>> can we have roll call, please. >> president paulson, here. rivera, here. ajami, here. stacey, here. you have a quorum. >> thank you. i would like to note the san francisco public utilities commission acknowledge it owns i stewards of the lands located within the historic -mission san jose band of al mead ow county. also recognizes every citizen residing within the greater bay area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the oholone tribes aboriginal lands since before

and after the san francisco public utility founding. it is important we recognize the history in the tribal lands and acknowledge and honor the fact the oholone people have established a working part nership with the sfpuc and productive and flourishing members within the greater san francisco bay area communities today. if we can have the first item. >> item 3, approval of the minutes of april 23, present 24. >> any corrections or comments on the minutes? seeing none, >> move to approve. >> let's open to the general public first, please. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 3. do we have members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item? >> seeing none in the room, let's go to public comment. >> any-moderator, any callers

with their hands raised? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> okay. seeing no more--can i get a motion and second to approve the minutes of april 23? >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. four ayes. >> item 4, general public comment. can we open this up, please? >> members of the public may address matters within the commission jurisdiction and not on the agenda. remote callers raise your hand. do we have members of the public present who wish to provide general public comment? >> seeing none in the room- >> moderator do we have callers with their hands raised?

>> there is one caller with their hand raised. >> okay. >> caller, your line has been unmuted, you have two minutes. >> hello commission. my name is jennifer. i am a marina residents. i have come before the commission multiple tifems to discuss the damage caused by the closure of the pier street outfall. there has been no response to inquiries about the outfall. commissioner rivera never provided documentation he committed to provide regarding this closure a year ago and now i'm reading that the epa is suing the city for sewage incursion in our home. i have yet to hear anything from this commission regarding a action plan to correct this problem. it is your responsibility to address this as commissioners before we

have another catastrophic event. thank you. jennifer. >> thank you. are there anymore folks in the queue? >> commission secretary, there is one more caller in the queue. >> okay. >> caller, your line has been unmuted. you have two minutes. >> hello commissioners. my name is ashley. i am a marina resident and i am here to represent marina residents that [indiscernible] i lived in the marina over 30 years and experience heavier storms and has never been impacted like on october 24. [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] there are some people still living now with mold and can't afford the high cost of fixing homes. our insurance did not cover damages. [indiscernible] in their home.

many lost cars but a [indiscernible] warn people to get to higher ground. all this could have been avoided. [indiscernible] the wirs worst hit region in the storm. we were told not to expect compensation, however what was alarming is people could have been electcuted. we were told it wasn't their responsible to inform people, it was pg&e responsible. we were left alone and [indiscernible] it has been said initial communication with the [indiscernible] the residents are asking for a hearing and in

agreement with [indiscernible] that suggested a hearing should be held. you can contact me through supervisors office stefani as i have worked for the office many many years for the community. i look forward to getting a date on the calendar and once again my name is [indiscernible] thank you very much. >> thank you. are there anymore folks in the queue? >> commission secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is hereby closed. let's read item 5, please. >> item 5, report of the general manager. >> good afternoon commissioners. good to be here today. i don't have any report this afternoon. >> okay. so, do we need to open this up to general public comment if there was no comment, i don't believe so? okay. any comments by the commissioners?

okay. let's go item 6, please. read item 6, >> item 6, review bond oversight committee annual report. >> hello. mr. plezdant and commissioners, thank you for having me today. my name is rubin the chair of the revenue bond oversight committee and work for the budget analyst office. on behalf of fellow committee members isent the annual report for the period of july 2022 through june 2023. i like to share three highlights from the reporting period. the first is the audit of six revenue bonds representing approximately $1 billion in expenditure. the report was published august 2023 shortly after the conclusion of the fiscal year. it presented two material findings with three recommendations to

improve internal controls. the second is the ongoing monitoring of bond sells and debt plans. the third is visits we had to the ocean side treatment plant in november 2022 and hetch hetchy in 20 23. working on bonds representing approximately $1 billion in expenditures and expect the report to be published by fall. this is the final audit of three audits conducted by hk global and accountancy corporation. we have two new committee members who recently toured the southeast treatment plant and helping to identify topics for future audits. finally, i like to express the appreciation of the committee to staff and puc. the controller's office. the clerk's office and city attorney's office for facilitating work of the committee. specifically i like to call out

and are thank [indiscernible] from puc. john carrel and victor young from board of supervisor clerk office. hunter wong and [indiscernible] from controller office and mark blake and catherine ortega from city attorney office for on pp going guidance and support. and now i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you for that report and that sounds like you have a very diligent committee working on this stuff. i guess just one question came up that i wouldn't have thought of sapt you mentioned it, during the tour of the southeast plant. you thought of a couple areas you might want to audit and what might that be? >> we don't have the specific topics at this time. there was a ongoing discussion of future topics to audit regarding the performance of certain facilities and infrastructurefunded by the bonds. we received some feedback from

the city attorney office that the scope that audit is a little outside of the scope of the committee as it has been formed under proposition p, and would have to be changed in some way, so there are certain things we can look at such as implementation of new technologies into the puc. there are a couple-new committee member is very interested in looking into that but they are getting up to speed. we have a meetd meeting this morning on the capital plans so i think we need more time to let those thoughts germinate into future topics of potential audits. >> thank you for that insight. commissioner stacey. >> i think i was going to ask something along the same lines. i understand that today is just a update and thank you for the work that the committee does and the update and

that maybe some time later or in the next fiscal year as the committee sort of works through either recommendations or issues to audit, that you will also keep the commission apprised of what your decisions are and what your recommendations may be. >> certainly. i know typically we present once a year after the annual report comes out. i believe you do receive our audit reports when they are published, but if you like if we are beginning a new audit topic, maybe before the audit work commences we could notify you of what that topic is and how we are planning to about that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner ajami. >> actually i wanted to ask the same thing. i would like to invite you to have a open relationship with us and i just also say, this is a very important

effort. i personally very much appreciate it and you are our other set of eyes looking to our financial work and how the bonds money is spent and how is it working, so please do come back to us and if there is something that you see requires expansion of your oversight capacity and it is important for us to do it i think we are always happy to do it and want to make sure the money spent wisely and correctly and i know all the staff are working on, but it is important to have a set of eyes on these items. >> certainly, we'll keep you apprised that. the committee is due to sunset of the end of this year. it has been extended a couple times in the past by the board of supervisors and i believe they can do that by resolution or ordinance. >> that needs to happen to us or- >> through the board of supervisors. >> i just want to also the last thing,

i do appreciate--one thing we need to do more of is better tracking and data that can help us to understand the performance of investments. are they being effective or not and i wholeheartedly agree who is the new member who wants to focus on technology and monitoring and reporting processes. i think that is super important as part of this. thank you. >> thank you. certainly bring that back to committee. >> thank you. >> thank you through your diligence. any other questions commissioners? if not let's go to public comment, please. thank you very much. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide any comment on item number 6. do we have any members of the public present who would like to comment on this item? >> seeing none-- >> moderator, any callers with hands raised?

>> commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is over. so, the next item is the consent calendar, which is very robust. commissioners, is there any questions or any of the items on a through h that you have any questions on or like to pull? commissioners? commissioner stacey. >> thank you. i had a couple follow-up questions on item 7c and item 7g. not germane to approval of those particular items, i wondered because the contract before us in 7c was in part to compensate for the loss of 4 electrical engineers at hetch hetchy and i checked and are mrs.

hanferred gave positive newss they replaced engineers with possibly a third in the future and part of the contract for 7c is also to help mentor and get those engineers up to speed, so i was pleased to hear that and glad that was folded into the contract amendment for 7c. >> did you want to comment from anybody? i see margaret is on stanby, which i guess is zoom, unless she wandered down here. >> not really. i just thought i would pass along that information. on 7g, i also had just follow-up questions about how our preapprenticeship traibing program was working and mrs. haniford tolds me the folks through that training program work for contracts in the area

on sfpuc contractors and hired by contractors. it sounds the apprenticeship training is going well and thought i would pass to the commission. thanks to mrs. han iford for providing that information. >> i also have a comment on 7g. this is-i had a question about that also and there's a ongoing relationship between the apprenticeship programs in the up country and with the variety of unions which there is preapprenticeship training and regular apprenticeship training getting people into real jobs and as you noted, recruitment into the trades and contractors that are working on these major projects out there as a real connection with the folks in the area through the unified school district and that particular area so thanks for bringing that up and also wanted to note that. okay. anything else commissioner

stacey? okay. thanks. commissioner ajami. >> i wanted to talk to someone about 7d. i was just going through all the different amendment we had on this item and this is all most 50 percent increase from our original budget, and i'm just wondering where is the-when is this going to end? will we have a few more of these before this project is done? reading through the documents i couldn't really identify a lot of you know, tangible reasons for all these the increases, beyond covid or pg&e needs more-a better you know, electrical transmission lines or something like that. i couldn't really add them up to the amount we added up to. >> do we have somebody that

could answer commissioner questions? please, come to the mic, introduce yourself please. >> are you benjamin? where are we at? >> good afternoon everyone. brian senior project manager for this project. yes, this project had several significant delays in cost and schedule. project unfortunately began before covid and weathered the supply chain issues with the delivery of major infrastructure equipment for the electrical upgrades. the project is providingcogeneration engines that produce electricity and hot water for our process at the wastewater treatment facility. utilizing bio gas produced at the treatment plant so it is a very beneficial project, a very

significant investment for the puc. we see a lot of advantages to pursuing the project to completion. it faced delays for covid and currently our interface with pg&e, we are facing new infrastructure protection requirements from pge, so we are trying to get an alignment with that agency and in order to do so we need this additional funding and time to integrate this equipment to protect our infrastructure and their electrical infrastructure so that when we do produce energy it is for on-site use. we are not pushing to the grid and they want to make sure that is the case and i think that kind of captures the intent of the infrastructure that is needed. >> so, we are not subject to

net metering, so we can't put the electricity back to the grid? >> right. >> they want to make sure we have something that prevents that or is it- >> correct. protective relays. we have plenty load at the treatment plant for wastewater process and you guys know we also have a recycled water facility that is ready to come online and can use power beneficially from the engines if we are able to get up and running. >> my question is, let's sort of think ahead and say it is 2030, or 2027 and we got all pg&e assets and we have our own electric utility, public electric utility, wouldn't we want that load to feed into our grid because in a way, it is our electricity that would

be used. is the upgrade going to hender the process or is this a plug you put in and pull it off if we end up having our own utility? >> it is potentially we could reverse the infrastructure that we are installing if the puc favorably gets to run the utility in the future, but it also keep in mind the current demand on site is higher then what our generation capability is, so-- >> that's why i wonder why would they want you to do this? is this- >> certain load scenarios where our demand may vary and in a low condition and gas production and energy production could come out-- >> okay. so, but this is reversible? if we end up to get to the

point that potentially using this facility as a battery that can run that generator at a different time that you have a lot of demand, we can do that? okay. going back to the earlier comment, that wasn't in here or i missed it. my other question is, the contractor on this project, is this like-50 percent increase on the budget is quite significant and i'm wondering if there is like some form of performance based--we had this conversation many times. performance based delivery that we can put in place that people dont end up dragging these projects and increase the mount of the project over and over. pg&e is a new thing, but there are other things that happened. 50 percent is a lot of money. >> i agree. >> so, what can we do for this

not to repeat itself? >> i think we are taking some steps with our partners in power enterprise with requirements from pg&e ahead of time so from a planning stage or design stage we can implement their requirements earlier in the projects. that's a very high price to pay for us to learn of these requirements during the construction phase and implementing those and that's really what is before you today is something that has come up during the construction phase. the covid outbreak, we can all admit that is pretty difficult to brace for that impact-- >> absolutely. but you know, because it is

like-is this like infrastructure upgrade,b is that costing $7 million or other things in the project that needs attention that is requiring the $7 million? i wasn't hundred percent sure it is only electric upgrade, there was other things. >> there are elements related to our building modification-we are modifying the building to suit the instillation so that is some cost captured in this, but more-the additional cost is the pg&e aspect of the project-additional pg&e infrastructure aspect of the project that came to light during construction. >> okay. i could appreciate if you or somebody from the power enterprise when you figure how to do these contracts a little differently come to us.

we are happy to support something like that because we need to make sure who ever gets the contracts are accountable for delivery on time and on price and the best quality, rather then just keep ing these comes. i'm sure it isn't a pleasant experience for you either to constantly come back to us so i want to make sure we avoid these kind of experiences in the long-run. thank you. >> thank you. anymore questions item d? okay. if not, we have-thank you for coming to the mic. so, we had comments on c, d and g. commissioners, any other questions on the consent calendar? seeing not, let us go to public comment, please. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on

item 7, consent calendar. any members present who wish to comment on this item? >> seeing none- >> moderator, any callers with hands raised? >> there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. public comment is closed. motion and second to accept the consent calendar, please? items a-h. >> move to approvep. >> second. >> motion and second. roll call, please. >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. you have four ayes. >> passes. can we read item 8, please. >> award contract number wd-2897 sunol valley water treatment plant ozonation to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, jf shea construction inc. in the

amount of $234.782.000 duration of 1612 consecutive calendar days. >> good afternoon president paulson and commissioners. project manager for sunol water treatment plant. the item before you is request to award sunol water treatment plant ozone project to lowest responsible bidder, jf shea construction. in recent years, the sunol water treatment plant has experienced more frequent algee blooms with taste in odor from the san antonio and cal [indiscernible] long-term solution to control taste and odor. secondary object areive include

improved plant reliable, provide additional primary disinfection, color removal and control by-products. the construction bid document advertised september 29, 2023 and included requirement for the social impact partnership program. this will be the first design bid build contract to implement this program. we also included requirements for buy america, build america receiving funds from the california drinking water state revolving fund and water infrastructure financing and invasion act. wide spread outreach was performed on the project. on the project team i identified 17 potential prime contractors capable of handling a project of this size and scope. the contracting assistant center

reached out to 301 prime contractors and lbe firms registered with the center and the project was announced in engineering news magazine. [indiscernible] 7 prime contractors and 28 subcontractors and suppliers, and january 11, 2024 we publicly opened three bids. after factoring in the compensable delay estimate and social impact partnership discounts, jf shea construction ranked as lowest bidder. the estimate was $193 million, the low bid was [indiscernible] 28 percent increase over the engineer estimate. it should be noted that the independent third party estimate included potential for a 10 to 20percent increase over the estimate if only 2 or 3 bids

were received. due to the high bid values of the project team evaluated bid documents and reviewed other recent projects for water, wastewater projects and california of similar size complexity and duration to get a better understanding why the bids came in higher then expected. from the review, the project team concluded that the increased cost in the low bid over the engineer estimate is experienced on other recent projects and likely due to three factors. there is a small pool of qualified contractors available to perform a project of this size complexity and duration. ongoing uncertainty in material and equipment pricing and availability for long duration contracts resulted in increase pricing to cover perceived risks and long complex retrofit

