Transcripts For SFGTV PUblic Utilities Commission 42616 20160502

To call the meeting of the Public Utility Commission for San Francisco to order. Mdm. Sec. , can you please call roll. [roll call] the next order of business is the approval of the meeting of march 22, 2016. I move. Seconded. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. The Meeting Minutes are approved. The next order of business is Public Comment. Members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commissions jurisdiction and are not on todays agenda. Camp may 3 is opening on may 29 we urge you to come and rest and have a good time and do not worry about anything. Bring all of your relatives and friends and is just a time to get away. Just do not forget. Camp mather starts on the 29th and and in august and we have a volunteer leader they are so make sure to say hello to them. And it is a time to get away and to rest and relax. Good wishes for the days ahead. We hope that water continues to be there on our agenda and we hope that you are there to help us in all of the directions that we go. Thank you very much, byebye. Thank you very much. Ive always heard that the parks are very good at taking care of kids. Any others . Mr. Dacosta. How are you all. I have not seen you all in a long time. There is a lot happening in the southeast sector there is a new commissioner and whether you like it or not they are a part of what is happening. I would like during the general Public Comment to talk aboutdr. Espinola jackson. Now that she is gone a lot of people call me. Having received hundreds of telephone calls i have no idea what is happening. I am not a telephone operator or secretary or whatever. I choose what i have to do and i focus on that. Right now there is some confusion about 1800 Community Facility Commission Building and what i would suggest is that a onepage fact sheet be put out there on exactly what we want to do with it whatever it is. The community is confused. It has become much more convoluted. I have direct access to the general manager and it is not his fault but it may have something to do with how we communicate and who ever is in charge of that situation in San Francisco, we have a facility that is supposed to serve the community and at that time the leaders were supposed to focus on education. In thhe year of 2016 we may think we could use it for Something Else or for another building or build it somewhere else or whatever but lets run it by the community because what i do not want to happen is some of those that want direct action i do not want direct action to take place. We need to have focus meetings where everyone is more or less on the same page. They may not agree but at least they can be on the same page. The commissioners cannot be doing things through Remote Control okay. [timer dings] i am here before the Public Utilities commission and and i am asking you this and i thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Currently, this is a tool to define what disadvantaged communities mean. The impact of this tool is extraordinary. Let me emphasize that bright lineis a tool that has effectiveness but its effect on the bay area has not been good. It has transportation disadvantage, low income just by the way of example Alameda County only 32 rank as disadvantage and these are the community of san ratify out and san mateo is 22 and finally San Francisco most significantly48 would rank as disadvantage and only 3 under callan buyers screening. This commission has shown its dedication to it over the years and specifically in this last month recognizing dr. Jacksonwhose belief was that her community needed more and more resources because it was falling behind. The callan byers screening could be better as far back as 2014 under general managers kellys leadership to improve to make sure they a better leadership and to make sure this was analyzed. And finally that the efforts are worth looking at the find out how they could better be included in this pool. Thank you very much. Any other general Public Comment . Seeing none. We will move on to the next item which is communications. Commissioners, any comments or questions . I will turn the gavel over to our pres. Thank you. Welcome. We are on communications and i had a couple of comments. One is with respect to item 5e. First of all, i would appreciate the report from staff and i appreciate the usefulness and the candor that came along with the report. It shows the wisdom of our technology policy. It says we will push the envelope a little bit on Emergent Technology and we will test it on a pilot level before we recommend those to the city before we and barge on the building so im thankful for the technological all policy. The larger question had to do with an audit that the city controller did of the current practices in the city. The audit was quite critical of the citys procurement practices and the changes to those practices within the organizations as well and this is not something that is part of our jurisdictionso we do not have responsibility for it but on the other hand we buy a lot of stuff so we have a lot of interest in it. So the question that i really want to get to is do we as a city by the basic premise of the auditors report do we think that there are efficiencies needed in the procurement prior to and do we think that they are on the right track and if i can have at some point a response to those questions i would appreciate that. That is all my comment. Thank you that was communications. I see we have 2 Public Comment cards. Have we taken those . Okay, great. