>> good afternoon. welcome to the the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, april fools' day, april 1st, 2019. i'm the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair, and

momentarily by committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. you would do you any announcements? >> make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cars and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be cooked submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 16 th. >> thank you. could you please call the first item. >> item one is an ordinance to streamline small business permitting, and amending the health code, planning code and police code and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor and cosponsored by supervisor brown. i believe that ben van helton on behalf of the mayor from the department of economic and workforce development is here to present. >> yes, thank you. good afternoon.

i'm here on behalf of the office of economic and workforce development. we are requesting a one-week continuance on this item so we can continue to fine-tune amendments with your office. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. what i would suggest, colleagues that insofar as the week is short and we haven't seen amendments there have been a number of e-mails from meta- and haight-ashbury and others over the last couple of days that why not we continue this to the call of the chair? if we have amendments and we are all good to go, we can schedule it, and if not, we will schedule it appropriately. i move we continued this to the call of the chair. if there is no objection, that will be the order. next item, please.

>> item two is an ordinance amending the environment code to require owners of certain buildings to annually measure and disclose energy performance and to require the department of the environment to make public his but -- statistics and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this ordinance is sponsored by supervisor brown and cosponsored by myself and supervisor mar, and is obviously a change to the environment code. here on behalf of the department of the environment is director raphael. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you committee members for hearing this today. i want to thank supervisor brown and her leadership as a sponsor and cosponsor, supervisor peskin and mar. before you today is a very straightforward adjustment to current law, and what i want to do is give a little bit of context as to why we need to do it now, and what the benefit of

this law has been, and end with where we have to go from here. >> i'm going to nitpick a few definitions which i can do as a cosponsor because the way building is defined in residential and nonresidential is defined and has -- and is a little confusing, and specifically, and i was reading this last night, there is -- why don't you make the presentation and i will tell you where. i can see our city attorney just left, but he will be back. okay. >> wonderful. any improvements for clarity purposes, as well as policy are always welcome. i have with me today mr. reagan who is involved with ample mentation and crafting of this ordinance. if there any reasons for that, this definition is that he can shed light on, we can talk about that as well. so yes, existing buildings energy performance ordinance,

catchy that it is, appoints a really challenging place in the greenhouse gas reduction for us and other cities. today, 44% of the city's emissions come from existing buildings. we have wonderful ways of looking at new construction, upping the energy code, the requirements under construction, the challenge has always been for us and other cities, how do we tackle the existing building stock? how do we bring down the energy use and the omissions that are coming down from those buildings so as people say, what gets measured gets managed, and the challenge they have in the past as we didn't have a way of enforcing or requiring building owners to take a look at their energy use, and then giving that energy information to us. so in 2011, the city and san francisco became the first city in san francisco and one of the first and the nations to require

commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet, actually over 10,000 square feet, we went to very small buildings, to measure their energy consumption, and then report it to the department of the environments. this became important for two reasons. number 1, you gave a signal to the building owner whether energy use was other buildings, equally as important, he gave the department of environment that information, we could focus our limited resources and energy efficiency on buildings that really needed it. this was a very forward looking idea back in 2011, and we are focusing just on commercial buildings at that point in time. so how does it matter it turns out, this is a graph that is rough in terms of the nuance of it, but what's important here is the trends, what you can see looking at the blue line is employment in san francisco, and the ratline is the energy use,

at a buildings effect very closely and benchmarking. the trend is exactly how you want it. as employment goes up, the energy of buildings is going down. this is attributed to many factors, that we would have no idea that this was the case. we did not have the energy benchmarking ordinance in place. so what starts in san francisco shouldn't stay in san francisco, and it certainly didn't, so now this model is going throughout the country. you are seeing cities across the country take this on. the reason california is solid is because the entire state of california decided if it's good for san francisco, we should be doing this beyond our borders. and so in 2015, the state of california passed a law, it benchmarking law. it is some very important things from our perspective. the first one was in 2017, it required utilities to actually give us this information. before this law was put in place