project with facility that must remain in operation are risky for contractors. the project team explored value engineering and rebidding options, however based on delays and readvertising and minimal saving rebidding likely result in increased cost and likely not result in lower prices. based on the fiendings, staff recommend accepting the low bid from jf shea bid and awarding the contract. thank you and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for that thorough explanation for the engineering estimate and the amount of contractors and analyzing the increase of 28 percent increase over estimate and at least delineating reasons you

thought and analyzed that is why the stuff went through. it is always-we like to make sure we have the best obviously cost and prices possible and when you start off saying it is 28 percent higher you immediately bells go off, but i at least appreciate the explanation and the further analysis of what it was taking with the instinct you go out to bid. i thank you for that analysis. i don't know what else to say other then, i'm looking at something that has to get done and it is a major project, so i will leave it at that. any other questions commissioner, ajami? >> thank you for your presentation. i have a few questions and i-first of all, congratulations on the first design build bid build project. that is exciting. i also appreciated having the sort of compensable delay built into

these contracts, which is performance related, which is important. one thing i wasn't hundred percent sure is, i did some calculations so the bidder that is going to approve to get this bid had the lowest amount of compensable delay built into their contract, about 1 percent. if they are delayed and we go to contingency, that is about 10 percent of our project generally thinking. if i put in a number in there, i say i'm on the hook for 1 percent, increase the budget by 10 percent, that all is going to work out. but, the next bidder is little bit higher, but the amount they have put on the line is little higher, so

wondering-i know this is the first one, but it would be good to think what are the different percentages that makes these projects better for us as a utility to make sure people deliver on time, on price, on value. obviously everybody is trying to minimize risk and we should think about that as well. how can we minimize risk to us and how can we make sure these performance based contracts are not having small margin that would not necessarily incentivize the contractor. not saying they are not going to deliver on time, just saying we should think about that as a risk reward port how we need to account for that. i don't know if you have thoughts, but that is just my thought here. >> comments? >> just for the record, this is a design bid build construction

contract, so not integrated mechanism. it is our first we integrated in the partnership program into the construction contract. it met all the thresholds and we are glad it is there, but the compensable delay piece is interesting especially in a large contract like this. the low and high bid is significantly different and a approach to get a adjusted bid to secure the work and how that impacts in delivery is to work through too. interesting. >> i would say, if somebody has a bid a little higher, but the percentage that you get by being higher is like i it was like 8 percent higher for the second bid but the amount on the line is little bit more significantly higher, all most like 4 times higher, so it is likes me you feel like there might be a little bit

more--there is more thon line for them to make sure they deliver, right? again, not to assume people are not going to deliver, but this is a way of transferring risk. we have to think what is our role and making sure we minimize our risk as people come in and put these bids forward. thank you. >> any other questions for the gentleman? okay. seeing none, thank you for that presentation. les let's open this up to public comment. >> remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 8. do we have kneb any members of the public present to provide comments on item 8? seeing none, moderator, are there any members of the public who would like to provide comment remotely? >> commission secretary, there is one caller with their hand raised.

caller, your line has been unmuted and you have two minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. nicole [indiscernible] i would like to speak in support of the staff recommended action to award the contract for these improvements at the sunol valley water treatment plant. [indiscernible] i look forward to successful completion. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you caller. commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is closed. commissioners, can i get a motion and second to approve item 8? >> move to approve. >> i'll second. >> motion and second to approve item 8. roll call, please. >> president paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. you have four ayes.

>> thank you. item 9. >> approve amendment 4 to contract ct-247r customer administrative service for community choice aggregation program with calpine energy solutions llc for continued meter data management, billing, and customer care support for clean powersf program increasing the contract amount by $2.5 million and extending the contract duration by 6 months. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm andrew, the supervisor for the clean powersf customer solution team power enterprise. the contract extension before you insuring operation for billing [indiscernible] the billing and at data management service manages back off that makes clean power s sfrks

possible including working with pg&e to [indiscernible] managing the collection of custer am data and insuring our program interact with customer billing to create a seamless experience. we are asking for 6 months additional 2 and $2 and a half million on this contract with our current billing data service provider, calpine energy solution. this will allow our team to issue a rfp to secure a new contract and allow clean powersf for continuity of operation should we need to transfer to a new company. the billing data operation are complex and tightly entwined with p g&e and sfuc. potential problems could have grave [indiscernible] bill customers to forecast customer demand and comply with regulatory obligations. on that basis i ask for your support for this item and happy to answer questions.

thank you. >> thank you. commissioner ajami. >> thank you for this item. i have a question for you. so, let's say 6 months from now calpine you put a rfp out number of other companies bid for it hopefully like 10 other companies and then somebody new comes in, how easy it is for the system that is already there to be transferred to a new one? how costly time wise money wise would that be? i tell you the reason i ask this question is, it is interesting to see you bring in a entity, they come in and establish a very specific set up. it is important for them to have their unique way approaching everything. that is how they business works. i wonder, would they give them the upper hand to continue this contract even though we not getting the

value we want out of them. and not saying this is the case with calpine, just trying to think ahead of time how can we minimize this sort of uniqueness and bring in a little bit more generalizable solutions to the table that then we can actually easily transfer, rather then being stuck with one contractor. >> i think i see what you are getting at, and that is one reason we gave additional 6 months to deal with those sort of issues. thinking broadly in the future making sure that this is a easier transition. next time we have to transition the contract should we have to do that, and i think that is concern we thought about and we are considering. we do want to make sure that getting entangled with the company and not saying aone or the other with the case of calpine but we want to make sure this can transition smoothly. ideally in the future we won't have to have a 6 month transition

period and it will be a little quicker. >> tell me--when that technology is used for the solutions, is that something that they install, operate and know everything back-end or you are also involved and improving the back-end and making sure-- >> we are involved, so we have our own data team and they use a lot of the mdms data that plugs into our forecasting processes, things like that. i think the essential complication is that these operations are so entangled with pg&e so they have a data interchange process that is required and it a lot of additional it infrastructure we dont have in-house as a city to make that happens smoothly and it has to happen for every bill. our charges show up on pg&e

bill so that piece is the piece we rely on calpine to do. they are not the only company in the space and others have transitioned in the past so it isn't like we are locked in. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. anymore questions for andrew? seeing none, thank you for that explanation and report. let's open item 9 to general public comment please. >> remote callers raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 9. do we have any member print present who wish to comment on this item? moderator, do we have callers present remotely with hands raised? >> commissioner secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is now closed. thank you. can we get a motion and second to approve item number 9 please? >> quickly ask another question before we have a motion and second.

>> of course. >> one other comment i have is, in the last meeting we had we had discussion about water bills and electricty bills and how sometimes difficult it is to overlay them and i totally understand because that is a lot of things [indiscernible] trying to match addresses and i wondering who you are looking to or work with, evefen it is calpine, it would be good to think how you want to do the location of the meters and metering because that will be the only way you can map these meter data together. otherwise it is very difficult process and-it is doable but difficult, so just one thing to think about is have there addresses and information for customers are entered. i know the water piece is coming up too so how they match each other

like especially considering the different parcels and how the location of each of these are. thank you. >> thank you for the comment. >> any other comments before we get a motion and second to approve item 9? >> motion to approve. >> i'll second. >> motion and second to approve item 9. roll call, please. >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. four ayes. >> passes. thank you. can you read item 10, please? >> item 10, approve an increase of $4.6 million to the cost ton contingency and increase of 1022 calendar days to the duration for contract number pw-009r as needed electrical distribution instillation and construction support with vip powerline corp.