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on communications . Hearing none. Next item please. Item 6 is other communication business im sorry, commissioner courtney. I do not believe that we mentioned this i was wondering that are in it mean we have more discussion about that . Yes. Thank you. Commissioner courtney. Thanks to all of your help and participation especially your general manager kelly, the folks out there with the help of the Mayors Office at the Workforce Development had converted a very, very, old, dated storage unit into a community classroomi just want to put it on the commissions radar and make sure that in the the you know the in the future that there arepeople participating in the education and participation components of thisthank you. Thank you so much for your leadership on that work. We really appreciate it. Any other business . Next item please. Item 7 is the report of the general manager. The 1st item is the drought update by stephen ritchie. If i can have the slides please. This is our reservoir storage levels. As you can see the water bank now has 1000 acres her feet of water and our total storage isat a 97 maximum. At this time a year this is usually at a 79 so theyre looking a lot better than they have in the last 4 years. We did on april 1 have a field reportand we covered this area with black balls as you can see here and i to commissioner come up and say when did we do that . And i had this completed by a professor at uc davis. The snowpack is having its particular pack downward this year so the weather is looking good currently. Upcountryof the numbers on the upper right are the ones to focus on here. They are more than the average annually at hetch hetchy the same is true for the bay area here as well for a bay area station. So, again this is a better than average year at the precipitation at the upcountry area and locally. Tuolomne water station if we have currently 800 acrefeet so we are just under completely full so we have a possibility of filling the entire system this year which again is a nice position to finally be in after these years of drought. Conservation people are continuing to observe. We had a hot spell a couple of weeks ago where actually the demand jumped up to 2015 levels and if we saw 2015 levels this year i think particularly eric would be happier because that would enforce something right now so the waters have come back down and people are getting concerned and that is true of some of our customers as well. Lastly, our state water board has adopted regulations in the past and they had a workshop this past wednesday about continuing those. Many water agencies are saying g, we have a lot more water the sheer c should back off some of these regulations. You should back off of those considerations of hat they have had this year. I think that will eliminate them somewhat but not completely eliminate them. Certainly in the drought. They will expect to act on 18 may. We will come back in may with potential modifications to what we are requiring of our customers here but certainly i think we are in the same boat and the matter what we do there will be nothing that we would say stop conserving. That would never be the message. We always have to conserve. We always have to confirm that next year could be a drop your. We will be happy to answer any questions. Commissioners . Thank you for the good news. Are we expecting any drought this year . Weve had 6 consecutive months of being above average except for one we been above average up there. Next order of business is item 7 b, ocean beach update by for the 2nd 3, if we set rates the way we recommended here we would need 330 increases to beat the cost of service by 2021. 3 additional, that was one of the issues that i wanted to bring up and i was hoping that we could come up with a timeline and a process in the guse rates as well. Im not sure how that was arrived at but im sure there could be an issue there and im not sure if we have to have a conversation with this but i would like to find a time to talk about these as we move forward. The 2nd is the question of the reserve policy which i believe is important. You put out a 60 million figures so some thoughts or ideas on how we make it to that as well. The 3rd is the question which i really do not quite understand but is the 1989 resolution on setting the standard rates. It seems as though was a long time ago and i imagine that is due for every visit. And then the 4th is the question of the cost of service and how we can get there. I think all of those are going to have a lot in them and they should be part of the Business Plan if not a separate time that we really put aside to try and analyze that and see how we can get that to a more comfortable level. Was there a thought of increasing it more . The general rates or the guse rates . Yes, of course, always. Given the fact that you look around and you look at all of the construction going on and you think that the city is doing well and unfortunately the city departments and the city was asked to take a budget cut of one and a half percent and it was based on 3 items. One was the mortality rate was higher and the 2nd was losing the lawsuit and although we are showing this timing of asking of this was timing. So, we asked anyway and i think that you know, i think the mayors budgetoffice is more accepting of doing a longterm commitment than during a transition which i think is significant if we can get a commitment and then the next thing is to make sure that they follow the commitment and hopefully we can do that within this present administration. Commissioners, anything else on this item . So, there is no action right now. And, we will be taking action at the next meeting. Yes. And, we also have kevin chong from the rate fairness board to present their perspective o our proposal. Is