comment under government affairs update. >> we have one more. >> is there any further public comment under item number 7? >> thank you, chair courtney. peter jackmire with the river trust. i want to thank you all for giving attention to the letter that the n.g.o. submitted on september 24th. discussing that at your meeting

on the 25th. also, we appreciate an opportunity to speak with some of your staff about the three points we made. the third point, i think we were a little too subtle on that. that was related to communications with federal agencies. our concern was that the sfpuc, along with the irrigation districts have been lobbying the trump administration to essentially get agencies to back off on the recommendations. you might have seen that on october 1st, the u.s. fish and wildlife service, which is under department of interior, rescinded its recommendations from the ready for environment l analysis. fish and wildlife staff spent years basing the recommendations on the best available science. they were told from above to rescind those recommendations and embrace the tal amir river management plan.

i will read something from their letter. it says, the service proposed the set of recommendations included in the usdoi response letters based on studies from multiple river systems, including the river. success is achieved in other areas and on best available science, however, following discussions with licensed applicants, the service recognizing the flow proposal included in the usdoi includes proposed volumes of water as a license condition difficult for the licensed applications to mange without significant effect to over water supply and operation of the projects. for this reason, the service proposed is focused on flow beyond the license application. essentially they're saying we based our recommendations on the best available science but now this is a political move. it came from up top at the lobbying of the sfuc, your staff

and the irrigation districts. i just think that this is not the way san francisco operates. you might have seen the editorial that alludes to this. we're very concerned that your staff is taking advantage of the trump administration to undermine the state of california and our environmental laws. it's unacceptable. i really hope you will look into that. i do have a background on the u.s. fish and wildlife service letter i'll leave with you. >> thank you. >> yeah. michael, can you just kind of share with the commission your thoughts about the trump administration and what kind of dealings that that is having? >> so michael, deputy general manager. i think what we have to focus on here is we've been working with multiple administrations since

the conception in 2012. it's not the administration, as you call it, the trump administration, it's the career staff that we've been dealing with and working with on these issues over the years. while the u.s. fish and wildlife service submitted a, i would call a refined 10j recommendations, it superseded what they had already submitted. there's a flow schedule in there. there are requirements they recommend for the river that lead to restoration of the river based on what the project impacts were. and i think that's important. not over all restoration of the river system based on all the activities there. so we've been working with the career staff here in california. those recommendations came from them. didn't come from the administration, as been portrayed. i would like to say ta basically we have not gone in and said we wanted to sit down and ask the science on the river and what is

possible. so i think that's what the tenner of what we've been discussing. not that we've asked for changes, blanket changes to what they recommended. it's a little bit different than what has been characterized here and i'd be glad to answer questions about that. >> colleagues -- >> thank you for your comments. thank you for shedding light. i imagine this will continue. >> item number 7 public comment. it's closed. madam secretary, next item please. >> clerk: the general manager. >> the first item, if we can, can be start with d. and i wanted to give an update on the tenderloin street lights and barbara hill. >> thank you, assistant general manager for power.

i did want to acknowledge the frustrations and frankly share the frustrations with the members of the community on the tenderloin lighting project. you got a accurate overview of the circumstances. we did have delivery. we did have a competitive bidding process through the o.c. a. procurement approach. we did receive delivery of defaulting product. it was returned. the manufacturer went through a retooling process. new product was delivered. we were told it would be delivered october 5th. instead, we were told on that date that they, again, had product fit problems. the three or four components won't fit together properly for in stallation. that has been the hang up. in order to meet some of the community lighting needs and the public safety needs and the

tenderloin, we took from stock what we had available and installed temporary lighting. i'm hearing from the community, today, yes, they want -- they appreciate that temporary lighting but they want all the poles to have temporary lighting. we put two temporary lights up per block. and the crews did that just over the last week. we expect to hear today from the manufacturer what their new delivery schedule is of product. as soon as we receive the product, we will install it. i think once we know what the tommy lintimeline is we'll be ir position to know whether it makes sense to install additional temporary lighting. we've done with what we can with what we had in stock to provide for temporary lighting. we'll evaluate whether we should

