there's a building footprint, i don't think think we need. >> it's not hurting the puc but the developers because they have to now reprogram space for the equipment that we feel are not necessary and then the other thing is that sometimes we make

accommodation for projects for not allowing it and then saying we won't make that accommodation any more and makes people upset because they're feeling they're just doing it for that and i think a lot of folks are frustrated with pg & e. it's just so indicate. inconsistent. >> thank you. thank you so much. for the public update. i have a couple of questions that i've asked before in different ways. but i just want to revisit a little bit, the whole clean power sf launch and programming and success that we've been realizing and some of our early goals in your presentation just to reiterate from an environmental perspective that the whole idea behind clean power sf was to really drive

more quickly towards our city-wide goal of greenhouse gas emission reduction to be in compliance with the state. so ghg reduction emission. the second goal from an environmental perspective was to help us as a city reach our 100% renewable by 2030 goal that we are driving toward and the opportunity that a program like clean power could provide. the third goal was a competitive cost for rate payers with the program and then a final one, which i appreciate commissioner paulson speaking to was around the opportunity for job creation. and i have been excited about this pg & e opportunity because of the opportunity to be able to accelerate those goals and move more quickly toward them. i don't really still have a sense and i'm wondering when we

mate gemight get a better underg around renewables and reduction, what this opportunity will provide. will we be seeing a redoubling of reduction in ghgs for san francisco? will we be able to rage ou reacr goals by 2030 and in a shorter period of time? how much shorter? >> just to talk a little bit about where we're at so far, and what the acquisition would mean, you mowyou know, with respect t, we're ahead of the state in terms of our goals on ghg reductions because we're providing 80% of the supply, we're almost there. you know, we're ahead of the state on that and we're almost there with respect to renewables. next year, 2020, you know, our policy that you adopted for the clean power sf program is to be

50% renewable and that's california compliant rps, eligible power, 50% of the content of the clean power sf default product, the green power will be renewable in 2020 and that's all part of the trajectory toward 100% by 2030, that the city has adopted. so we're in good shape on the supply side because we've been operating the clean power sf program. acquisition allows us to then close that gap between the 80% and 100 of customers supplied in san francisco. they'll all be able to take supply from us once we acquire the grid and so we'll be able to close that gap for that 20% that we're not currently searching. we'lserving.we can close that ge

these goals achieved across the full consumption of san francisco. so i kind of understand that. you guess my relatively high-level hope is to get to the renewable as a city and the cushion will help us to get there. once we own the grid, we can close that gap. >> thank you. >> and so when we talk about equity, that's important, of course, because when you think of all of the debt that we're incurring and how we pay for it, and then who has to pay for it, sometimes people say, i would like to buy that house, but i can't afford it. so how are we going to make sure

and a lot of them are probably for environmentally sound about the fact they cannot do what other people can afford to do and that needs to be taken into consideration and to value them and maybe to approach it in that they have been environmentally conscious and we would like to see more of it and help you rather than think they are a burden. >> rate, and i think acquisition allows us to have that direct round with a customer that pg & e currently holds on the distribution grid. and we're looking forward with your rate-making control to ensure we're designing rates and the programs that we offer to customers with that kind of

equity focus you're speaking to. we know that san francisco today contribute into pg & e's low income programs and other energy efficiency and conservation programs, contribute about $60 million, 6-0. but we know that not all of that money is spent here in san francisco. so the way we looked at this issue was, we would be able to afford more of those program dollars being spent here in san francisco without having to contribute or expect customers to contribute more funds to pay for those programs. thank you. >> members of the public, any comments, questions?

this is an excellent review. >> thank you. >> and very beneficial. it puts everyone no one place to refer to and i appreciate your effort. >> thank you. lots of hours worked. i'm pass that on to staff. thank you. >> that concludes my report. >> ok. >> next item please. >> item 8, other commission business. >> i would just like to say a little bit about the conference that we went to, unless you were going to do that. >> no, no. i was going to, but go ahead. >> but we attended west-tech which stands for water environment federation technical subject conference and you think what struck me more than

anything was we were like rock stars and maybe it's because of the 6 billion or $10 billion we're spending, i don't know. but people were excited about our efforts in a number of ways and there was one in particular. we went to -- what was it? water agency leaders alliance and it was a meeting of the leaders of the agencies, you know, the water agencies. and before they were over, uncle one gentleman said to both -- he said, i just want you commissioners to know what san francisco means to the rest of us. that they have been leaders in any number of ways with equity, with diversity and really caused us to look at things differently. so it was a very proud moment, i