that right now . Yes. I have a question. What is your timing . I think we have a game plan. It seems like we have some recommendations before is that we can think on on the next month before we vote. I dont think any of these 4 items would prevent us from taking action on this item but i think in the next 2 years we need a game plan to help better understand what we might need to do on those 4 pieces to bridge some of that financial gap as well as visit some of the policies that need to be updated. I think it fits very well under the financial plan. Commissioner, one thing that i think may be helpful is that some of those issues are going to take a wild to work out. I think by our next meeting we are not going to have everybody on board with all of the information we need to have. I would like to have some expression of the resolution of if i would adopt the direct staff and i dont know what the exact language is but we have a ways to figure it out but basically the direct staff can develop that plan in a way that gets us to recovering the cost of service over a reasonable period of time. The way that is written now it is basically saying this is the 1st 2 years and we will deal with the rest as the time goes on. I would like the resolution to say here is the 1st 2 years and we recognize theres more work that needs to be done and we are committed to doing it. And, the goal of the recovery of cost of service being written in their. That would make a lot of sense. Also a timeline that we would hope to accomplish that. We went through that in the slide. Low good afternoon. My name is kevin chang my name is kevin chang i am on the rate fairness board. What you reached in 5 minutes of discussion it took us 5 meetings and we would like to give you the benefit of those discussions. Just as a way of background as cfo sandler mentioned earlier the independent rate study came as a result of a requirement and our role as the rate fairness board came as a result of prob b. The rate fairness board is more art than science and coming to a conclusion as to whether or not these rates are fair. We can have some discussion as to whether these proposed rates are fair as we dive into out different classes are paying different rates. This is a little bit hard to read but here are basic observations as the rate fairness board. 1st just on the study itself the board believes that it has been thoroughly by both the staff consultant analysis and communication have eliminated different ways that customers can pay and how the rate can be set and more communication wi the board and the public. We think the staff has taken great effort to make sure the information is available to the public. As cfo sandler mentioned, the staff recommendation and the consultant recommendations are just book and as how we can bring the entire enterprise into the cost of service. The key difference between the consultants presentation and recommendation of staff is 1st of all it brings our resources of cuts to a 10 year power plan. The recommendations currently would not bring us the cuts that we proposed in the past. The set proposals would not reflect what is recommended by the consultant for best ractices. And also we see these dramatic increases on rates 3, 4, and 5. We saw this kind of chart earlier by cfo sandler on this proposal issue but as far as the residential rates this yellow line represents pg e. Red line represents the cost of service. The green and light blue lines are the consultant proposal and the staff proposal andthe darker blue line is the current rate that the customers are being charged. If you move on to the guse or general fund customers you can see what they are being charge. If you look at the enterprise customers, those customers are being charged above the redline. If we look across all customer classes, i think the most important part is that is deftly well below pg e rates but the question of how we get the blue and green lines in line with the red is a challenge and its a challenge with the rate fairness board as far as giving a fair recommendation and it is a challenge with the commission on how they will adopt appropriate rates. Here are the concerns and issues that the rate fairness board has come up with after 5 sessions of meeting with the consultants and staff. The 1st is that the proposed half cent increase over the next 2 fiscal years is not sustainable. The nonguse will be way above the cost of service and the guse will be well below. And we do not believe this is one of the best practices for conserving. This is not where we will need to be as far as an enterprise of operation and if we dig deeper into the classes some customers we paying way more than they should be paying and others will be paying less. So the half cent increase is just not sustainable. The 2nd is that the the 2nd is that theguse rate customers need time to process this change. If the question is is this fair i think we know what the answer is. But how fast we make this and how deep and how severei think that is what we can say at this point as far as where fairness stands. One thing that we can say for the goosy customers is that we have looked at the water and sewer rates in the past and we have been able to adjust those rate increases since 2001. It is not that they have not went through this process before they have done it and done it successfully. The question is how and where over the next4 years going forward. So we recommend that they remain at the set rates below and we recommend that the consultant and staff come back to the rate fairness board and the commission to set rates for a threeyear and a fiveyear plan with the goal that we revisit the councils recommendations and that we