, between 2011 and 2017, it was an incredible pain for the department of the environment to get this information from building owners because we had to go tenant by tenant and ask for permission. now that pg and e. is required to give whole building data to us, we can give -- get this information so much more easily and it is more reliable. in 2017, state law required utilities share the information. in 2018, they rolled out to the commercial sector, 50,000 square feet or greater, and this year they're rolling out to the residential sector, 50,000 square feet or greater. that is about 40 unit buildings for san francisco. so now we have a disconnect between our ordinance i was only for commercial, and a statewide ordinance that is for commercial and residential. and the challenge of that has to do with confusion and reporting. if we don't update our ordinance the way it will work right now, is that commercial buildings

will report to the department of the environment and we will report to the state, residential buildings have to report to the state, and that's just -- there's so many bad policy reasons for that so that is why we are coming today to amend ordinance. so what will happen is that we will take this current situation , which is commercial coming to us, residential coming to the state, and we will amend the ordinance so that the residential look him to the department of the environment as well and we have authority to hand it off. the benefit to the sector are multiple. number 1, they've got us. we have been doing advanced notification to building owners to help them streamline the process. we have free technical assistance. we are already working with them on the apartment association and the chamber to let people know that this is coming down the pipe so that starting july 1st , we will get this data out rather than june 1st, then having to bring it to the state,

and then we will take that information, inform our own work , and also give the state its information as well. in summary, what we need, this being april 1st, we know climate change is no joke. we know that the city has a real opportunity to lead by example. we also know our existing building stock is toughest. it is important alignment to do today to pass this, and then it gives us an opportunity with that data to figure out what is next. so thank you. >> thank you. let me make sure that i understand what the scope of owners who need to report is. so i think what you intend is that residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or greater report. >> correct. >> and nonresidential buildings of 10,000 square feet or more

report. >> correct. >> okay. so i think where we are having the problem is in the beginning of the ordinance under definitions, section 2001, building, b. b., means a facility composed of any occupancy types and it sets them forth a be, m., which is industrial, are one, are two, are three, are four, which i residential, and then later on you define on page 5 in a nonresidential building with 10,000 square feet or more, at a residential building a 50,000 square feet or more, but then in section 203, subsection a, you say the owner of every building in the city shall annually file,

and i don't thank you mean building, i thank you mean nonresidential as defined and residential as defined because the term building would encompass every single structure under 10,000 and under 50,000, so i thank you want to change building in section 2003, on line seven to nine, two nonresidential, residential, and noncapital. i think that's what you intend to. >> you've got it. >> the way it's written, we don't want every building to have that requirement. i could see where we thought where we were clear, and a can see where we weren't. >> deputy city attorney, do you agree? >> i agree with what you said. i also have the experience of finding what we think are errors on the floor, amending, and

getting to the full board and realizing that it is actually more complicated. what i would recommend to the committee is if you intend to send it out today, send it out today, and we can make the amendment to the definition of section 203 on tuesday. >> happy to have you guys fix it , however you see fit, as long as it actually does what we are all in agreement that we are attempting to do. is there any public comment on item number 2? don't all rush up. seen none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai? >> i have some questions through the chair. >> go for it. >> first, i just want to go to supervisor peskin's point. on page 4 you define what a building is. and isn't that what they referencing going point -- going forward? so they defined building, so

once they defined it, once they rereference at, that is what they're referencing. >> yes, because it is a b., it is a defined term. >> they listed out what they want here. see worse and what they have listed out is not... i think it might be helpful to clarify. >> what they're trying to capture relative to compliance and reporting is the universe of nonresidential about 10,000 square feet, and residential about 50,000 square feet, but building as defined in the ordinance is every single building, including single-family homes and two unit buildings that are under 50,000 square feet, and pfeffer unit buildings under 50,000 square feet, and i don't think they intend for those two reports. the way it is written,. >> you might just want to clarify. >> okay. >> my other question is, so you separate out to nonresidential buildings on square footage,

director raphael, and i see that there's different types of audits for each one. can you talk a little bit about that, one gets a walk-through auditing get one gets a copy hands of audit, and i want to understand why you are differentiating and what the necessity for that is. >> in terms of the audits, you bring up an interesting point here. the requirement for an audit is only -- was existing, pre-existing, and it has on the commercial. when we added added line, we did not require residential do an audit, and so that audit language that was in there in 2011 is understanding that buildings of different sizes -- because the ordinance goes down to 10,000 square feet, which is a very small commercial building as opposed to the state looking at 50,000 square feet and above, we thought that the kind of audit can get a very expensive if you've got certain levels of audits -- they surgeon levels of audits cost more. we wanted to acknowledge that smaller buildings do not have the same burden of an audit is