go forward with additional temporary lighting, depending on how much wait time we have between now and when the new product will be delivered. that's what i know today. >> general manager kelly. >> i want to ask a question. if we were to purchase more temporary lighting, it would take some time. so maybe we want to see how much time it would take to get the temporary lighting as well? >> exactly. that's kind of ththat's the trae facing. >> colleagues? can we get an update at each commission meeting and then a little clarity on the difference between two per block, 56, and 100. which i think was the new community demand. just make sure we keep the conversation out in public. >> sure. happy to do that. i didn't know we would be talking about this today. i have a map that would be helpful in this conversation.

we can come to the next meeting prepared with what the scope of the situation is. what we've accomplished so far in terms of lighting. what poles have no lights attached. and we have worked with the community to help identify what the priority locations are and that is where we put the temporary lighting that we put up. happy to continue to work with them as we go through these. >> maybe what we can do is part of the weekly update, we can include that. give you a weekly progress update? >> yes. >> the only thing i would suggest is, i don't know who else in the region still uses cobra head fixtures but there may be some out there. people might be willing to unload. >> that sounds good. we'll try that too. >> ebay. >> i have a question for the chair. >> we can't do ebay but we can talk -- [laughter] >> the city will allow us to talk to other cities because we

might have some spares we can purchase off of them. >> a couple of folks said they were flabbergasted with the delay. time wise, what are you looking? i heard 2012 and 16 and 18. >> that's the timeline that i'm waiting for by close of business today from the distributer. we demanded they provide us with a new schedule when we will see product and they committed by close of business today. i was texting folks but we haven't received it yet. >> thank you. >> commissioners -- thank you. >> thank you. >> so, should i take public comment. i'd like to call for public comment on the general manager's report, specifically 8-d. public comment is closed. next item, please. >> so, the next item is clean power sf update.

>> thank you. bacbarbara hill. it will cover service to customers and take a deeper dive into our regulatory activities. clean power sf successfully serves customers. our program enrollment stats haven't changed since my last report. so we have opt out percentages of 3.1%. a 97% retention rate. super green upgrade rate exceeds. our opt out rate at 3.6% of our customers. it's 0.1% uptick since i reported on october 9th. that all sounds good. i have been reporting on the regulatory aspectses. they've been reconsidering the methodology of how the exit fees, known as the pcia are set. it's to recover the unavoidable

above-market cost of power supply commitments that pg&e has made. while all customers, all pg&e customers pay these above market power costs, c.c.a. customers see this charge as a separate line item on the pg&e side of their bill and these charges are levied on our clean power sf customers by pg&e. historically, clean power sf generation rates has been set to absorb the impact on our customers of that pg&e pcia charge. the commission, as ms. lamb mentioned, the california puc issued two proposed decisions in the rule-making proceedings, one by the judge, one issued by the commissioner assigned to the case. that's referred to as an an alternate and on october 11th, the california puc voted unanimously to approve the alternate proposal. the cca community vigorous leo

posed the alternate proposal on the ground it underestimates the market value of pg&e generation resources. that underestimatation results in more of pg&e costs being recovered through the exit fee that is charged to our customers. so how they set that market value is important in this calculation. it also unlawfully allows the above market costs of generation assets owned by pg&e to be recovered in this same exit fee. with this decision, we expect that the pcia will have increased by more than 200% since san francisco committed to begin the service in 2015. that's a pretty steep incline over a short period of time. california p.u.c. staff and pg&e will need to prepare information

to implement this decision. at this time, we expect that the decision will be implemented starting january 1st. what are we expecting to happen as a result of the decision? we anticipate that january 1st, 2019, the pcia rate will increase for clean power sf customers and pg&e generation rate, what they charge bundled customers will decrease relative to our current levels. based on the best available information we have today, we estimate that clean power sf customers could pay 40 to $50 million more per year to pg&e. if we take no action to absorb