gently increase the guze rates and decrease the nonguse. So thats what were saying right now im more detailed plan and then to call back the board to set these rates and then thats what we would recommend to you for years 3, 4 and 5. The next is that we wanted to touch on the power enterprise rates for the next 2 years as well. Thank you. Can i ask you a question on something that you said and i didnt really see it in your set of recommendations here. And, we did not really talk about it and that is restoring the cuts of the past question. Because, you are primarily focused on the cost of service but in a perfect world, we would go and above and beyond that, right . We would not only go above and beyond the cost of service but we would discuss past cuts and there is some restoration we would have to do in the community. Did you look at that . We did. These were proposed in the general plan. These were staff recommendations that were prepared prior to the rate study. We were assured that these were not fine all of the immediate enterprise andthey would not jeopardize the immediate enterprise and ot only in an ideal road but that these cuts do need to be restored but the question is when and how. I would like to add that as a 5th item if possible and if there is a capital line or some other line and if there is anything that we can plan for to restore the past cuts that may have been significant. I do not know about restoring past cuts because we are not for profit. We actually defer projects so one of the things that we would do is bring up more projects on which the cost of service will go up. I think that the one thing is we want to restore the reserves to a healthy level so that it helps with our bond but is not discretionary. What we do is what we do and the cost of services where we want to get to and if we have the ability to raise rates then we will improve our ability to bring our assets into a state of good repair. I mean, that is just a limitation that we have. There is nothing on that list though . I mean i know we all have lists that we want to do, but given our financial situation we do what we must do not we would like to do. But, in the forward projection it makes sense to build that back in. At the same time it is the same kind of issue as rates and reserve issues dealing with pension liabilities and things like that and we want the funds the things that we know differently. The other thing that we know is that once we get to a point where we are giving everyone the cost of service we have to look at affordability and not the competition. And you know, those are 2 things, although we are looking. I think we showed this in our Business Plan that we have a lot of assets up there and we do not have as many customers to spread around and that is why building our Customer Base so that when we look at the cost of service that over time will not exceed pg es cost. Because, at the end of the day we want to have our electricity be cheaper than pg es cost of service. Anything else commissioners . Thank you very much. So, there is no action on that either. Any Public Comment on the presentation by the rate fairness board . Or, any items on rates say . Hello pres. Vietor, and commissioners. My name is jeff i do not plan on speaking on this today. But it occurs to me that there should be some cost with the overflowing freeness and the waste that we retrieve it. I do not think that the customers are necessarily using this as efficiently as they could be. I believe there is some argument that increasing the resource to this might cause ore efficient use. There has been multiple news stories about that sfpca and they are running lots of energy out in the yard of potrero. Theres lots of energy that we do not need to be using. I think if we could push maximum Energy Efficiency to the city and county we advocate in not just city hall but lots of these municipal buildings but if we really communicate with how the city operates and we renew that infrastructure that is feasible unavailable to us that would decrease the load overall in the city and county that this general fund customers would be pulling from you which would then make them more able to countenance rate increases which the puc needs in order to reach cost of service so obviously it will not increase the total revenues while decreasing their load and increasing the price theyre paying you and it would help to provide a gui path to get the city and count the to a rate that is reasonable and the city departments that we rely on not in any intense cuts. I think for the same that was the point for me. Unless we have a customer for the cost that we save it gets a little bit tricky. And we are looking at the efficiency for general fund, theyre really not paying a lot for it. If you look at the Capital Investment they actually but it is actually in the pucs best interest because they are losing money. So the puc will not have to pay the transmission distribution of the pg e. It makes sense and i totally agree that we need to get it to the cost of service and look for Energy Efficiency at the same time. Good afternoon commissioners. Eric brooks representing green brooks and the city of San Francisco. It was a great presentation i think we need to think about what were calling the cost of service. We are on a planet now where brandnew projections have come out that say that those protections are likely double what the sfpuc thought that they were and we are going through an Energy Transition that is massive and necessary and not just in clean power nsf program but in all programs. We need to create cuts for this Energy Efficiencies and as long as were staying under the pg e rate we need to do the same thing with