above that, it belongs to the sfpuc. in a normal water year, the sfpuc is entitled to three times the water that is used. at full storage, we have enough water to last six years. even at theight of the recent drought, sfpuc had enough water in storage to last three years. the sfpuc had enough water and storage to last 4 1/2 years. 2017 was the second wettest year on record and the sfpuc had the right to capture enough water to last 12 years. they didn't have the ability to store all of that water, so they had to dump it. the water we conserve during the drought didn't benefit the environment was behind dams, only to be dumped in a single season. sfpuc staff have used scare tactics. they claim it could lead to the loss of up to 188,000 jobs and $49 billion. their projections are based on an extremely flawed socioeconomic study that has been debunked. water demand decreased by 30% between 2006 and 2016. had the sfpuc's projections been accurate, we should see the loss of 25,000 jobs. and $6.5 billion. in fact, 125,000 jobs

however without pressure from the sfpuc and real proactive action from the sfpuc, we're going to have very hard time, and the only reason ab 813 got out of committee is because cal c.c.a. supported it. the lejs laytors said so. so we -- legislators said so. so we need you to get them on board on the public front. >> supervisor fewer: all right. thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, comments, questions? nothing? i would just say to mr. hyams that it would be helpful to have a written document to follow just because we have a lot of different -- i mean, i think when you're telling us verbally, i don't know about my colleagues, it's just easy toer follow when there's a written document for -- easier to follow when there's a written document for us to follow. now there's no further action on this matter. madam clerk, can you call item number four? [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, and i see our executive officer, brian goebel, to address this item. and teresa strickler is reaccusing herself. thank you. mr. gobel. >> i

so it's significant for the sfpuc. our existing customers that have a water meter pay for that stormwater management through the sewer charge. so they're paying a portion of that 17% right now. we're beginning this work to make sure that we have a way to apply our existing sewer rate. we're talking about unmetered customers. it is customers that have stormwater runoff but they don't pay a bill because they don't have a water meter. so we don't have a way to apply to them. the point of this agenda item is to develop rules to apply the sewer rate to customers that are unmetered. it's not a new rate. it's a methodology change. we're also gearing up for bigger and longer term changes. one of the goals is to incentivize property owners to have it on their properties. it does help our system. we would like to be able toll reward customers for having it. we would of -- we would like to institute a credit program. we are also having a grant program. $8 billion budgeted in the next two years. we'll use a lot of outreach to prov

and as you can see in the summary on page 2, the first of which is that while sfpuc staff state that property exchange at the existing city property at 639 bryant street or 2000 marin street is necessary for the future expansion of the power and water enterprises the reason and the scope of the expansion are not identified. and we have recommendation to that policy consideration which is on page 11 of our report. recommendation number 3. which is to amend the legislation to request a written report from the public utilities commission general manager on the potential scope of the power and water enterprise expansions, including the potential increase in customer infrastructure, p.u.c. staffing, and other revenues and expenditures associated with the expansion. as well as the timelines for the expansion. our second policy consideration is that the appraised value of the property at 2000 marin street of $63.6 million does not account for potential environmental contamination. the property value could be less than the appraisal if the environmental site assessment finds that the propert

and it's the sfpuc's commission that provides it. the only way that the board of supervisors is going to be able to do -- to weigh in would be by resolution or by a budgetary line item. and then approving the budget. so i think that it's important when you prepare information for lafco that those commissioners that also serve on the board of supervisors could take a memo from lafco to their other supervisors. that might be a helpful way to bridge the gap and, you know, and maintaining the independence and the differing roles that lafco has from the board of supervisors. but also providing a document and some clarity that, you know, chair fewer and commissioner ronen can take to the board of supervisors and then say, you know, because of the work that we have done here on lafco we'd like to bring this forward as an item of discussion on the board. that would be helpful. just sort of to have a second step that you could help to prepare a document. >> supervisor fewer: right. and to complement also the work of what cleanpowersf is doing