larger buildings. that will not apply to the residential sector because we not requiring an audit on the residential sector. >> i did not see any audits for the residential. so it is about the size and the scale and the impact that it has >> correct. >> but the information will be similar. that goes to my second question because i did not see it spelled out, but the actual building owner pays for the audit themselves? >> that is correct. >> does it talk and here -- it says what the qualification of the auditor is. you have a list of qualified energy efficiency auditors? that you will work with and provide to the building owners if they don't have them. >> yes. all of our auditor qualifications and list of auditors are on our website and listed. >> do you ask them as part of the process to ensure -- i see the qualifications, but do you then look and see that the person -- do you ask them who performs their audit?

>> yes, through our audit template were recollect all of our information. they list their credentials and i.d. and we verify that online. >> okay. what is the difference between a comprehensive audit, the cost, versus a walk-through audit? >> the cost varies, it also depends on the size of the building. for smaller buildings, or a level one audit, it is usually and arrange -- it also ranges per company, but it is in the low thousands, and stan 1,000 to about 5,000, and a more comprehensive audit, level two can be more than that. >> i will say that when this first past, the building that my personal office in north beach is in, the landlord went through an audit and was proudly reported to me a couple years later that he is saving a lot of money every year because it was

a great investment, and he was actually quite pleased. >> that is a great story. >> because of the audit? >> yes. a building that was built by his grandfather, it is ground floor commercial and office on the second story. >> so that -- >> he ended up changing the way the building is heated and he has saved money every year since >> it every year he keeps saving >> right. >> how often is the audit required? >> every five years. >> so where is that spelled out? >> do you want to find the page? he is looking for the page. >> okay. , that is five years, and that was the last point. good point, supervisor peskin. once the audit is performed, you make the adjustments, and you have ongoing savings. i guess while you are looking that up, can we ask them when

they are doing the audit, can we ask them to report or disclose the type of energy? i mean we have the information now for who is using clean power s.f., who is not, was opting out , who is opting in, can capture that information too when the audits are performed? that will also inform us on the type of energy that is being used for the building, not just the performance of the building but the source of the energy. >> we are not asking at this point. >> can be immense that into the legislation, potentially, since we are gathering information in audit form. >> i don't know if there is a law around that but i think it is an interesting idea. >> presumably, the public utilities commission has that data. >> correct. >> it would be an interesting thing for you all to know, but the data might actually be accessible between department -- departments subject to the confidentiality provisions that are set forth. so my point is, if you are

having this and you're are collecting this data, either the auditor or you all should be able to determine so we can determine who's not just being efficient, but who is also being conscious of the source of energy in terms of the environment. >> yeah,. i think to supervisor peskin's point, i know that data does exist because clean power s.f. does know who is their customer and two is not and the size of the buildings that those accounts are, so it is a question of how do we weave that together and for what ends. is it because we want to require something different, or to give them accolades? >> i think we are doing -- i guess part of what i understand this amendment to be is you want people to disclose their energy performance. >> correct. >> but as part of the energy performance, you want them to be more efficient. >> yes. to use less energy.

>> so then the next step would be not only just being less energy, but what type of energy are they using, because that then becomes, i guess i go back to the hall that a lot of the buildings put platinum and energy efficient, and as a -- all this other stuff, but it is all still coal-based and all still environmentally -- >> the department of the environment and p.u.c. have been in a lot of conversations in the last three or four weeks about how to step up super green enrolment, and how we can, as a department of the environment with our great communications team help them get the word out for increasing that enrolment, and these data sets will help us targets the recipients of that information as well, and they also, as i said, help us target where we are doing our energy efficiency work, especially in the residential sector where that savings can go right to the tenants in terms of decreased utility cost. this kind of information will be

super helpful for us in our energy efficiency work. >> it seems like something we could add into as part of the data collection that would be simple. >> the word simple, i don't know , but we can look into it. >> i would ask the city attorney if we can potentially make that amendment, if it is a friendly amendment, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> great. >> it will be part of my amendment to the legislation. i don't have any other questions , but great work. >> anything else? >> if you and the p.u.c. can get with council and see if we can craft anything in the next 24 hours, if it turns out to be too complicated, or should be another vehicle, we will look at that tomorrow, next week -- not tomorrow, next week. >> thank you so much. >> we asked for public comment and there was no public comment so we will send this to the full board with a recommendation to be amended next week.

