malcolm and add infinitum that the puc can actually purchase this power in-house. this can actually provide more revenue opportunities for the puc and allow this 19 million to conceivably be used for something else. lastly on jobs, we need the rfp to show the jobs. and, so, i would really hope that the puc commissioners and staff would be as supportive of this process as possible. this is to answer your concerns and to provide answer to your questions. so, to that end please involve ms. malcolm [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>> hello again, commissioners, jeff dorian, 350 bay area. i'm definitely the dummy in this group but i can see a few things i'd like to share. just from probably what any member of the public might be able to see, i think the little i do know, i was involved with the meeting last friday, the bay area air quality management, and was told by somebody there that last year there were three members at the community in the audience and this year there was standing room only. i can kind of anticipate the same thing happening with th

and with that i just would quickly like to thank my team as well as the puc and city attorney team who provided support all along this year long road and with that i'm happy to take questions. >> thank you very much. >> vice president ann moller caen. >> i was going to say excellent presentation. >> so with that we'll come back in 3 weeks again to entertain your consideration and i will now turn the mic over to kevin chang. >> thank you very much thanks for being here. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon mr. president and commissioners my name is kevin chang i'd like to give our presentation after a culmination of 10 meetings. >> i want to thank you very much for the work that you and your rate commission have done it does not go unnoticed these are all volunteers listening to the residents of san francisco i know i speak for the commission we're very grateful for your service. >> thank you. >> can can we go to the slide please just a quick background. formed in 2002 and it's a part of the charter and normally review 5-year forecasts and we have done this 5 years ago the members of th

one of the things i was looking forward to we've longed tried to have a joint commission with the sf puc specifically around what is the program. what are our options clean power sf is obviously, the one that's been discussed we don't know of others i think i know the page number what i understand in the environmental discussions there's the language in there is more generally speaking clean power programs we want to do with the environmental commission the sf puc our joint commission meeting is set for a month and a half ago we tried to do this no february because time didn't benefit us obviously. but i think the testimony today is very critical in terms of doing nothing is not an option it gets us not closer to one hundred percent everything discussed by board of supervisors and the department and sure enough it will inform the part of the conversation and our intent is for the puc environmental commission meeting to be all about one hundred percent renewal energy >> i know there was a vote and you brought a resolution forward opposing i believe it was opposing clean power sf can you t

we've been working with the puc to ensure that heche is sustainable. a half percent at kilo watt power. a half percent is about $900,000. they have identified a need to grow to about $0.12. it could be significant. five department exclusive operating. >> hold on one second supervisor wiener had a question? >>supervisor scott weiner: subject to the puc, i know we've had discussions on that in the past. i think that the puc, the power enterprises financial problems go much deeper than that one significant capital outlay as well as the potential need to raise rates for the municipal customers. i think the power enterprise from what i can tell is not particularly viable. i think because they need more customers. i know it's always very controversial in this building when their efforts to provide them with new customers. they did just get the transit terminal which was terrific. i think it behoves all of us to be sure that the enterprise has enough customers to be viable. that matters not just for the big mega capital project we know about but i know we dis

i would say what that would do to recover costs, not even profits for the puc. so, for an example -- >> so, we don't make a profit for charging anyone for power or water or anything? >> as a municipal utility, we are barred from making a profit. so, that makes us unique compared to -- >> so, we're subsidizing it now. so, that's my concern is right now based on the rates that we're charging, we're subsidizing our water, our power, our sewer and that's just bad business. >> we cannot subsidize the cross-water power and sewer. each one of those three has to pay their own share -- >> but they're not. we're, we're asking for general fund revenues. we're subsidizing it with grants. we're looking at bonds and all kinds of other resources to pay for infrastructure needs. and, so, the rates are not covering the costs. >> you, supervisor breed, are correct. in the power enterprise, for the power enterprise work, the general fund rates are not paying for the general fund related costs. >> okay. the general fund related costs, but what about the other power rates that we ch