must say, and that the work that we're doing and even the west-tech itself in the very beginning in the general session, their focus is on bringing in young people, people of color and women and that sounds like what we're trying do and i think it probably came from the water agency alliance and it just filtered upwards. you just want to thank our staff for doing what they do and certainly were impressed with the technical on the floor and the new technology that we are getting and it's just amazing what we're getting and what the improvements are going to be in every single way. and i think when i look at it and i hear the money, i'm thinking of generations. this is not just what we're doing here and now. this is for generations. and we have to look at what we're doing and what we're

spending and that term and if not we will be short sighted and not get the best. we have come to theconclusion that we're both geeks because we ask questions and looked at every little bitty thing. i'm sure they were very surprised. at the end we felt we could sell this ourselves. but it was a great experience and i really appreciate our staff and what we're doing. >> if you. thank you. >> that's very well said. (please stand by)

with all of this wastewater technology. it was like it was on overdrive. it was so exciting. each machine, they even had designer colors. we could have everything read, or -- but, we went through every step. by the end, you know, sophie and i had a bucket of wastewater and we started at the beginning, at the end we had this no odor,

wonderful, class a -- it's called class a sludge. i don't know if we have a name of our product yet. i heard one place we did. they said it's not named yet, but i think it is. that was exciting to see. all of this talk that we have here at the commission to actually see how these systems work. the end result of what we are going to have. in 2025. >> i just wanted to say, from the staff, they really appreciate you coming. they thought this would show you around. but when you start conversing on details, and they start explaining, you know, all of the components of of the equipmen

equipment -- of all the equipment, they thought you were really involved. they are so impressed have you. i think you're out there for like three hours or something like that. they were very impressed. as it relates to a lot of the consultants, it's a great opportunity to really meet the top managers, or the consultant firms. if something happens you know who to call. [laughter] saying you need to bring a better staff, or let them know that the staff is doing well. we talked to them, a lot of these consultants, it's amazing. it's like professional sports now. there could be one team today, and then they are with another team.

it's just a great opportunity, you know to stay connected. in fact, we have the ex- general manager from chicago who is going to come down on the 23rd of this month, to look at what we are doing and give us some advice. on then we are going to have keisha powell. she is coming down as well from atlanta. she is the general manager. she is a great person. we will try to hook you guys up when they are down. so you can meet them. >> any other commission

comments? council, are you giving me. [laughter] okay. -- giving me a dirty look? [laughter] okay. seeing none. the consent calendar please. >> do you want to call for public comment on item eight? >> any public comments on our comments? thank you. next item, please. >> item nine is consent calendar. all items listed are considered to be retained by the san francisco public utilities commission and acted upon by a single vote of the commission. no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or public rate ques quests. the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered a separate item. >> commissioners, would you like any item removed? >> all foz, i don't. >> okay. general public, any item remov

removed? may i have a motion? all of those in favor? the motion carries. next item. >> item ten write approve modifications of the san francisco san francisco public utilities commission grant program and authorize a general manager to approve future modifications to the grant program. >> commissioners, steve ritchie, this is an item to make some minor changes to the grant program rules. the first of which is to change the name of the program to the on-site water reuse program. secondly is to expand existing requirements for brewery process water treatment systems. this is a new area of water reuse that we are getting into now. we have to make some tweaks there. there will be some minor editorial changes here. and the most important, item

four, authorize the general manager consultation for the city attorney to approve future modifications to the program that do not materially increase the obligations or liabilities to the city. we would recommend approval of the item. >> any questions? >> certainly going through the drought experience, everybody became more and more interested in opportunities for reuse. in the brewing industry we have had conversations with more than one where they have processed water to be used. things like that. that is a significant source of water. they wanted to see what they could do in terms of becoming greener. we have talked with them about the ability to take processed water, not domestic wastewater.

treating that, in some ways, so they could actually reuse it in the process. making beer out of it basically. because, you know, some of the brewers are our customers in terms of water supply and wastewater because of the strength of the wastewater. anything we can do cuts costs for them and gives them the potential to use that. >> they reprocess, it's a way of reprocessing water that they use so it goes back into their system? >> yes. it is all self within the brewery. nobody is doing it yet. but we are in conversation. there are proposals that are moving around out there.

at some point will it be something that's a part of something they do for business? >> yeah, i think the long-term is to be part of the industry. it's just in its initial stages right now. >> thank you. bawsca you have a question, as well. i don't mind delegating a party for the general manager for a it didn't say anything about material costs and whether that would be required to come back, or if that would be delegated to the general manager as well? >> that would require to come back in terms of the obligations or liabilities. if we were taking on new obligations increase in the grant program, or liability issues that we were starting to face we would have to bring that to the commission. >> okay. >> i would like to move the item. >> second.