>> good afternoon president paulson and commissioners. my name is danny fung the asset manager for power enterprise. here today to ask for approval to increase the construction contract cost is and duration contingencies for existing contract pw-009r, the as needed electrical distribution instillation and construction support. on november 8, 2022, by resolution 22-0197, the commission awarreded contract number pw-009r to vip powerline corp. the contract augments the existing power enterprise utility field services staff to provide services to sfpuc customers, response for emergency outage, improve system reliable and connect new customers. shortage of skills and

available workers necessitated support from a outside contractor. the original contract amount was $11.5 million and duration was 2 years that started january 13, 2023 and end in january 2025. as of may 8, 2024, $6.17 million has been released which is about 54 percent of the max contract value. staff recommends the commission approve increase to the contract cost contingency by $4.6 million and increase to the contract duration contingency by 1022 calendar days to avoid a gap in supplemental support to the power enterprise utility field services service group. this brings the total contract amount up to $17.25 million and the total contract time up to 5 years. with that, happy to answer any

questions. >> great. thank you for that. i have one question based on a comment you said . you said because we have trouble having skilled folks move forward how did that effect what you are proposing now? >> the utility service crew has 14 high voltage line workers and three are filled and 11 are vacant. we are actively trying to recruit for those positions, however, as a stop gap we need the contract to continue until the vacancies are filled. >> thanks for that answer. any other questions? commissioners? open up to public comment, please. item 10. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 10. do we have any members present who wish to comment on this item?

seeing none, moderator, do we have callers present remotely who wish to comment? >> commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is now closed. can i get a motion and second to approve item 10, please? >> move to approve. >> second. >> motion and second to approve item 10. can we have a roll call, please? >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. commissioner stacey, aye. four ayes. >> item 10 passes. please read item 11. >> item 11, approve amendment number 4 to the contract number cs-310 electronic bill payment and presentment with kubra data transfer. increasing the contract amount by $365 thousand and extending the contract duration by one year. >> please. >> good afternoon, our bill

payment presentment contract is underway but not completed by august 2024 when our contract expires so request to extend the contract by one year to allow time to complete the contracting process. here to answer any questions. >> any questions commissioners? >> i have a question. so, is this something we can potentially do in house or do we need to have a external company to run it? >> we definitely need a external company. it is highly regulated with the credit card processing and data security and there is a lot involved in this industry, so this isn't something we could do. >> okay. got it. okay. thank you. >> any other questions? i know you had a lot of questions at your last meeting.

anymore questions? seeing none, open to public comment. thank you for that presentation. >> remote callers please raise your hand if you like to comment on item 11. any members present who wish to comment on this item? seeing none, moderator, any callers remotely who wish to provide comment? >> commission secretary, there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> thank you, public comment is now closed. could are receive a motion and second, please to approve item 11? >> motion to approve item 11. >> second. >> motion and second. can we have roll call, please? >> paulson, aye. rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. four ayes. >> contract is approved. can you read item 12, please? >> item 12, consider and adopt

the proposed wholesale water rates for fiscal year 2024 through 2025 which will become effective for meter reading on or after july 1, 2024. >> can i have the slides? great. hello president paulson and commissioners. i'm here this afternoon to present our proposed fiscal 24-25 wholesale water rates for your consideration. in the brief presentation i'll cover 4 topics. i have key drivers, water rate increases, next we have update to the water monthly service charges, so fixed fee we charge on a monthly basing and propose a update to the methodology we used to calculate those. next we have the fiscal year

24-25 wholesale water rate volumetric portion and lastly a context. i have slides on wholesale water rates. so, first a summary of the four key drivers of the wholesale water rates. number one, retail water sales are still low coming out of the recent drought and covid-19 pandemic. conversely, on the wholesale side, water usage is beginning to rebound and doing so faster then we had initially projected. third, there is balancing account and there is money due to sfpuc. you may recall in recent years, sfpuc owed money to wholesale customers and now that is in the other direction. growth and capital end sping. i dont have a slide but we have higher capital spending making up the requirement and a lot is driven

by cash-funded capital. stepping into drivers. first, i have water sales. this is a complex chart so i'll orient you to it. >> just want to put on the record that commissioner paulson has to step out and tony rivera will take over. thank you. >> great. so, the light blue lines reflect the retail water sales going back to 2014 through the end of fiscal year 23. the solid line reflects the actual usage and dashed line are projected usage. the dark blue line are wholesale usage and you see the units are in millions of gallons per day. looking at the retail actual sales you see there are near historic lows for our recent sales and fiscal year 24, the low water use is holding. we are having a lower rebound from the drought then projected on the retail side.

on the wholesale side you also see there are near historic lows but not as low at the end of the 2014 drought with fiscal [indiscernible] that said, in fiscal year 24, wholesale water sales are increasing and doing so at a faster pace then initially anticipated. for wholesale customers we anticipated a 4 year rebound in water usage on per account basis to get back to pre-drought levels. you can see the slope that dash line for wholesale customers is pretty steep. after fiscal year 27 we expect that to level off but growth in sales to continue as new accounts join the wholesale system. retail customers you see holding pretty low. we are not anticipating a big rebound for retail sales. the shaded on the chart reflect the sensitivity we consider in the risk analysis when we set rates and

that is high end is based on urban water management planning projections but we like to say below that to maintain setting our rates. with all that said, these volumetric sales impact wholesale rates in two ways. first, the proportioninate allocation of retail sales to wholesale sales are used to apportion the shared expenses of the water enterprise and once we identified the revenue requirement, we take the portion we collect through rates and divide by projected sales. next we have the balancing account. the balancing account has grown to over $80 million in the past sfpuc

owed the wholesale customers starting in fiscal year 22. the beginning of the year the balancing account owed customers $63 million. we paid off the balancing account by holding rates flat for a number of years and then as the balancing account was eventually zeroed out we were able to start increasing wholesale rates again. you see the beginning of this fiscal year the balancing account started at $9.7 million and project ed to continue to grow to about $29 million at the end of this fiscal year. the fiscal year 25 rates are assuming that the wholesale customers pay off the bulk of this balancing account leaving about $3 million in the balancing account for fiscal year 26. next we have updated monthly service charges. in addition to updating the volumetric rates annually, this proposal includes

update to the service charge calculation. this stems to replace meters that serve the quhole sale customers and meter types and sizes we are using are not reflect said in the current fixed fee schedule. we had to calculate some new charges to fill in the gaps and accommodate the new meter sizes. the proposed meter schedule has set fixed charges based on industry standard meter capacity data for each meter type and size serving wholesale customers. we are not collecting additional revenue from this but restructuring things to fit the new meter size s. moving forward we will use the same methodology to update the fixed fees and set it to recover 1 and a half percent of the wholesale revenue requirement. staff is proposing an update or

increase of volumetric rates by 8.8 percent. it has the calculation is pretty straight forward and has 4 main components. the numerator is the wholesale revenue requirement, which is the wholesale customer share of the shared water enterprise expenditures. we then reduce that amount by the revenues we will be collecting so not double counting revenue and then we consider how much balancing account we apply to the rate. if wholesale customers o polk money the account is positive, if the sfpuc owes to the customer we deduct. we take and divide by the volumes to calculate our rate. for fiscal year 25, have to do a little bit of unit conversion here, but it brings you to a proposed rate of $5.67

per ccs. that is 8.8 percent increase and being driven primarily by low water use on the retail side, high water use on the wholesale side resulting in higher proportion of shared cost to wholesale customers and apply a large portion of a balancing account and then that wholesale revenue requirement is also by cash funded capital. my last slide here is another complex chart. here you see the adopted rates and projected rates for wholesale customers moving forward. the solid blue line you can see the 5 years of rates held flat as we pay off the balancing account and fiscal year 23 we increase rates again after we paid off the balancing account and you see that our projected rates

are continuing to increase over time. these might change as our assumptions change, but this is our latest projection. lastly, you see there is a dashed purple line and that is to show the wholesale rates would be if we did not use the balancing account and illustrates the value of the balancing account and enables to insure that all parties are made whole if there is over collection or under collection in a given year, but also allows us to levelize the rate adjustments so that sfpuc has more reliable revenues and wholesale customers dont have high price volatility from year to year. that was a sprint, but what i have today. >> thank you very much for your presentation and those very complicated charts, also. commissioners ajami. >> thank you for the presentation.

