mr. jensen talked earlier today about the mutually beneficial impact of that, as well as the potential for additional cash funding, which could mitigate retail increases as well. if $10 million were to be repaid, that would allow us to shave 6% of of that $30 million. as i mentioned earlier, about $350 million would be owed on that capital investment as of june, 2014. additionally, we could look at cutting. >> the idea is that in the new water supply agreement, we are changing the methodology from the old days. as you recall, we spent the money first and were repaid over time. with the new contract, wholesale customers share in the contract as we incur them in the first place. there were these stranded assets that had not been fully paid off under the old methodology. at the time we said you could pass all over the next 25 years, which was our cost of funds at the time. if they can go out and sell any amount of that or less, they save money, so it is great for them. if they give us more cash up front, it avoids the large rate increase, which we need to have for coverage -- >> i am just goi

mr. jensen talked earlier today about the mutually beneficial impact of that, as well as the potential for additional cash funding, which could mitigate retail increases as well. if $10 million were to be repaid, that would allow us to shave 6% of of that $30 million. as i mentioned earlier, about $350 million would be owed on that capital investment as of june, 2014. additionally, we could look at cutting. >> the idea is that in the new water supply agreement,

mr. jensen bella >> thank you. first of all, i would like to congratulate the commission in the staff for taking this on. this is unnecessary exercise. it is not an exercise, it is just government. a couple of comments, from our perspective, the commission has in joint one decade is spending on the waterside in terms of spending from 10 years ago. that was adopted in you are welded do it now. they know that there is a limit to spending. you have seen that. we have certainly seen that already. it may account for the decrease water use. but we are not in this yet. as i think about that, i think about your budget process. it is massive and difficult to bore into regarding detailed policy guidelines. one thing that would be valuable, if you could make it work, there is one thing that you can use in trade offs. it is difficult in a budget this size. you have a lot of different direction that you are pulling out. i would not advise abandoning progress. there are things, historical costs that are probably low priority in

mr. nils jensen. he is a senior traffic planner working with strategies and planning in the traffic department of copenhagen. he is educated as a landscape architect starting his career in the danish cyclist federation in the late 1970's, has worked with cycling research projects at the danish technical university, has conflicted to national danish cycle planning and has been involved in european union projects on zero and low-emission vehicles as well as cycling benchmarking. he has been the coordinating of a car-free cities conference and another conference in copenhagen. nils. >> i'm very happy to be here today and i'm going to talk about planning for a wide range of users, not just for the strong cyclists. i'm not too familiar with this. it's very easy. just keep to the right. in our cycling policy, we present a starting point for the policies for cycling, what we call the transport quality and we are looking at safety, of course, which are the statistics, but we also very much looking at the sens