>> any questions from the public? seeing none. all of those in favor? the motion carries. thank you. next item, please. >> item 11. i'll adopt revised section g, cross connection control of the san francisco public utilities commission's rules and regulations governing water service to customers and fomenting article 12 a of the san francisco health code. >> again steve ritchie. this is a lesson sexy, but very important of our business as cross connection control to make sure there nothing that affects the quality of the water supply a potential public health. this is modification of our rules and regulations to clarify rules for inspection requirements for new water surfaces to make sure that proper cross connection control is implement it there. also food development of emergency cross connection response plan.

standard plan system means it is not a dual plum system, you can have cross connections in those trade we wanted to make sure that that was covered. people actually would accidentally cross connect between the water and wastewater system. that is something that can happen. that is why you have basically experts who work in the field to make sure they don't do that. and then a variance process is being added so if there is some reason that somebody would need a variance from the rules that that could be granted by the general manager. again, only a public health is connected. this is a central part of our program. >> would you explain cross connection to a second? >> cross connection is where there is either an intentional, or accidental connection between a water supply, and some nonpolitical water or even wastewater. when you open up a wall, or you

open up the ground there is all kinds of plumbing there. the potential to ms. connect them, so that you are introducing not drinking water into the drinking water system always exists. we have careful rules to make sure that that does not happen. >> thank you. >> any other questions or comments? >> i would like to move the item. >> second. >> general public, and any comments or questions? all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 12, approve two resource adequacy contracts for cleanpowersf executed by the general manager, between the san francisco public utilities commission on pacific gas & electric company with a term of three years and total $26.1 million. approve the sale of r.a. products to pacific gas &

electric company and southern california edison in an amount not to exceed $3.5 million and authorize the general manager to seek retroactive approval from the board of supervisors for the r.a. contract. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. the contract in front of you allow us to work towards compliance with the state of california's resource adequacy reliability requirements. these are standard term contracts utilizing standard contract form that the industry has accepted that has been approved by the board of supervisors. happy to answer any questions you may have. >> any questions? >> i move for approval. >> thank you. >> general public, any questions? all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> item 13, approve form of second amendment to revolving

credit and term loan and restated fee letter with state street bank and trust company to increase the principal amount by $100 million and extern -- extended the term by four years. >> may i have slides please? hello again, richard morales, manager of sfpuc. supporting the interim funding program of the wastewater enterprise. real quickly, in terms of the background, the wastewater went from a funding program which is authorized in the amount of seven and $50 million over seven series. supported by several high bank facilities. primarily is for the issuance of commercial papers. the interim funding program primarily through the issuance of commercial paper provides low-cost interim funding of the wastewater capital program,

which in today's market cost approximately 2% all in. two of the interim programs, which you saw in the prior site, the $100 million state street bank facility, and the 100 million-dollar barclayank facility expire later this month. with today's action, he would be approving a $200 million amended facility with state street bank with one extending its existing $100 million facility and replaces their 100 million-dollar berkeley facility. this transaction was included in the capital financing plan that was just presented to you earlier today. state street was selected after a competitive rfp procurement process with six a bank. their proposal represented the lowest cost responsive proposal. the key terms or for your time and an annual fee of 0.32% or

six on a $40 per year over the four-year term. an option to extend for an additional year, one additional year as long as the fee doesn't exceed $800,000. the bank was selected because of its strong ratings and credit this is my favorite part of my job, i would like to report that state street proposal is -- there fee is lower than the fees before it and berkeley has been charging for the facilities that are about to expire. by approving this facility we will be saving ratepayers about $100,000 annually or $400,000 over the term of the agreement. today we are asking you to approve the agreement as shown on the side. i will not to read them. state street bank not to exceed $200 -- to million dollars for the wastewater capital program. -- $200 million for the wastewater capital program.