without objection. magic clerk, next item, please. >> item three is an ordinance amending the landmark designation for landmark number 2049 '06 broadway under article ten of the planning code. confirmed exterior of -- exterior features should be preserved or replaced and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. colleagues, by way of background , 906 broadway is our lady of guadalupe church in the hearts of the northeast corner of san francisco, district three , which i represent. it has an interesting -- many interesting stories. one of which is that it was landmarked in 1993 before, and a former mayor brown is lessening, before then speaker brown passed assembly bill i think it was 133

at the behest of the archdiocese of the state of california, which prevented local governments from lands marking religious structures, and interestingly enough, the city and county of san francisco, on the theory that it was a violation of church and state, took that case all the way up to the united states supreme court and ultimately did not prevail, but this was landmarked prior to the passage of that preentry piece of legislation. it hails from a date in time when there was a large latino community in the northeast corner of san francisco. for those that do not know, there is a plaque on columbus avenue regaling the history of little chile, believe it or not, and every year on december 12th

, for many, many years, the latino community from the mission would come on the day of our lady of guadalupe a and marriott she bands would wind through chinatown and north beach. it was a sight to behold. in 1996, i believe it was, or maybe it was 94, i think it was 94, the san francisco archdiocese closed number of parish churches, including our lady of guadalupe a, and for a number of years, would reopen it one day a year on december 12th , to allow that community to come and celebrate. subsequently, it was sold off, interestingly enough, when i was reelected in 2015, for a brief moment, it was the potential site for a navigation centre,

but subsequently was sold to the current owners, who have agreed to lands marking. the case reported believe was prepared by paige turnbull, and they received a certificate of appropriateness for some internal changes, and i want to thank the project sponsor for accommodating the communicating staircase in an appropriate location, and think staff for bringing the interior lands marking of some character defining features pursuant to article ten of the planning code , and with that, miss smith, the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> i will say one thing, i was first elected in a runoff on december 12th, of the year 2,000, and i started that morning in a rainy morning on a runoff election in the senate

kristi of that church. i am a jewish guy, but when this little shaft of light lit up that incredible stained-glass window and some old latina woman said to me, you are going to win , i knew i was going to have a good day that day, so i have very special association with that church. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the planning department staff and i'm here today to present the proposed amendment to the landmark designation for 906 broadway, historically known as our lady of guadalupe eight located in north beach. 906 broadway was designated as landmark number 204 in 1993. at the time a designation, only the exterior features of the building were designated. following the sale of the property with the archdiocese in 2016, they added to their

landmark designation work program. on december 19th, 2019, the historic preservation commission recommended the land might designation be amended to include the building's interior, including the sanctuary, murals, another significant interior features. to briefly summarize, the property a significant force association with the development of the san francisco latino and spanish-speaking communities from the late 19th to the mid- 20th century, as well as the geographical and spiritual heart of the latino and spanish-speaking enclave that existed in north beach until the 1950s. it is also architecturally significant of the work of master architects at chez and locke west and an exceptional example of an early 20th century mission revival church with a highly ornate interior displaying renaissance and baroque ornamentation, including its interior murals painted by a master artist.

the department has received two letters in support of the designation amendment and has shared a draft of the designation report with the property owner who has testified in support of the designation amendment and is also present today. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to the amendment. the department believes the building's interior meets the established eligibility requirements and that amendment for the landmark designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you miss smith and thank you to staff of the planning department and historic preservation commission. is there any public comment on this item? seeing then, public comment is closed. madame clerk, i would like to add my name is a sponsor, and if there is no objection, we will forward this to the full board with recommendation. that will be the order, and we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon. i would like to call to order the regular meeting of the san francisco public utilities

commission. today's date is tuesday, march 26th, 2019. roll call, please. [roll call] we have a quorum. >> before you, you have the minutes of the march 12th meeting. are there any corrections or changes in the minutes? >> i moved for approval. >> i second. >> is there any public comments on the march 12th minute meetings? minutes, period. [laughter]. >> seeing none, all those in favor? >> hi. >> opposed? motion carries. next item, please. >> item four is general public comment. they may address the the -- the public on items that are not in

today's agenda. >> commissioners, i want to address the digester's linked to the treatment plant in the bayview hunter's point. when we were having our committee meetings and more community meetings, we were promised that we would get updates on the digesters which you all know is nearing $3 billion. it started with half that amount , but now it is nearing $3 billion, and we haven't been apprised of why it is going to cost us that much. this proprietary design from norway.