that change. that is 25% of our forecasted revenue from the clean power sf program. these figures that i'm giving to you are based on pg&e's most recent rate forecast, which is scheduled to be updated in early november. we're anticipating that the outlook will improve with the november updates. again, based on best available information of what that update will likely show, we estimate that the typical residential customer will experience about 1.50 to $2.50 monthly bill increase as a result of this california p.u.c. decision. if this agency takes no action. we'll be waiting to see the pg&e november update before making any specific proposals to what our next steps will be. the valuation of next steps

includes a number of issues. for example, how can we reduce our program costs to absorb the pcia increases? and the pg&e generation rate decreases. should we make changes to our supply portfolio choices so we can lower our costs that way? at this point all are working on what the universe of options could be. what the consequences of the options are. worworst-case scenario is we postpone our april or operate at a higher cost for some amount of time. it will setback our efforts to procure new california renewable resource and begin programming to support our local build out and affordability objectives. in partnership with our

colleagues at cal cca we'll be examining our options for recourse at the cpuc. in the meantime, we'll continue to provide clean, reliable and affordable service to our customers. clean power sf continues to offer generations service that's is about 2% lower cost than pg&e. so customers are receiving savings today for a product that is cleaner and reinvesting in our community. i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> commissioners -- >> i'm not sure if it's a question or a comment. i appreciate your presentation. >> thank you. >> this was a business risk that we knew was out there. >> correct. >> so while it's not good news it's not exactly a surprise. i would like to see it as soon

as we can. an analysis of basically the impact on the enterprise financials. in this case, it's the c.c.a. enterprise. i know your doing this because you put an answer to the questions you talked about without doing it. i would like to see, in whatever form is most useful, an analysis from a long-term standpoint what it does to our business model. >> thank you, commissioner. anything else? >> is there any public comment on the general manager's report at item 8a? seeing none. public comment is now closed. >> i'm sorry. how did i not see that. >> commissioners, i'm looking at

this situation in a totally different way. going through the source of the record act. i want to know how many of the electrical lines to where it stops come under our jurisdiction of the sfpuc, pro proprietary. i want to know why in the year 2018, if ever, that we continue to have special agreements with pg&e to bring in the city into the city. why don't we have proprietary jurisdiction over sufficient lines in today's world with today's technology to bring our electricity all the way to the city. this has never been answered. what some people do here is the answer is in a a con voluted w.

under the record act, it was the army and some of the every year we could sit down with pg&e and negotiate. that's why i know how to negotiate with pg&e. we're not sincere. in order to have gone into a clean solar power, there are many factors. we've not been very sincere with this. we say clean. we want to know how clean. if you go deeper into that it's a slap in our face. pg&e does whatever it can and they're free to do it. they're a private enterprise.

so, we have no clear notion, first, about how clean it is. and secondly, we are kind of indebted to pg&e because we think when they say something, they don't keep their promise because they have control. we have no control. as one of the commissioners said, what type of a business plan we have? do we have a business plan where every element of the business plan we are in the cockpit. as far as i know from my reading, this convoluted stuff, we are not in the cockpit. if you are not in the cockpit and pge and is in the cockpit, this thing will go on forever. that's my question to you. you have sufficient intelligence and i hope you understand what i'm saying. >> thank you for your comment.

francisco. is there any other public comment on this item on the general manager's report? >> i'd like to add one thing. francisco, you raise an old but interesting issue around transmission into the city. we've looked at it a dozen times. it might be good to take another look at that. to see if it changes the out of come that analysis. we also have in this environment, pg&e doesn't control the transmission lines anymore. that whole relationship between us and pg&e on transmission is really out the window. we have some options in terms of building level distribution and i know we're looking at that as well. so if we can have an update for the commission about what our

options are on that side of the business as well. that would be appreciated. >> thank you, commissioner. last call for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed. general manager kelly. >> all right. the next item is the bay delta water quality control plan update. michael, were you going to start or ellen? >> i think i am. >> hi, i'm ellen. i'mel deputy manager for water and acting assistant general manager. steve richy is on vacation. i am just going to report out on a meeting that steve had at the last commission meeting. he referenced a letter that was sent by the n.g.o.s on september 24th. steve richy committed to meeting with the n.g.o.s to talk about their three concerns that were enumerated in the letter. peter brought to your attention the third concern. i think michael responded to it.