[inaudible] women owned business to come in and [inaudible] sfpuc. it is a great opportunity because some are so small they have been able to grow their companies and move up and bid other projects with the sfpuc. >> everyone i was talking about with any contractor [inaudible] and super markets and things like that and i realize the transition was on the sfpuc. he got that first job and knows about the paperwork qu schedule and still works on this type of job, but he works with general contractors that also did other things. pretty soon it is like he did that one and that one. it completely changed his business. >> my name is nancy [inaudible] the office manager and bid coordinator for [inaudible] construction. worked on 10 plus puc, lbe contracts. today we are doing site maintenance on the [inaudible] chr site and currently the gentlemen behind me are working on every moving and basic specs of plants. in order to be success you need to work hard, bid low and keep a look at the sfpuc website for future bidding opportunity. >> this is a successful pro

for the sfpuc. and for the update today i'm going to cover a few things and provide an update on clean power s.f. enrollment activities and service status to customers as well as regulatory activities that we have been involved in since the last lafco meeting. with respect to enrollment in service to customers we continue at this time to service about 81,000 accounts in the city and the county. our program opt out percentage 3.2%, that's the number that i have been reporting if are some time now and it's been stable. and our super green upgrade rate is 4.2%, which is stable although growing. and so everything is moving quite well. as i've also reported in previous meetings or at previous meetings, we're in the midst of a large enrollment. we've now sent two of our four enrollment notices as required by state law to the approximately 27,000 accounts that will be enrolled beginning next month. in fact, next week will be the beginning of the process to clean power s.f. and that will continue throughout

calpine energy solutions to provide data management and billing and customer care services for the sfpuc clean power program. i have a few slides for and you some remarks and i can take your questions about this item. by way of background, clean power s.f. is san francisco's community choice aggregation program. authorized by assembly bill 117, and adopted by the board of supervisors and mayor. cca allows a city and/or a county to become the default electric supplier in its jurisdiction in partnership with the local investor-owned utility. by allowing the city to determine the source of its energy supply, and to direct more of its electric customers' dollars towards renewable and clean sources of energy, clean power s.f. is a key strategy to meeting the city's goal to eliminate greenhouse gases from its well-being supply by 2030. by statute, cca is an opt out program. clean power s.f. began serving customers in may 2016 and we are enrolling customers in phases now until city-wide enrollment is complete. as of july, 2018, clean power s.f. has completed enrollment to approximately 30% of t

we need the board of supervisors to pressure the sfpuc. i'll mention this more on future agenda items, but these bills are now being conegotiated with some fire bills that i've notified the chair about and the executive officer. sb 1088, ab 33, and sb 901 that would all take the liability of companies like pg&e for fire damage that they cause and put it on consumers. so i'll talk more about that on the next items. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> my statement is related to senate bills, as well, but not the ones that's on point here. but you have senate bills by david chiu pertaining to testing assault kits, information has produced facts that there's a minimum of 1,600 untested assault kits. i suspect there's at least maybe -- no, 1,600 assault kits -- no, 16,000 assault kits that hasn't been tested. i suspect there's about 1,000 or more kits sitting at the hall of justice. i made a demonstration before the police commission, and you should create an additional bill to follow up on that $2 million that was given to the p

are crucial to this and the sfpuc has been neutral and not pushing. we need you to ask them to push for a "no" vote on this bill and on sfb27. and one note with regard to wiener, he has the same concerns that have been announced by some of the opponents but he did vote "yes yet just to move it forward and not necessarily because he supports it. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much, miss lynch. >> thank you for considering this. this is a key and critical change in california's energy policy. basically it's going to repeal two important energy crisis protections that we got in in 2001. one was that california appoints the board of directors that runs the grid and our electricity markets. and two was that it's a california public benefits corporation. both of those key protections will be repealed almost immediately. now the proponents say that it doesn't matter, we're under federal law and we'll be under federal law tomorrow. the difference is who enforces and interprets that federal law. and if we didn't think that it mattered who did that w