so what happens is when there is no proper communication with a community on important matters, some of the staff and the san francisco public utilities commission still are of the opinion that because there are millions of dollars of community benefits available, they can donate as they please. the controller's office has been doing some auditing and doing some investigation, so some entities within the san francisco public utilities commission are not doling out the money as they used to do it before. but we have a new modality, i call it a modality, and that is when the contractors are given a contract as part of the contract

, they are supposed to be using the community benefits to help the community. they don't know how that works. because i know, the contractors can do the contracting work, but very few contractors have the ability to do good community outreach. very few of them know really what is happening at ground zero , and very few of them know that our infants, our children, our youth, our young adults and seniors, those with compromised health have been compromised all of these years and this community benefit is supposed to help them with things like wellness centres and so on and so forth. so we have to learn to look outside the box when it comes to community benefits, and not have this concept that ali baba and

the four g thieves can do as they please because they got some jackpot. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. rosenkranz? >> thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to speak today. i will try and squeeze two quick things into my three minutes. may i use the projector, please? first, two months ago, we asked a polling firm to ask a question in one of their telephone and online surveys about whether folks in california would support restoration if it can be shown to occur without san francisco losing any water supply, and the results are -- [indiscernible]

-- 3-1, the answer was yes, and we sent this out to our list of supporters by e-mail and got a lot of enthusiastic response. i got a rather unenthusiastic response from a close friend of the p.u.c. who criticized the way we asked the question and we had a spirited debate, which was kind of fun, but not public, underwear she could have more discussion of that opportunity to keep you folks aware of the water and power and restore the valley. we try to do it in the california courts and we have been denied, so for now, the reservoir is in place until we find a member of congress that wants to do something about it. second thing, i don't know how many of you are familiar with this fund -- this fund 400 page book. this was the freeman report distributed to every member of congress in 1912 when the

reservoir and other system facilities were proposed. the first 40 pages are full of discussion about how building a reservoir is going to enhance recreation at the park, and at the end of all that, i will put the -- [indiscernible] -- it says its absurd for anybody to assert otherwise, yet we have seen through collective action -- i think the city and the national park service, together, that the park is visited by less than 1% of visitors. the gate is closed, there are limited hours and so forth, and so while we are waiting for the day when the valley can actually be restored, we will simultaneously be pursuing increased recreation of every

four -- of various forms. we hope to work collaboratively with you and your staff, as well as the department of the interior and the national park service. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, next item, please. >> item five is communications. >> under communications, i would like to make a remark to mr. ritchie. i always compliment him when there is allowed rain, so i will do so again this year, but i think it's time to stop. [laughter]. >> so whatever your powers are, we don't need to do it anymore, okay? [laughter] >> item six. other commission business. >> do we need public comment on

item five? >> public comment on number 5, communications? >> item six is other commission business. >> seeing none, next item, please. >> item seven is report of the general manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners the first item is clean power s.f. update. barbara hill will give you an update. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the assistant general manager for power. for the update today, i will cover our usual clean power s.f. customer enrolment and service status, and secondly, an update on the rates and the status of pg and the's right changes for 2019. clean power s.f. service on the current enrolment effort continues to move around successfully. the program opt out percentage went up since the program

launched. so our retention rate of customers is about 97%. the super green upgrade rate is at 3.8% of our customers and we do expect that this number will decrease as we enrolled a large swath of customers in april. that means that clean power s.f. has over 4,000 businesses and households in san francisco that have elected to receive 100% renewable electricity from clean power s.f. as you know, we are in the midst of our largest and last major customer also enrolment. in five days, customer council begin transferring over to clean power s.f. generation service. that happens on the regular metre read date starting on april 1st, so customers will begin to cut over throughout the month of october on their metre read date. by the end of that enrolment, we