i want you to go back to-i dont have the slide, but it was the one that showed retail and wholesale sales over time. i think it was the third or fourth slide. how come you have it and i don't have it? okay. there you go, four. that was good. good guess. okay. so, question for you. let's say i know we are getting out of the lane, but let's say in two years we have another major drought and you are into your sprint there and then all a sudden people stop using as much water and goes back to 1/10 for wholesale, then what happens? >> well, that individual year we collect the revenue- >> say it like three years.

say this- >> if it dropped multiple years so each year we collect revenue based on rates adopted that given year and there is a true up at the end of the year and evaluate what the wholesale share revenue requirements should have been and we'll also-at the end that year, we will say okay, we projected the revenue requirement was x based on the proportion annual use, it should have been y and it will true up and allocate the difference to the balancing account plus or minus and we will be able to apply that balancing account to future rates. >> the reason-thank you, i appreciate that. the reason i'm asking that question and sorry i'm [indiscernible] trying to find your slides on my document, which somehow i missed. can you go two more slides forward? this one.

>> there you go. >> perfect. so, i'm just wondering if next year, 2025 we go back in a drought and start truing up trying to bring or cover the cost of service as you adjust, all a sudden we will lose that 28.9--i know you are accounted for that to be used to bring down the cost, but if this is going to happen every other year and keep going up and down, up and down, is there a different strategy we have to put in place? i'm a big fan of this and think that is super important because you dont want to constantly like reacting to everything that happens. just trying to think the fact that we are like in this non-ending drought situation that once in a while goes back again, does it require different strategy? and i don't have any answer in

my head and if you dont have one, that's fine, but trying to figure out how do we react to these? >> it seems aaron might have a answer. >> aaron always has a strategy. >>, aaron, the financial planning director. one thing i want to note is, our rates with our wholesale customers are governed by a water supply so highly structured methodology setting the rates. the update this year to the fixed monthly service charge was the first time that has changed since 2010 the contract was signed. we had to go through a intensive process with reporting oen the changes, negotiating that with the wholesale customer, getting comments and information should be included in your packet. i are think there is a collective interest in stabilizing our revenues and rates and the way the balancing account works, has pros and cons but there are other ways to do it. any changes to wholesale water rate

structure require contractual work and so this is a area we want to be very careful and we made a commitment since this year was a change to the fixed charges to do a lot of leg work, lead time and opportunity to comment on any other alternative structures we might do. >> the reason i ask that, i appreciate that. i do recall that process, but the reason i ask it, we obviously-no one anticipated covid and nobody anticipated that this last 20 years is in and out of droughts, severe droughts like back to back, so i'm trying to think, is there something at our end we need to do to be a-i know you have done sensitivity analysis but shocks in the system to see how this impacts our revenue at our end and their reality at their end and that doesn't mean

that needs to translate into a change, but puts us in a situation we can anticipate the changes and be able to react to them or respond to them or know that in the back of our head we thought about it and maybe have solutions in place. >> i think this is something again we are lookic at a lot more now because there is so much volatility. everybody is paying attention to this. i will note that we provide a estimate of the range of potential adjustments to the wholesale rate in december each year and so they do get for their planning purposes a high and low and a lot is driven by we don't what will happen with water sales next year and it could be significant changes in the rates from high to low estimates so we have tried to work on that with them and something we can keep improving on. >> thank you. >> commissioner stacey.

>> thank you. i think i had the same question as commissioner ajami looking at your slide 7. if that denominator changes then what you said is that there is a true up process, so that we look again at what we charged boska and one wholesale customer. we work on that true up with them and even that denominator number, the 129.3 is a projection of sorts based on what you have shown us in your slide 4, right? >> yes, correct. >> good. eme i'm glad i understood that. thank you for the questions. i also really appreciate the amount of work that the puc has done with bosca and bosca put into this.

it was clear in the record before us there is a lot of back and forth and lot of discussion and all kinds of work on both sides along with some of the other customers to make sure we are landing somewhere that seems workable, but understanding that there are unknowns based on demand and supply that there is true up process we may be seeing again. am i understanding that correctly? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> alright. i guess we have no more comments. can we move to public comment, please? >> remot callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 12. do we have any members of the public who wish to comment on this item? seeing none, moderator, do we have remote callers with hands raised? >> commission secretary, there

are two callers with hands raised. your line is unmuted and you have two minutes. >> nicole [indiscernible] i am pleased today to be able to speak in support of the recommended action before you today. as has been referenced, in just the commissioner discussion as well as staff presentation and materials, there was a lot of work that went into securing the support of the [indiscernible] for the wholesale rate before you today. i appreciate that puc staff in working with us to get to this point. as mentioned by mrs. cornacova, the agreement between san francisco and wholesale customers is governed by the water supply agreement. that is a result of litigation that was surrounding--that was associated particularly with the fair

allocation of cost for benefits received. the entire construct of the relationship between [indiscernible] is built on the fair allocation of cost for benefits received and it is important we maintain that moving forward. that said, the wholesale customers indicated they are willing to look at future rate structures on how to recover that cost, for the puc to recover that cost and we are willing and ready to are that discussion if necessary. thank you very much. have a good afternoon. >> thank you caller. your time expired. caller--you have two minutes. >> thank you. this is peter dreckmyer, policy director for tuolumne river

trust. the projected rate increase for wholesale customer 8.8 percent that will [indiscernible] the issues we are addressing with [indiscernible] goes back decades of differed maintenance, and [indiscernible] it was catch up time. the price of water more then tripled since then and we have seen dramatic decline. in 2007, prior to the projection for 2018 were 285 mgd. we have the sales capital of 265 as part of the phase and the actual sales demand in 2018 was 196 mgd, 31 percent lower then the projections which is typical. projections are always off. we see in the staff report that

for wholesale revenue requirements operating cost is $155 million. debt service higher then 162. debt service is huge. the cost we say [indiscernible] sfpuc has 8 and $8 and a half billion in dbt now and the 10 year plan is looking at $11.8 billion, so we have tough times ahead. the alternative water supply plan is one place we can prevent future problems happening. the plan as laid out would double the sfpuc budget. it isn't necessarily-we need to look at demand projections and hope you have conversation about it. we submitted comments hoping you take into consideration the recommendations and if you receive a report there is a opportunity to do that. thank you very much. >> thank you caller. your time expired.