the guse which will create this crisis that we will be experiencing in a decade or 2 so on the general fund i would not advocate these increases. They do not pay very much for their electricity in both them and the other customers need to really start seeing the price of old energy go up so we can create the demand for new energy so we can get places like the customers outside of the city of San Francisco outside of the hetch hetchy system. I would like you to raise as much revenue as you can and without exceeding the pg and e rates and staying within the rates of clean power sf. Any other Public Comment . Hearing none. Mdm. Sec. Next item. Next item is item14. Public hearing discussion and possible action to adopt a Net Energy Metering schedule for cleanpowersf nemcleanpowersf , rates for net surplus compensation for nemcleanpowersf customers, and new residential timeofuse rates, which would 1 direct the general manager to implement the nemcleanpowersf schedule for eligible cleanpowersf customers; 2 establish a net surplus Compensation Rate for eligible cleanpowersf nem customers if they are net electricity generators over the course of a 12month period; 3 direct the general manager to report back to the commission annually on the status of the nemcleanpowersf program; and 4 adopt new timeofuse rates for residential customers and authorize the general manager to periodically incorporate new rate schedules to ensure that cleanpowersf customers have rate offerings that are comparable to what they would receive as generation customers of pacific gas and Electric Company pg e , as long as those rates do not exceed pg e rates, less the power charge indifference adjustment and franchise fee surcharge. hale 15. Public hearing discussion and possible action to adopt a customer selfgeneration program implementing Net Energy Metering nem and shared Renewable Energy schedule which would 1 direct the general manager to implement a nem schedule for sfpuc retail electricity customers as required by Public Utilities code 2827; 2 find that based on the results of the customer generation Pilot Program at pier 1 and fort mason , share will not increase the expected revenue requirement from nonparticipating customers i. E. , cause Cost Shifting beyond what would otherwise occur under standard nem; 3 direct the general manager to implement the proposed Share Program, extending the benefits of nem to sfpuc electricity customers with multitenant and multimeter facilities located on the samtiguous properties; 4 direct the general manager to develop a net surplus electricity Compensation Rate, based on determination of the sfpucs generation rate, for eligible sfpuc electricity on the nem schedule if they are net electricity producers over the course of a 12month period; and 5 direct the general manager to report back to the commission annually on a the status of the customer selfgeneration program, including total. Just to be clear item 14 is an action item and item 15 is not. Good afternoon pres. And commissioners my name is barbara hale. And i am here to discuss the Net Energy Metering schedule for clean power sf. Using clean transit or environmentally friendly methods 100 your power is renewable. So, now it is telling mehang on 1 minute. I am having technical difficulties. [adjusting video] maybe we can come back to the movie later. I cannot get it up successfully. Will so we will go back to the presentation and the time of use rates items. Under the clean power sf program we want to establish comparable rate schedules. That is what you see in your packet. We would apply the same ratesetting methodology policies that you adopted for the clean power sf program in december which is the 0. 25 less than pg e equivalent generation rate for our customer and less power cost indifference adjustment and the franchise fee surcharges. We also request that the general manager have the authority to periodically implement new rate changes like this without having to come back to the commission. These time of use rates items are all part of 14 which are up for adoption today. Next is a general overview of Net Energy Meterings which are serving 2 groups of ratepayers so we are providing Net Energy Metering programs for our customers and that law include some boundaries and requirements on us and i have listed those here. Also, one of those which is part of the actions today is to establish a Compensation Rate for Surplus Energy that a customer with Renewable Generation behind their meters spills onto the grid. That sort of laid out what the state law required but what we want to get out of the state Energy Program is to encourage our existing customers to install solar. We want to provide an attractive Net Energy Metering compensation for our local Renewable Energy meter. We want to remain fair to our nonparticipating customers and we really want to keep it simple. These programs can get very complicated. Anyone who has solar on their roof and participates in a Net Energy Metering program understands that statement. You get a very complicated bill. And, for clean power sf, we just want to make sure that we encourage existing Net Energy Metering custommers to become our customers. So next i want to discuss what is the Net Energy Metering . Net energy allows customers to install an on site Renewable Energy system to receive bill credits off the grid. We received this at the last bill meeting this is a generation and consumption and this will show you how this works. This top graph shows a residential customer in San Francisco during the summer. Actually yes, during the summer. This red line represents the rooftop solar. The gold area im not talking about the lines but the yellow that shows on