expect we will be welcoming at least 250,000 new customer accounts to clean power s.f. service. we continue to remain very visible in the community -- hopefully you have seen our bus adds that premiered last week. our staff also continues to be out in the community, tabling events, and making themselves available to educate and inform the public about the clean power s.f. opportunity. that engagement has contributed to 300 additional super green upgrades since my report on march 12th. moving on now to an update on rates and rate changes or the -- that are being anticipated for 2019. at the last meeting, i reported we will continue to provide you with updates and the rate changes are happening a little differently this year than they have traditionally. on the 21st of february, the california p.u.c. voted out what they referred to as the alternate proposal and the proceeding that sets there

generation rates and the exit fee that our customers pay. so that decision paved the way for them to set their 2019 exit fee and generation rate, and it turned out to be more favourable to c.c.a. then the first proposal, with lower increases in the actual exit fee. at the last meeting, that caused commissioners to ask, okay, if it is a lower increase, what does that actually mean? so all things remaining equal, rather then seeing 3030 topped 50% increases for commercial customers, we expect to see increases of 28 to 47%. it would likely also mean that residential exit fees are going down further then the 1.9% decrease we were anticipating in december.

since the last report, they have taken steps to split up their 2019 it rate action, that normally would have been consolidated on january 1st of this year, so effective march 1 st, they put in place a portion of their 2019 rate change, increasing rates for both generation and distribution services that they provide. on the generation side, the parts that clean power s.f. competes with, there rates went up one point for to 3.8% depending on the customer class. it was higher charges to customers for generation. they have indicated that they do not expect to implement the exit fee changes until july, at the

earliest. so they are required to file their proposed rates with the california p.u.c. by mid april, so we will know and have more information to share with you on what will happen with the exit fee part of the bill. in the meantime, without changing clean power s.f. rates, customers are seeing greater savings than they did before, since the beginning of the year. clean power s.f. rates were set to provide a 2% cost savings to customers on there generation supply as of january, and that is after accounting for the effects of the exit the. after the march 1st increase, those same rates are now delivering three topped up 5.6% savings on the supply cost. that is equivalent to about 1.5% to two? five% savings on the bill. given that rates continue to deliver savings to customers at their current levels, we are

waiting to implement the clean power s.f. rate change that you authorized in december until we know what the exit fee changes will be for 2019. as i said, we expect to have more information about those changes by mid april. once we know what they are, we will bring them to you. will not need to act on them because you gave the general manager authority to act on them in a december action, but as they wait for the information to come forward, we are preparing to make this changes. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, very much. it all sounds very promising. i just wanted to clarify so i understand. so the current regular c.c.a. customer, not the super green, with the current generation are paying 1.5 to two-point 5%% less

than apg and the customer? >> that is correct. >> and they're getting 50% renewable versus -- >> they're getting 40% renewable >> they just revise there's. i can't quote you exactly what it was. it is between 33 and 38 if memory serves. >> they just publicist the change in a filing at the securities and exchange commission. >> and then the super green, how does that compare price lies? >> we are seeing a savings for our customers. a little more than 2% relative to the 100% renewable project and of course, it is 100%

renewable. >> right, right. and then -- >> c no, it would be around 2% higher. we have been charging for super green, about 2% more than green, the green product. that differential remains the same, but of course, the savings relative to the default product is greater. >> i think i understand that. cost -wise, it would be the same if i were super green, or if i was a customer right now. >> i would have to get back to you on what the differential is, but i think we are still a little bit cheaper than their 100% product. >> great. and last question, with the proposed adjustment that we don't really know about yet, but assuming that this proposal goes through, will that affect those numbers? >> yes, it will affect the

numbers and we will come back to you with what we recommend be our 2019 changes as a result, which would likely be a slight increase to what we have today. >> it will probably depend on customer class. >> right. >> but i do expect that we will have changes, and we will bring them to you. we will remain cheaper then the pg and e. products. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other questions? any public comment? seeing then, mr. kelly -- seeing none, mr. kelly? [indiscernible] >> i am the c.f.o.