you know, i think at the time there was a lot of discussions going into the morning when the puc was countering or considering the impacts of the jobs and i think that led to a lot of reasons to look at the program and the support from advocates. i think for us we want to see programs that are successful we need the green pour purposing programs. i think for certainly for my colleagues and myself we're open we need to get a clear direction from the puc and get a clear direction from the board clearly we want to carry forward this is the first time we've met together in six or seven years. >> thank you. i think that when it comes to you mentioned considering an opt out program that's where the state law determines how people stay enrolled in the program so i think you knew that going in and bringing it up didn't make sense to me >> i want to minimize the goals of minute missing opting out is purpose in saying that. >> i don't have any other folks coming down. folks thank you for hearing the climate action and thank you. the vice president of environment for your work. the plans and fr

the department is very supportive of puc's efforts. we're terrific to see that map of how jobs have been created around the city. it's the right distribution that we'd like to see. we're very excited about any possibility that could bring more money streams to promoting solar and we will continue to support it through our regulatory work efforts to improve the market in san francisco to keep permitting costs down and systems streamlined and to market the program as we market energy efficiency around the city to residents and businesses. >> great, thank you. i want to just thank you for the work you're doing in developing a new green work force power program that i understand is going to be launched later this summer around clean energy financing and in my mind i think this is very much related and intertwined with that. and then i'll also mention there has been some discussion about whether we could use property tax [speaker not understood] and use that as a way to potentially finance, another conversation we can have with the puc and

question so there's a set of recommendations that have been presented and i'm just wondering if the puc staff general manager's office and team had a chance to look at the recommendations. >> before you arrived we had a discussion on this. this is a letter and we're going to prepare a response and come back to the commission at a future meeting addressing each one of these issues. >> so the answers were not incorporated into the potential action that we'll be taking today? >> that is correct. we actually just received a letter this week and this is a reiteration and we can't fully address those in a comprehensive way and we'd like to develop some responses to bring back to you. >> okay and so this would not prohibit us from taking action today potentially. >> this would not prohibit you from taking action today. >> okay i just would want to make sure of that and we're being responsive. >> yeah we've been through this a couple of times and if we were to decide that there was additional information we can always amend our filing to include that. >> you can always amend your filing at any

as i say, that's all activity ongoing at the california puc. and then of course there is some legislative activity picking up. we have new legislate ~. we have a bill introduced by assembly member bradford ab [speaker not understood] that we're keeping an aye on and a bill introduced by assembly member ammiano, ab [speaker not understood]. we don't think they're meaningful so i'm not going to get into that. they are on our watch list so we encourage you to keep an eye on them as well. thank you. >> if you could give us an example of what 20 megawatt would be serving the community. >> so, for example, there are some large warehouses in the -- sorry, in the bayview hunters point area. we thought solar there would be less than 20 megawatts greater than 1 megawatt. those would be system that would be considered distributed under the rules. they'd be local. they could be located and what qualifies as a disadvantaged community here in san francisco. so, that's an example. >> great, thank you. and then what's the current status of our shell contracts?

about the modelling process and end with the recommendations so we provide engineering support to the puc and collectively delivered over 20 thousand projects and also provide business solutions financial management and other types of business solutions we're also recognized as an industry leader having contributed to national publications on rates and charges throughout this process gone through data collections reviewing different rate structures and presenting to the public there's 2 components i'd like to highlight as part of this timeline one we met weekly with the staff throughout the divisions within the agency and in order to get a broad context of what rates and the financial projections that meet the needs of the puc and towards the process met monthly in order to continue to engage the public and make sure the public's voice was heard in terms of our recommendations. when developing rates there's 3 major components. also noted the reinvestment for the liability of the infrastructure both water and sewer system once we identify those costs then move into the cost of service what