. >> i'm randall smith from sfpuc. we are requesting an amendment of the ordinance for the contract between sfpuc and the city at western area power administration. this isn't working. >> president cohen: this item is a contract amendment from -- >> it's pretty straightforward. >> president cohen: i was going to fill it in for you. >> what we're trying to do is -- >> president cohen: increase the value of the contract up to $28.4 million. >> it's been amended two times before. >> president cohen: from $20.2 to $20.4 to purchase power from western area power administration. this seems pretty straightforward. >> it is. there's only one thing i would note is that the number that we're increasing it by is $12,419,112. and the ordinance, the number is $12,358,486. so i would request that that number be changed. otherwise, everything seems in order. >> president cohen: okay. does that conclude your presentation? >> pretty much unless you have any questions. >> president cohen: no. i think it's straightforward. it's an ordina

it will be reviewed by sfpuc staff. it will be piloted at a few schools. and then they will gather feedback and then it will be rolled out to the rest of the cohort the p.u.c. will be able to give a good idea of direction and working with our sfpuc experts when they're integrating these concepts. >> if i were to maybe ask the commission, you know, through the president, that we have an animal waste -- animal agriculture, we have that. commissioner caen would like to -- maybe we can identify her as the person, if you want to kind of see -- or do you want them to come up and -- i don't know how many curriculums that they will send to us. i'm trying to get a process where we involve the commission more on what we're presenting to folks. >> i appreciate that clarity. i think what will be easiest is if this item were to pass, we can come back to you with a timeline over the next year of implementation and ramp-up where we pinpoint the moments that blair was mentioning that the school district is giving their starting point to us. we're making sure we're integra

i wanted to give you a short document that we put together that talks a little bit about sfpuc water rights and storage and what might happen should the bay delta water quality control plan come into effect. our conclusion is that we'd see tremendous environmental benefits with minimal economic risk. i hope you get a chance to look that over and hope we get a chance to work together on that to achieve the state's co-equal goals. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you very much. any other general public comment for item 4? item 5, communications. commissioners, any discussion? >> if i might, on the pipeline assessment, there's a discussion of various impediments to meeting our objectives for how many miles of pipeline would be inspected and repaired and talks about the difficulties of the projects and the length of time it takes to actually move those projects along and the costs associated with them. one thing it doesn't address is if those are projects that take a long time, are there other projects that can stand in their place so we continue to meet the mileage objective, not by

the sfpuc having to take on what is required by other utilities. many of these disputes are subject to settlement negotiations at furk. under both the state law, pg&e has the duty to treat customers equitiab equitiablely. in 2015, they became subject to [indiscernible] in order to receive lower cost wholesale electric service. the federal power act exists to ensure all utilities have access to existing grid infrastructure, deliver energy, and make sure each utility bears a financial responsibilities in serving customers. puc and pg&e have continued to disagree about the scope of those requirements. as you are likely aware, the parties litigated these disputes at firk in 2016. we continue to wait for that ruling. acknowledgment of our long shared history in san francisco -- i've been with pg&e for 34 years, most recently in the san francisco division. they've made additions to legacy service. most significant was the agreement to grandfather all city loads prior to 2015 by not requiring the city to own and control infrastructure known as these facil

crash happened and discovered a streetlight light wasn't functioning, so we indicated that to the sfpuc. arthur and cargo way was kind of a case linked to a criminal activity. vehicle ran and crashed into an intersection. we did not feel that there was a lot of engineering things that we could do at that intersection for the crash itself, but we do have a pending project there to make some changes. at 20 and castro was another case of a fatality where a tow truck lost control of a vehicle and it slid into a work site and it killed one of our fellow city co-workers, a very tragic incident. and this was considered to be a crash, but again, it was more of a work related incident with a tow truck and the work site, so we have not looked at that location for engineering changes, but instead, other parties are following up, including the parties that investigate the tow truck and the work site conditions. and the embarcadero and sansome, this involved a pedi cab driver being hit by a motorist in a corridor that was under study for cycle track and other. . s and staff has also gone out to the

my name is emily lamb and i am director of policy affairs for the sfpuc.am involved with a team of people and building a strong coalition of a team of folks. we are working very closely to get this bill defeated and ultimately vetoed by governor brown. >> emily is one of those people who is a bright star with regards to her passion, her commitment, her tenacity and she's just a great, fun person. she's all of the things that you would want in an employee and an ambassador for our organization. >> my biggest take away is you can always find a way, especially when something is important and worth fighting for, if you put your heads together with people, and you collaborate, that usually you can find some solution to get to your goal. in this case, it was a bill that most people considered politically difficult to complete, and we didn't have a chance of doing it, but with a lot of strattizing with a lot of different partners, we got it done. my name is emily lamb, and i am the director of policy and government affairs, and i've (♪) (♪) (♪) (♪) (♪)