commission secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> are thank you. >> seeing there are no more commenters, public comment is now closed. can i have a motion and second to approve item 12 please? >> i'll move. >> second. >> may we have roll call, please? >> rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. you have three ayes. >> alrighty. we are going to call items 13 and 14 together. we will still vote separately on each item. go ahead, please. >> item 13, public hearing to consider the adaumgz of rates of the san

francisco public utilities commission power enterprise for hetch hetchy power service to be effective with meter readings beginning on or after july 1, 2024. and item 14, public hearing to consider adopting schedules of rates of the san francisco public utilities commission, power enterprise for clean powersf power service in san francisco to be effective july 1, 2024. >> commissioners, hi. so, once again, erinficial planning director here today to talk about the rates for fwo power business lines for next fiscal year. i'll start with a overview where we are in the power rate setting process, talk about communications around this rate increase and then dive into proposal for clean powersf and hetch hetchy. beginning high level, our last study completed in 2022. this is required by the charter

we have a independent consultant come in at least every 5 years. at the time, wem only adopted one to two years of rates for each power business lines in light of the fact there is a lot of uncertainty and volility in the cost and power supply market now. we didn't feel we could commit to 3 or 4 rates. a key thing i'll call out from that rate study is we are now setting our rates for business lines at our cost of service and no longer follow pg&e. we care about pg&e. the power enterprise operates in a competitive environment but we set our rates based on business and priorities and that is huge improvalment and financial sustainable for the business. the next rate study will be completed in spring 2026. the set rates for the subsequent fiscal year. we are getting started on request for proposal now.

a lot of structural chairchgs we might think of changing will be looked at in that rate study. the proposal today is update to the rates in the model developed by the rate consultant in the last study to keep going with the work they did. i want to highlight the communications done as part of this rate proposal. to keep the customers and public informed the communication team developmented and implemented a plan to communicate to hetch hetchy power and clean powersf through various tactics. early marched launched a landing page and that is one stop shop for information on the rate process and proposed changes. in april, hetch hetchy power and clean power sf received notification of rate change from on bill messagex postcards and customer e-mails. we also had informational webinars held for residential customers to learn more about the rate changes and get questions.

rate notifications were made available in multiple languages. as new rates adopted today our communication team will implement additional communications between now and july 1 to make sure customers are aware of the adopted rate changes. ial want to thank the communication staff. they have gone above and beyond the legal requirement to make sure we are getting this information in front of customers to allow comments ahead of this hearing and to inform of the rate increase on the bill if we pass these two items. turning to the rate proposals. starting with clean power sf. in 2022, the rate study only adopt adsingle year of rates for clean power sf for the rates for 23-24 were updated by staff using the model from the rate study and updated customer data and expense data. the goal for that same process this year are to keep an eye on competitiveness with pg&e, make sure rates are equitable for

customers and what we mean by equity is we follow the cost of service. in addition, clean powersf needs to continue to build fund balance reserve. i'll talk more about that but that is big driver of the rate increase. i also want to before i dive into the specific proposal remind everyone of the way clean powersf rates work. as community choice agigator we are tied to pg&e. the rate schedules have to match what pg&e has so 7 different retail residential customer rates. we have 7 different residential customer rates. in addition we control a portion of the bill. the graph shows comparson between the average clean powersf bill compared to pg&e bill if they are in san francisco. we control the green wedge, the $35 portion. that is it. our customers also pay various fees to pg&e and delivery charges. it is important to remember that our

rate increases are very substantive, they are not the whole picture and we know recently customers in san francisco and california really pg&e service area have experienced a lot of major rate increases so that is the environment we are looking at the rate increases and we want to keep an eye on that. currently, i am happy to say clean powersf rates are below pg&e for every customer class and you see that with the bill comparison. the proposed rate update is a 8 and a half percent over 37 all rate increase to our total revenues collected from rates. the reason that is phrased oddly is because we also updated the cost of service allocation. what that means is each customer rate may go up by higher or lower then that 8 and a half percent, but 8 and a half percent is increase in revenue coming into clean powersf from the rate increase. i'll show examples what that looks like on customer bills on the nerks

slides. the slides is taking the 10 year financial plan and budget updating with the latest information about customer billing and usage and then flowing that through to the cost functionalization and allocation model developed as part of the last rate study. for the rates design, because again we don't have a lot of flexibility to implement major rate structure improvement that don't follow pg&e and we don't want to make big changes outsicide a rate study without a thought, we keep the rate structure consistent so not making changes to the portion of the bills coming from demand charges versus energy charges . clean power sf because customer can opt out to pg&e, important to keep a eye on how competitive we are. looking at all the major customer rate schedules and compare how we look versus pg&e. so, our rate increases are primarily

driveen by two thinks, customer volm and expenses. clean powersf we rolled out the program and recent years like the last year we had a slight up tick in usage. this is because there is a big increase and large commercial customer class from enrollment from customers required to get 100 percent renewable energy and looking to take advantage of the super green program. we don't anticipate major increase. it is mostly electrification. on the expense side as mentioned there is a lot of volatility in the power supply market. the cost of performsing power and complying with regulatory requirements such as resource adequacy requirementicize a big increase in recent years so something we are grappling with. the other big thing driving increases is really meeting our fund balance reserve targets. this slide is a update to the 10 year financial plan presentsed to this commission. we put in the latest data, latest

forecast so it different and this is the numbers used to set the rates. i want to highlight at the bottom the days cash on hand which is one of the key financial metric. clean powersf launched in 2016, it is a new program and we don't have as many reserves. we adopted a new reserve policy that looks at other cca and said what is a good amount of days cash on hand in case of huge price volatility, which we have seen. inlectomy that, it is challenging to build reserves because we are having to spend our reserve to deal with the volatility we need the reserves there for. as a result, we are building up to 180 days target next two fiscal year out and ending 25-26 as you see on the bottom row. that requires 8 and a half percent increase next year and 6 and a half percent increase in the generation portion of the bill in the subsequent year. we will meet reserve targets

and hoping the power supply cost level off and we can drop down and not have as many rate increases. this is a busy slide andile wrr go to the actual bill comparison which i think are easier to read. this is a summary of what that cost of service allocation shows. each bar represents a different customer class with residential on the left and moving through our various commercial or general service customer types in the middle. at the top you have dollars per kwh average all in cost. the average all in cost to provide power service to those cust marchs. the two different wedges of the bar represent the two different cost buckets relevant for clean powersf. as you see the vast majority of cost are driven by power supply unsurprising. the orange bar is representing customer cost which is billing, customer service and customer programs. p for example, the residential customers because there are so many, they are the most class and get

a big chunk of the cost. at it bottom you see a percentage and thais goes back to the statement i made, the revenue are up by 8 and a half percent, each customer clas go up more or less then that. so, for example residential customer rates are going up by higher then 8 and a half percent. that is the outcome of service allocation. i want to highlight the large general service customer class who are having a decrease in cost of service, because we had such increase in sign ups, that increases the cost to provide service to all the new customers, but the average per kwh has gone down to pride service and you will see that on bill impacts. this slide is showing the average bill on the left today versus pg&e versus on the right proposed rates effective july 1. so, again we are focused on the green portion of the bill we can

control but we know customers experience the entire bill so we have to look at the whole thing. we believe customers average rates for residential go from $101 today to $108 beginning in july. it is important to note however that that is a $7 month increase, only $4 that increase is coming from the green wedge, the clean powersf generation. the rest is forecasting pg&e will have yet another increase in the delivery rates on july 1. that is the fourth one they had so far this calendar year. with this increase we will be essentially the same as pg&e effective rates beginning in july. we increase our rates once a fiscal year and stay in place, pg&e goes up and down many times a year so this is a forecast and it can and will change as time goes on. i'll also note we rounded every number in the slide just so it is fewer

numbers oen the slide so foyou start add them up and don't total it is because of rounding. now focus on two different general service customers which is commercial everything not residential. the small general service is the smallest customer class. you think as a small store front. something like that. as you can see in the slide we are seeing increase for all these customers but with the increase we still forecasting we will be quite competitive with pg&e offering the significant discount. finally, this is the large general service so that is the biggest commercial customer class. the scale changed. these are bills in thousand and these customers pay a lot for their energy. again, you see the bill is going up, but as noted oen the slide, the green portion of clean powersf is decrease because our cost to serve these customers on average decreased. these customers who just signed