sets forth the disclosure question and answers that we now routinely present to the commission in order to fulfill the commission's disclosure obligations when it appears that transaction of this nature. in the interest of time, i will not go through each of these unless you want me to. again, happy to answer questio questions. >> i would like him to go through some of them. it's a fast. >> okay. >> anyone in particular? went on a pick some of the key ones. -- why don't i pick some of the key ones? obviously i talked about the competitive solicitation process. once the facility is in place we will post publicly on this website which is a public website offering memorandum that describes and discloses the

condition of the wastewater enterprise, and the puc and the bank because it's very important. in terms of payment, obligatio obligations, they are obligated to pay commercial paper investors when payment is due. if for some reason we cannot, the bank then steps in to make payment. we then have to reimburse the bank later on. in terms of repayment source, repayment is for the net revenues of the wastewater enterprise. the next slide. how much a debt with the wastewater having closing? we are not adding any new debt we are just replacing the new facility. no addition of any new debt here. how will this emphasis -- this facility impact rates? since i rates are estimated to go down by approximately .02 per

month for the average wastewater sewer bill. that is because it is a lower cost facility. what is the impact on the p.u.c.'s credit rating, specifically the wastewater rating? the rating agencies did read this and our ratings were affirmed. >> thank you. any other questions? >> when are you going to execute this? >> on the 15th, next week. tuesday. the berkeley facility is expiring on the 16th. >> i see. okay. >> any questions? >> i guess so. we have something in place of the rate won't change before that time? >> we have to replace the expiring facilities because we have an authorized program of $750 million. $200 million of which is expired. if we do not replace them -- >> i understand that.

the state bank will be in place, i mean,, we have something that keeps the rates the way they a are? >> what they propose to us, yes. >> good. all right. >> any other questions? >> any public comment? may have a motion? >> moved. >> second. >> all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> thank you. >> next item. >> item 14, award a green infrastructure grant to the san francisco unified school district to design and if the project proceeds, constructive stormwater management features at bessie carmichael middle school located at 824 harrison street in san francisco, authorized the general manager to execute a with sfusd with a duration of 20 years and in the amount up to $128,000. >> do we have anybody presenti

presenting? >> thank you. this item talks about two elements, one is the design and the other is construction. it spoke explicitly to the design money being available presently. is the construction money available presently? >> yes, it is. >> that is already appropriated and ready to go? >> yes. >> the issue there is ceqa has not been created for the project. all you can improve is disbursement of funding for design and this will actually need to come back to commission again. >> wanted to make sure we weren't inadvertently obligating funds that had not been appropriated yet? the answer to that is no. thank you. >> other questions? >> i move for approval. >> second. >> to the public, any comments? seeing none. all of those in favor? opposed?

motion carries. next item. item 15, approve modifications to project number -- southeast water pollution control plant -r cwwsipse02. control plant new headworks facility, to remove scope associated with conversion conversion of bruce a flynn pump station to an all weather pump station. >> we are asking for approval for the scope of the headworks facility, because we changed the scope we had to go back for environmental review. we got approval for adding on a new lift station at the headworks facility. we are deleting a tie into the existing pump station. we would need your approval before our contractor can advertise. >> when you say lift station, what does that mean?

>> it just means that originally the design was -- bruce flynn is considered a wet weather pump station that was only used one wet weather. the original design was going to convert it so that we could use it for dry weather as well. but then we found there were a lot of problems with that. so, we are going to use -- build a new station that basically brings the flows into the headworks facility. the dry weather and flows. the pumps will be than they are at bruce flynn. >> what is left? >> it basically brings it down the sewer, and the collection system and pumps it higher up into the headworks. >> yeah, so the term lift is to lift from one elevation up to another. instead of a pump station, they call it a lift station. >> it is essentially still a

pump station. it is pumping from lower down and higher up into our headworks. >> also, dry weather, during dry season we have a very small flow. system -wise it's about 70 million gallons per day, others it is 500 million gallons per day. wet weather it is really important that these facilities come online because we have so much volume. in dry weather it is all year-round. >> right. we were having problems using the wet weather pumps to pump such a small flow. we ended up going to a separate pump station. >> thank you. do we have a motion? >> i will second. >> any public comment? all of those in favor? opposed? the motion carries.