the other two i'll just report out on how the meeting went in regards to those. the first one was to arrange for an objective peer review of the sfpuc models used for the alternative that's been presented to the state board's proposal on fishery improvement. those models were developed by the district and i believe mr. richy addressed the commission and informed them that the districts per development those model under the requirement of firk and the relicensing of don pedro. we have asked about peer review and they'll get back to us. the second item was to work with the n.g.o. community to explore and develop alternative supplies. there was an extensive discussion about alternative water supply and an agreement that there would be a follow-up meeting to do a deeper dive with bosska present and the deeper dive of alternative dive and

talk about our plans in place now and moving forward. upon steve richy's return, that meeting will be set up. that's all i have on the updates for now. any questions? >> thank you. michael carolyn. deputy general manager again. one other item is supervisor peskin introduced a resolution a week ago tuesday at the board of supervisors, urging his fellow colleagues to address the resolution to support the state water board's plan for 40% unimpaired flow. we have met with supervisor peskin. we continue to work with him on this issue. it's scheduled for the land use committee on monday of next week at 1:30 p.m. i believe. and we will be testifying and presenting to him as much as we can on what we've been doing in

the voluntary settlement agreements without violating the confidentiality agreement. we will work with his office and the supervisors to keep them apprise of what is happening. there's a lot of activity going on in sacramento with the government's office and we've been involved in those discussion and continue to be involved in those discussions as they move forward to protect the river, its environment and water supply for the city of san francisco. i would be glad to answer questions regarding that. >> colleagues. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on the general manager's report at item 8b? i do have one speaker card. peter. >> thank you. >> peter. so, in the fall of 2017 we filed a sunshine ordinance request for

information communications between staff and lobbyists. various elected officials as well. the thing that spurred that was senator feinstine sent a letter to national marine fishery service telling them to back off. we thought that was a little strange, she was weighing in. we uncover a paper trail that sfuc staff and lobbyist had helped draft two letters from senator feinstine to national marine fishery service. our understanding is staff is directed not to put things in writing because they're worried we're going to file public records. we do know, everyone knows that secretary ryan zinkey visited the central valley last spring and they were with sin year staff and department of interior and department of commerce. senator feinstine weighs in. i assume she's being encouraged by staff.

what i've heard is staff at u.s. fish and wildlife service is demoralized. they put in a lot of effort and they're gags now. this is coming from the top. and it could be in the next couple weeks all of a sudden national marine fishery service followed their recommendations. it doesn't just happen. it's pressure. again, i think this is unacceptable for san francisco to behave this way. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. >> i was at the meeting at the board of supervisors when peskin brought this topic and he pointed out what happened in los angeles. how they wholeheartedly took a stand and lost. supervisor peskin knows more because he is focused on this. i look at in a general way. i can't just focus on everything. i like to get a birds' eye view.

but you know, this is not the first time i've heard about our senator diane feinstine to use her pressure. it's not the first time. i think it's wrong for our staff to think -- [ please stand by ]

if it is determined. are they required to accept this? i see mr. carlin on the item. thank you, mr. carlin. deputy general manager. the answer is yes. we derm it. >> is that your vote. it is moved and seconded? is that right. any public comment? public comment is closed. all those in favor? opposed. the motion carries. will you please read the items in closed session. >> item 21. existing claim jackson versus city and county of san francisco 22 existing insurance company

limited versus city and county of san francisco. 23 existing claim, city and county of san francisco. >> i would like to call call for public comment any public comment on 19? public comment is closed. we will move to closed session. >> we have a fun, i