nancy is delivering the report, but before i get into that, i just wanted to let you know of some managerial changes that i am making in terms of responsibility for managing audit and compliance. since joining the p.u.c. into thousand and eight, they led the development and growth of the insurance and interim controls team to build a robust audit and compliance at the s.f. p.u.c. that you hear about every quarter. in 2018, i promoted nancy to co- deputy c.f.o. in charge of accounting, financial reporting. you're meant and that was in addition to all of our audit and compliance management activities to better balance responsibilities among deputy cfos, i am reassigning responsibility for audit and compliance activities to charles perle. as nancy delivers her compliance reports, i just want to thank her for all of her work to build

a successful function at the p.u.c. and for all of her commitment in helping me manage the finance the organized -- manage the finances of the organization of the last two years. i really want to express great appreciation for her. nancy, i think this is your report. [laughter] >> good afternoon, i am the deputy chief financial officer for financial services. i'm here presenting the quarter -- quarterly report.

we ended quarter two with 41 projects in total. eleven were completed and 16 where in progress. of the completed -- of the past quarter, eight audits were started as typical in the fall of each typical year. we will see that we have a tear. the statements for 17 and 18 were for water, wastewater, and power and clean power s.f. those are followed by the comprehensive annual financial report and the popular annual financial report for 17 and 18, and we also had a single audit for federal grants that was related to the four-point $7 million reimbursement product that we received related to the the northpoint rehabilitation project. we also had three other audits begin related to performance and those were for state water resources, and another one related to the city services auditor for the crystal springs construction contract closeout. of the five that were completed

last quarter, these include the scheduling for the california independent system operator, and also the 2017 green a verification audit. you maybe familiar with the second one as it was completed and the report was made final once it was issued by the centre for resource solutions in november 2018. they also completed the audit for citywide procurement cards. the franchise fee audits for the energy centre and pacific gas & electric. each month we pick and audits and we will be highlighting the energy centre the. the issue the report in december of 2018 and the summary here is the energy company was granted a franchise in 1993 to install, maintain, and operate a steam pipe conduits throughout the city.

each year, energy submits a statement of gross receipts and to they pay franchise fee payments to the city. they are responsible for administering and reporting on nonfinancial aspects of the franchise while the controller's office budget and analysis division is responsible for receiving and reviewing statements on the payments themselves. the objective of the auditor for this particular audit was to ensure that the energy and city departments complied with chapter 11 of the code and franchise ordinance for a calendar years 2015 and 2016. they found the report had a total net gross receipts of 41 million. that total 318,000 that was paid to the city and county. they also noted that the p.u.c. and the controller's office complied with their responsibilities and said there was no recommendations for this particular audit. and the current quarter, ending march 31st, we are expecting to complete a royalty fee is

audit, more evident ministration review, and also an information technology network penetration test for vulnerabilities. we issued, even though we are listening -- listing it here, we are listing our statements on the 24th which were presented to the commission in february, and we issued our comprehensive annual financial report and the annual financial reports just a few weeks ago, and those will be presented on the commission meeting on april 9th. upcoming audits include clean power s.f. data privacy audit and the news taxed by the controller's office. lastly, an update on the open audits and outstanding audit recommendations. it shows the target date for -- and it is inclusive of all audit recommendations. we closed four additional recommendations this past quarter related to the wastewater enterprise divisional performance audits leaving 17 open, and that represents a 90

3% completion rate for all years the audit compliance staff will continue to work on these audits and they have been doing a great job. i wanted to commend them for that. you will continue to report out on these as they come along. that concludes my reports. thank you. >> first of all, i wanted to express both the commission's and mine -- my personal appreciation for your efforts over the past ten years to build the audit and compliance function at the p.u.c. and to your commitment to the p.u.c., and i am so pleased that you are able to grow here, and become the new deputy c.f.o., congratulations. >> thank you. [please stand by]

the way we do that, when we get her reports, we meet college students, and understand the empirical data when it comes to the budget, the finance, and i have some reports from the comptroller's office, we offer

them together, and see how it adds up. so you do require somebody like nancy, who's laser beam focused and does a wonderful job. and you also require the commissioners to back her up and support her, which i hope you will do. extraordinary commendation signed by the mayor and the board of supervisors, that's a nice way of honoring an employee. very easy to do, because i've done it before. so nancy will be there, or i've heard so. she's going to be around. and i hope one day i schedule a meeting with her to talk about all her good work. thank you very much. >> president caen: thank you for your kind words. any other public comment?

next item. >> clerk: the next item is a quarterly budget status report. >> commissioners, eric sadler, cfo. i have a quick quarterly budget status report. may i have the slides, please? and this represents, this is the second quarter budget status report and reflects results through december 31, 2018. let's see, we have positive net results projected for wastewater an