the last item, please? >> item 16. authorized the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco municipal transportation agency as part of the sfmta's improvement project for a total estimated cost to the p.u.c. of $11,843,747. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purpose of ceqa. >> this item is to basically work out the agreement with mta, howard fong talked earlier about these joint projects we have with 15 or public works. in this case sfmta is replacing tracks. this first segment that we worked out to replace water mains and sewer, we are basically taking the sewer from under the tracks, and putting

two sewer pipes outside of the track area. this just works out, how we are going to work together with mta taking the lead on construction. >> we have talked about the difficulty on some of these large multi agency projects and how to keep them on schedule. has not taught us anything as we put together this m.o.u.? >> it has. we actually went ahead of m.t.a. and we advertised our own construction project to replace sewer and water ahead of m.t.a. in this case, because they are taking out the tracks, we could not go of them. what we have learned is that we

really need to do partnering, even within our internal city family. normally we have partnering with the contractor. we have instituted partnering within the city departments to work out and iron out details of how we were together and if we have issues. those are facilitated partnering sessions. >> i'm trying -- what does that partnering look like? >> basically -- team, the project team that is going be working on the project and identifying or being clear about roles and responsibilities and approval process for change orders, and just how to handle the disagreements that we may have and trying to keep on schedule so that we don't delay. harlan knows as well.

the general manager, kelly, participates in the van ness partnering sessions. he attends a monthly, at the director and general manager level. i think that is what has helped put van ness back on track. >> well. [laughter] you know, i was a city engineer for eight years. i mean, trying to put it, you know, so that we can dig wants and coordinate our work. that is something that we, you know, was trying to do. the challenges that m.t.a., and may be public works, we want to make sure that we have, you know, experienced, skilled people that can actually, you know, really hold a contractor, you know, responsible for delivering these projects on time. mohammed, who is at public

works, and at the time, myself, we set up a structure to put someone in charge, because it was a structure they had before they had multiple people in charge, of the whole project, and then as we talk about sewer, they would have to come to us. if they talk about, you know, water, they would come to us, then if it's any street work it would go to public works. there were so many, you know, cooks in the kitchen. what we did, i talked to mohammed is that we should have one person representing the city and report to our directors, we should have the contractor have one person that is responsible for making decisions. since we got that structure in place we are making a lot of headway, before venice, for every day works, it was a two i

was like how can that happen. you work a day, and your two days behind schedule for that day. we started getting involved, and now we are actually making progress for one day work. it is one day less off the schedules the way it is supposed to be. right now we are working in front of city hall. i told them, you better make sure that you are in and out, especially if you are taking the parking where all of the, you know, supervisors -- you don't want to mess around with that. and then we helped higher construction manager, lance jackson, to actually run the city's team. i think he has been a great addition. so what we are trying to do is have that model on other projects so we can coordinate our work and make sure that the

directors are involved so that, you know, there is so many agencies in the city that you are trying to coordinate. >> is not reflected in the m.o.u.? >> the m.o.u. does not talk about the partnering. we made out a standard practice. you know harlan talked about van ness and some of the specifics. the other issue i would like to bring up is that m.t.a. doesn't have as much experience doing these large capital projects. they are relying more heavily now on public works during the construction phase. >> okay. thank you. >> how many years behind is van ness? >> two years. >> two years before -- going on three, i think it's in a much better place than it was.

>> any other questions or comments? to the public, any comments? may have a motion? >> second. >> all of those in favor? the motion carries. so, madam secretary, could you read the items for closed session? >> yes. item 19 is anticipated litigation as plaintiff or defendant. item 20 is existing litigation, pacific bell versus the city and county of san francisco. twenty-one existing litigation between joan frost and city and county of san francisco. [reading notes] twenty-four existing litigation city and county of san francisco

versus pacific gas & electric. >> is there any public comment on the items for closed session? may have a motion on whether to assert? >> move to assert. >> second. >> all of those in favor? the motion carries. >> we have reconvened from closed session. they announcement following close session is the following. item 20 is settled. item 21 settled. and items 22-24 no action. may i have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> moved not to disclose. >> all of those in favor? the motion carries. any new business to be heard?

i would like to make a suggestion that the commission, and the entire body of the san francisco public utilities commission sent flowers to francesca, in memory of her brother. any further business? seeing none. the meeting is adjourned at 5:09.