is there someone from the puc who would like to say something? it's fine if they don't. >> i think they are available to answer questions and we have a report from the city toeshs -- attorneys office who was the hands-on negotiator from our office which in the puc which are available. he's available to answer any details. >> great. thank you, appreciate it. let's open up for public comment. any members of the public who would like to make any comments about this item at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay. colleagues, we have before us an item and there are no post amendments. can we move this to the full board without objection. without objection the item passes. thank you very much. >> madam clerk, can you please call the next item. city clerk: item no. 2 item 140147: [approving the 2014 budget and legislative analyst services work plan]1401472.sponsor: breedmotion approving the budget and legislative analyst services work plan for 2014; allocating hours for calendar year 2014; authorizing the budget and legislative analyst t

and, so, the fiscal plan for the puc's power enterprise was balanced the last two. previous to that it was not balanced and it showed a shortfall. but it did you point out that it is relatively straightforward if we don't have more revenues to pay for costs, we could only buy what we can afford to. so, here again now, we fast forward two years three new pieces of information mean costs even larger than what we have ever assumed. mountain tunnel was already in last year's capital plan [speaker not understood]. it was in it for the last several as far as the maintenance work, but it was in at $100 million of cost. with the potential for collapse of the mountain tunnel which would disrupt the water supply and a recently completed engineering study, though costs have gone upwards of $6 28 million ~. so, that, sir, is new, and i do understand that that would be a very surprising and large change. the interconnection agreement expiration, though costs have always been in our ten-year plan, but not to the recently filed and heightened levels by pg&e, to ferc and cpuc. but

it was one of the methods that has been considered -- had been considered historically when the puc settled upon using the separable costs method. >> i would imagine that the great volume of resource that we yield from the tunnel would be more on the water side than the energy side. i mean water and electricity are very different things, but as resource, there is probably many more people in the bay area who get benefit from the water then get benefit from electricity. so you could look at it that way. >> sure, you could. >> with the bulk of the percentage or proportion on water versus energy. >> and just so i'm being clear in describing to you the method that we are using, while each asset is categorized as either a water, a power or a joint water and power asset, the sharing of the costs is applied uniformly. so we didn't look for example at mountain tunnel and say, what is the split for that particular asset? the whole system was assessed and the 55/45 was the resulting allocation. and with respect to mountain tunnel, it is a joint asset. it does provide both water and power service to t

with respect to the puc i'll give you my view the puc has taken the position if a bulb out is being built over water pipes it's the mta responsibility to pay to move those water pipes so they're not under the bulb out is a significant expense on the mta and frankly it's not necessary to move the water pipes it's for the future theoretical convenience of the puc if in 20 years they need to reach the pipe they don't want to dig underneath the sidewalk but underneath the streets that are a significant burden that the project sponsors from doing those bulb outs for a savings for the puc when frankly when you're doing a bulb out they can look at the pipes and see if it's old and switch it out and did do it. many cost shouldn't be passed on. i don't know if this is the future of a future hearing in terms of enforcement i know i held a hearing last year about double parking enforcement and -- excuse-me. i should say the total lack of parking enforcement not only a sf pd issue they are the aggressive tools it is necessary sometimes a delivery truck has no way to pull over but we all see that ever

i really appreciate all of the work that was done and the puc involvement as well, and reviewing the respondents. we can go ahead and open this item for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment, please come forward? >> good afternoon again commissioners. eric brooks. san francisco clean energy advocates. very pleased to say that even though we didn't have much time to look it over, only about one day, we didn't see any red-flags come up in any of these contracts with one small exception, with the sf community power. if i ran out of time, i would appreciate it if you would ask me to elucidate that. the upshod is that we can support this. it looks like it's good enough for us to move forward and for the advocates to be supportive of it. enernex looks pretty exciting in its abilitis to get this work done. we do want to make sure that what the work that they do is really oriented on what is called a virtual power plant where you mix together a lot of different types of resource and not just solar and wind, but a lot of other things and we're hoping it will be