are going to receive significant discount versus whauts they would pay with pg&e. turning now to hetch hetchy power. the 2022 power rate study adopted two year of rates. this is our first year doing this interim stefupdate. we follow the same process however. the key goals of the update are make sure we set rates to achieve financial policy goals and the debt services coverage is the main driver. i'll talk about when we show the financial plan. then it is also to continue the rate consolidation and transition cost of service. so, hetch hetchy power been around longer then clean powersf the rate struck dhr is historical and had a lot of oddities and the big [indiscernible] and get rid of disparities historically. we are still in the process of doing that and this proposal

continues. we got four different buckets of rates. the first two are rates that are currently below cost of service. those are general use or goosy rates charged to general fund departments education district such as sfucd and community college district and other governmental agencies. these are all less then the cost of service so we are increasing by the effective rate of 3 cents per kilo watt area each year until they reach cost of service. when nay do that they are the same as retail and eliminate that general fund rate. the tuolumne county rates are tiny number of customers in tuolumne county. they were set many years ago and below cost of service increase by 3 cents as well. finally, we have hetch hetchy retail rates which is our standard rate if you signed with hetch hetchy you are on retail rate. our enterprise rates which are rates charged to municipal departments not on the general use rates including the airport, enterprise department such as

water and wastewater enterprise and tenants of the port. those enterprise and retail rates as of the current fiscal year for all most every rate schedule are identical. this is big goal trying to standardize and consolidate so move together over the two years that result from the rate study. our proposal for hetch hetchy power is a 12 percent flat rate increase for retail rates. the distinction we did not update the cost of service. we look said at it and decided that based on some changes in the groupings of customers a lot of stuff happening with consolidation, the data wasn't there to feel we were confident we accurately reflect the cost of service so we apply the 12 percent rate increase across the board to every rate schedule. we went through much of the same process as clean power sf updating revenue required and looking at the functionalization and saying stick with the 12 percent and working on

rate design. there is more story with rate design then clean powersf because we have more flexibility to change our rate structures. briefly touching on the drivers of the cost increases, unlike clean powersf, hetch hetchy power is forecasting significant growth over the next 10 years. that is part of the business plan. we have the growth incorporated into the forecast and tried to be conservative and don't want to bank on growth so don't say if a developer says i'm opening this apartment building next year, we say you might open in two years and take a while to ramp up. we put those assumptions in. we got the volume we are projecting for each customer class and also got the costs. again, the big story is increases in our power supply and delivery charges. for hetch hetchy that includes having to procure when we are not generating enough energy to meet the customer bay base and the cost to transmit

the power to pay fee tuesday california iso and cost to distribute the power in cities through the wholesale distribution tariff paid to pg&e. this again is the cash flow updated financial plan for hetch hetchy power and i particularly want to highlight a couple things here. down at the bottom we pulled outthe key financial metric and that is current year debt service coverage. hetch hetchy has seen massive increase so as a result expenses have grown. current year debt service coverage. when we set our rates for two years and lock that in, and had a bick increase in costs, it is really brought down the debt service. our target is 1.1x and we are forecasting the current fiscal year we end below target and next fiscal year below as well. as a result, we have to

increase these rates in order to meet the financial policy. our coverage targets are very important to maintaining credit ratings to access power bonds when we need to do that, so thes is something we worked with the rating agency explained our financial plan and maib taining our positive rating which we did when hetch hetchy power sold power bonds and contingent upon making sure we meet the targets and bring the metric back up of our policy. the other thing i want to highlight is the net revenues for the next few years are negative. that is a good thing. hetch hetchy power is over the fund balance reserve target so one thing we are able to do to mitigate the rate increases is draw down on those reserves that is helping us to make sure that we are have enough cash to operate and you see that final debt service row when we include the reserve it is much higher number and that is part of the story. we have these reserves, we understand we take a few years to increase

the rates and catch up but we use the reserve in the mean time. insuring we don't have higher rate increases because 12 percent is a big number. the things different on rate design. since enterprise and reetail rates are the same, we are excited from administration standpoint is we are consolidating the rates. the vast majority they are identical. a small commercial enterprise is small commercial rethail and now one rate schedule and everybody moved to that single rate schedule. there were a few differences between the two rate scheduled. we spnt time looking low customer bills, talking pros and cons and how to deal with them. very simply and happy to provide information on any, we standardsize low income discount so all get a 30 percent discount. there used to be discrepancy in enterprise versus retail. we have outdated master meter

residential meter rates and moving to customer rates. you don't build mast er meter power, these are all old buildings planned [indiscernible] and finally, there is a few rates on the enterprise side time of use rates. we didn't want to eliminate those because there are customers signed up for them, but they dont necessarily reflect the right time of use periods modeled on pg&e old time of use period because enterprise rates are modeled on pg&e so allow no new enrollment but customers can stay where they are and it next rate study we examine [indiscernible] finally, i'll move through these. two additional odd things in the rate increases. we are making changes to power rate the rate charges to cruise ships. we work with the port to do this to help with aed mainstration of the rates

and make sure we are not putting barrier to cruise ship and tuolumne rates are below cost of services so increased byal 50 percent or 3 cents per kilo watt hour. this will be visited in the next rate study. ending with bill comparison. this is residential customer class. the orange bars are the standard hetch hetchy retail rates. you can see it is going up $85 to $95. i don't want to say that is small increase but the good news, the blue bars are pg&e equivalent and we are significantly lower then pg&e. public power provides a great benefit to our customers. the purple bars are customers enrolled in discount program, they get a 30 percent discount on their bill. this is small commercial customer class. again, orange bar are

standsered retail and blue is comparison. the green bar represent the general use rate. that is for mostly general fund departments so city county of san francisco. again, i don'ts want to stay these are small increases, because we know they impact customers but we provide a really significant discount. and finally our largest customer class, i didn't include the pg&e bar because their default rate struck dhr is so different from ours we didn't have a good build billing data to calculate. i assure we are still significantly lower then pge even where our rate increases. that's it. happy to take any questions. >> thank you very much for that very thorough explanation and presentation. thank you for not having any algebra equations in there. i was going back to high school algebra on the last presentation and

didn't do very well. commissioner ajami, you have comments? >> thank you. thank you so much for that presentation. question for you. this new rate setting that has just i think just approved at cpuc that the power entities are going to-investor owned power utilities have a fixed ed charge, trying to figure how to set the rates. is that going to impact pg&e bills? are we looking into that ore that is something still not sure how it will impact the bill? >> yeah, just for context, the cpuc recently has asked the utilities to increase fixed monthly charge and decrease [indiscernible] that is going into effect but not until 2026

for pg&e rates so when we do our rate study we will look at that and thinking about that since that is the way power rates are moving h. a lot of the goals of doing that having a higher fixed charge allow customers all electric or customers who have ev charging them is it is beneficial to them. since that st. the way we are movering in san francisco and want to support climate goals that is something we plan to look into. are our rates for next year we aret nochanging fixed versus variable porg of it the rates. the clean powersf side of the bill, the pg&e fixed monthly service charge is part of the delivery charges so when that goes into effect in 2026 that will impact our clean powersf customers but not it generation portion. pg&e generation rates will be volmetic so that is something we look into. when we adopt the rates withed we want a fixed charge when the

equivalent pg&e portion doesn't. it is always complicated. >> i didn't realize the generation portion is volm etic? gerous that is my understanding. i thought-we'll see how it implemented. i thought go ing to go into effect 2025 but it is 2026? >> my understanding. breaking news, so i apologize if any power people if i made a mistake. please correct me, but yes. >> okay. it is like interesting to watch how they evolve because that's going to impact how our rates are competitive with them or how in the long run if we end up get to that point we need some strategy in place- >> absolutely. i can tell from the webinars and public outreach, this is big question coming in so people are hearing about this and

something on their mind. >> thank you. >> i think we can open up to public comment. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you like to amount caon comment on 8 and 9? any members who wish to comment on these item? >> i think we are on items 13 and 14. >> sorry about that. >> no problem. >> sorry, item 13 and 14. sorry about that. do we wish to have any members of the public who wish to comment on items 13 and 14? seeing none, moderator do we have any callers who like to provide remote comment on items 13 and 14? >> there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is now closed for items 13 and 14. we will vote on these items

separately, so i like to ask for a motion and second to approve item 13. >> i move 13. >> second. >> can we have roll call, please? >> sure. rivera-- >> is this for item 13 or 14? >> thank you for coming. >> afternoon commissioners. my name is jay. this is brian and together we represent [indiscernible] employee owned electric firm based ichb in san francisco. i like to express gratitude towards clean powersf for their continual efforts enhancing our city green energy infrastructure in particular

the inverted replacement program, which successfully restored over 174 orphaned system and net compensation for solar producers. with the proposed rate changes of clean power sf, i understand there may be potential funds allocated towards boosting city renewable energy usage which is great thing, and i want to also say that is important to recognize that the largest portion of our solar power both residential and commercial is generated by small businesses such as al bian, [indiscernible] all by solar, my own firm and many others. my question is, because solar has risen in cost, specifically battery requirement for effective pay back period and soon due to the fixed cost coming with pg&e, are you guys planning on at all reviving any aspect of go solar sf, maybe expanding upon

the existing dac territory and access to installers beyaunds grid alternative to private businesses? that's all. >> i think that is the just of it. just wondering if go solar sf--no. thank >> thank you for your comments. we appreciate it. public comment is now closed for real this time, okay? >> we dont really engage in conversation on public comment since you asked the question. >> alrighty. can i please have a motion for item 13? >> we had the moge. >> okay, i apologize. all mixed up now. motion for item 14, please? >> we need to do roll call for item 13. >> alright. can i have roll call vote for item 13,

please? >> rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. three ayes. >> can we have a motion for item 14? >> can i ask a quick question on hetch hetchy power? i have a question on the enterprise rates. i was very surprised to see only airport and the port and us are part that, so wondering like how did that whole thing happen? >> thank you. the structure is historically based. which departments are on enterprise rates established in 1989 resolution adopted them and never been changed. i obviously do not all the backgrounds into that but my understanding it was a negotiated process between the city departments and the mayor's

office at the time. >> okay. i can guess maybe it is the ones with revenue versus the ones that don't have revenue, so make sense. >> enterprise portion is that we are a enterprise department and generate our own revenue. it is messy because mta is a enterprise department and yes they are on the general use rates, so it is not always clear cut. >> yeah. yes. that makes a lot of sense. >> i should clarify, some of the portions of mta are on enterprise rates. if is the ones parking garages and they jen rate revenue, but for example the transit lines which use a ton of power are not the general use rates. >> interesting. okay. thank you. maybe because the kids riding those for free. just joking. thank you. >> okay, can i have a motion to approve item 14? >> i move to adopt the rates.

>> i'll second. >> can we have roll call, please? >> rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. you have three ayes. >> motion passes. can we move to the next item, please? >> item 15, communications. >> alright. can we move to the next item? >> item 16, items initiated by commissioners. >> okay. commissioners, do you have any items you like to discuss? commissioner stacey. >> thank you. i was looking at our advanced calendar and see june 11 we'll get another report on the alternative water supply and when we receive that plan document in february, we did not have public hearing at that time, so i would like to be sure that we have a public hearing on alternative water supply either at that june 11 hearing

or later in august. i think it is on advanced calendar for june 11, but i like a public hearing with a opportunity for the public to comment on the alternative water supply and also for the commissioners to weigh in if we can do that, i would appreciate it. >> okay, thank you very much. commissioner ajami. >> i was looking at our water supply conditions update, which mr. ritchie used to give us that update every commission meeting and now they are like into the communication piece and i just want to say, i was surprised how much demand has gone up. it is all most like back in the 2013 levels. sorry, i misspoke. i will go back to the slide and just say it correctly. we are in 2023 levels which is

sort of surprises me like how the 2024 has been above that line the entire year, so i was wondering, at some point maybe mr. ritchie can tell us what's going on in the wholesale customer side and how this is happening. i don't know if that's going to happen now or needs to be scheduled for the next meeting or-- >> [indiscernible] >> okay. yeah, i just wanted to say it is good to have that weekly monthly or biweekly update once a month back to make sure we have a sense of what's geing on with the water supply. and like to see mr. ritchie up on the podium.

>> alrighty. i think we open up to public comment. >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 16. any membersprint who wish to comment on this item? seeing none, moderator, any callers who wish to have their hands raised? >> there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> public comment is now closed on item 16. i like for the commission secretary to read matters to be heard during closed session and then open up public comment. >> autom 17, public comment on the matter to be aaddressed during closed session. conference with legal council. proezpoal settlement pr property damage resulting from september 10, 2023 break of walter transmission pipeline at the intersection of fillmore and green

streets with the city to pay the claimant the settlement amouchbt as noted on the agenda and exchange for full and final release. the approval is final under the delegated authority granted by the board of supervisors. >> alright. please read the next item. >> item 18 , motion whether to assert the attorney client privilege? >> motion - >> dids we have public comment on whether to go into closed session? >> remote callers, raise your hand if you wish to comment on item number 18. any members of the public who wish to provide comment?

seeing none, moderator, any remote callers who like to provide comment? >> there are no callers who wish to be recognized. >> thank you. >> alright. may i have a motion whether to assert attorney client privilege regarding the attorney matters. >> move to assert attorney client privilege. >> i second that. >> may we have roll call vote, please? >> rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye. you have three ayes. >> alright. [meeting reconvened] >> we are out of closed session. the item number 20, the

commission is recommending that the board approve the settlement referenced in item 19. please read the next item. >> 21, motion to disclose the discussion during closed session pursuant to 67.12a. >> i like to request a motion not to disclose discussion during closed session. >> i move not to disclose discussions. >> second. >> may we have a roll call vote, please? >> rivera, aye. ajami, aye. stacey, aye . 3 ayes. >> meeting adjourned. thank you. [meeting adjourned]

>> this job, it's really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this job without other people. i make sure that all the regulatory and nonregulatory samples get to access in a timely manner. we have groundwater samples, you name it, we have to sample it every day. i have ten technicians, very good team. we work together to attain this sampling. >> a sample is only as good as when you collect properly. if sample is not collect properly according to not the proper protocol, the sample could be biased, could be false positive or could be false negative. so all this to have good so you

can manage the sample collectors, as well as the schedule, and she is pretty good, and she is very thorough. and so far, i think that she is performing a very good job. >> this job is really not an i job. i wouldn't be able to do this job without my team. you can assign them any job, they can handle it, and again, without them, i wouldn't be here. i take pride, you know, for what i do. we are providing a very good water department. my name is roselle, and i have been working with the water department

[gavel] >> m. dorsey: good morming this is the may 14th, 2024 meeting of the timma board. i am matt dorsey and i serve as chair of the timma board. vice chair is rafael mandelman. thank you to sfgovtv for broadcasting today's meeting today. our clerk today s yvette lopez-jessop.ve i wouldje like to excuse commissioner ronan who is not able to join us today and i'm informed that commissioner stephanie is late but joining us sortly. >> clerk: good morning. commissioner chang. chang absent. chair dorsey.