elements projections cost of service and the final rate design it also becomes a long-term tool that puc staff can use in terms of maintaining and evaluating projections over time and finally recommendations again this is our independent view but formed through a collaborative process with staff as well as the public so in general we do believe the puc rates in process as well as final rates do adhere to california state law a critical point to deliver and agree with the overall needs to pay for not only the inflationary o and m costs but we're recommending that the tier break for the water system for the single family has increased from 3 ccf the 748 gallons per unit in alignment with the customer usage patterns unique to the city and we're recommending on the wastewater side a single unit cost per water discharge to the system we're recommending an increase or slight modification to the capacity charge in alignment with your costs but also the capacity requirements of newcomers coming to the system and also recommending that you update your miscellaneous charges with respect to providi

order to get a broad context of what rates and the financial projections that meet the needs of the puc and towards the process met monthly in order to continue to engage the public and make sure the public's voice was heard in terms of our recommendations. when developing rates there's 3 major components. also noted the reinvestment for the liability of the infrastructure both water and sewer system once we identify those costs then move into the cost of service what is a fair and proportionate share and finally integrate design. how do do we recover those costs. as part of this independent process we integrated a lot of information. we developed a comprehensive financial model basically incorporated those 3 elements projections cost of service and the final rate design it also becomes a long-term tool that puc staff can use in terms of maintaining and evaluating projections over time and finally recommendations again this is our independent view but formed through a collaborative process with staff as well as the public so in general we do believe the puc rates in process as well as f

i really appreciate all of the work that was done and the puc involvement as well, and reviewing the respondents. we can go ahead and open this item for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment, please come forward? >> good afternoon again commissioners. eric brooks. san francisco clean energy advocates. very pleased to say that even though we didn't have much time to look it over, only about one day, we didn't see any red-flags come up in any of these contracts with one small exception, with the sf community power. if i ran out of time, i would appreciate it if you would ask me to elucidate that. the upshod is that we can support this. it looks like it's good enough for us to move forward and for the advocates to be supportive

sb 43 also directed the california puc to issue a decision by july 1st. so early this summer we should see some decision from the public utilities commission of california that tells us what the shape of this green tariff program will be and available to pg&e customers here in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, i don't quite understand how the green tariff program works with what you described as the community renewables program. >> to propose programs that would allow for community renewables. it's very much mimicking a program that is already underway in southern california that was sponsored by san diego gas and electric company. pg&e did not include that kind of an offering in their initial application to the california puc. a number of parties, including ourselves, suggested that there should be such a component to their program. it wasn't until sb 43 went through the legislative process and was adopted that pg&e then in compliance filed a proposal to incorporate a community renewables piece into their green tariff offering. so it would allow cu

it's not puc's facility. we took in the crap for that facility and we are out there training our kids. and if they take it, we lose that college out there, we lose everything. anything that they want to do out there to change that situation, [speaker not understood]. and i say please. tell julia we love her, too. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >>> tell her we love her too, and we ask for the same -- we ask for the same [speaker not understood]. (applause) >>> hi, my name is theresa glenns, i'm the founder of old school cafe which is in the bayview hunters point. it's an organization that helps keep kids out of jail and out of streets and to stop the violence. juliet has been a great friend to us and to our community and to the youth. ha just been somebody right away we can say these are the things going on, we need support, and just her heart, her heart is for our kid. her heart is for the community. and, so, i just want to say a couple words about we talk about making mistakes and owning it. i would enc

even this plan is quite modest compared to water and wastewater are doing at the puc. it shifts us into that more standard utility practice of having a credit rating and borrowing to fund the long-lived assets we rely on to provide service. >> just trying to figure out why we've never done this before. so, there was some change in that allowed us to do it or the puc didn't have that before ~? >> i think it was a combination of factors. one being we had a fairly robust fund balance which made it so you could just cash fund stuff. and now as we've eaten into that cash fund balance and as we've seen the cost of doing business increase, that we find we can't enjoy that luxury. so, the plan was to go out into the market and use bond proceeds to fund much of our capital programs. but as the general manager alluded to, we're fag challenges that weren't anticipated when we put that financial plan together. specifically, we're seeing essential capital improvements that we hadn't anticipated. that balanced plan that i just showed you a picture of assumed we were going to spend a