the screen here is the energy that is produced by the Solar Project consumed by the customer at their site. Then, the red area which is above the black line represents that energy that is in excess of the customers demand and it spilled to the grid. Under the Net Energy Metering the Utility Company reimburse the customer for that energy that spilled to the blue area of the graph. Thats what you see on the bottom part of the screen. That is the excess billing to the area during the times a day that the solar system is not producing. This arrangement is tracked over the course of a month and the customers net consumption or Net Generation is calculated. That kinda gives you the basics. Now lets talk about how we propose to use this for clean power sf in particular. With clean power sf, pg e is providing forlet me stop, i said that wrong. Without clean power sf pg e is responsible for the generation and the energy that they are providing. When you add clean power sf that is responsible for just the generation credits but pg e is responsible for the delivery. So, when you have solar on your roof and your spelling and we are assigning credits to that spill pge is assigning that credit to distribution charges that could be avoided and clean power sf is assigning charges for generation provided for having the energy on your roof. Specifically for the clean power sf customers, we propose they apply the rate schedule they are on to assign the value for that spill so that they get appropriate credit and that is consistent with the state law. We are proposing that for these charges that this be done monthly to avoid a large bill at the end of the year for customers that consume more energy than they use. Any credits that are generated in a month by a customer would be carried forward for use in the following month until we do an annual settlement process and we are proposing that that annual settlement process take pl. , april of each year. This would be in the april billing cycle. During that billing cycle we would take a look at back customers Consumption Patterns over the year and there generation pattern over the year and if they had more generation than they had consumption so they were a net generator, we would compensate them for that extra electricity that they provided to the grid. That spilled from their roof. That is where we are proposing a net surplus Compensation Rate. That rate and average green rate for our Green Program. The generation charge that we use for our Green Program on average and if that customer is not assigning the Renewable Energy credits associated with their solar system to us. If that customer is agreeing to assign the Renewable Energy credits associated with the kilowatt hours to us we would compensate them at the average super green rate. So, we are showing a differential to show that that Renewable Energy attribute has a value to the customer and to us so thats why were assigning this differential rate. So, i am going to pause there because im about to go on to the hetch hetchy power elements of you have any question about the Net Energy Metering items or the billable Energy Credits . I do have a question. What would they do if they did not assign those credits . What we did with those customers is when they signed up through rooftop solar through a power Purchase Agreement or a lease arrangement they committed those with an arrangement that they agreed with. They were not available to us. The kilowatt hours really that spill off their roof do not have a benefit to us. Under there are agreement from the get go this country said this should be assigned to the city. So youre saying that should be assigned to the city instead ofthat is one part i dont understand . Im suggesting that if you are a Net Energy Metering customer and you are a generator and you are giving them to your Energy Provider which would be clean power sf then they would pay for that at that Renewable Power energy rate. Theen, potentially what were talking about here though is that at the end of the settlement period, at the and of the annual true up period if you will we are actually writing the customer a check. You are expecting that that amount will be small . Yes. We took that sample and we applied this program to it. What it turned out is that customers that put solar energy on the roof for customers that tend to use a lot of electricity. Most San Francisco roofs are small so they tend to be not net generators yet consumers. We are finding that most customers it because they probably will not at the end of the year be due a payment the customers of the net Energy Program it is advantageous to have them in the program but it should only cost is about 100,000 year net compensation payout. If you were setting out on purpose to generate a lot of excess that be something to a different tariff . Under the state law to Energy Metering program tariffs youre supposed to energize the system to your consumption. So this would be appropriate for customers that would be just looking to generate electricity for sale and we are coming to you with those Program Proposals over the next couple months. Thank you. Okay, are you ready to move on to hetch hetchy power than . Yes, great. So for hetch hetchy power were going to do just like we did for the Net Energy Meeting program. We are going to go over the hetch hetchy Power Program as well as a Pilot Program. And we will go over a standard Net Energy Metering program as well as a shared Renewable Energy program. I think the time is right for us to spend the scope of the pilot. So, familiar chart. The difference here is that we are standing in the shoes of pg e for the other chart were providing the credit for delivery and generation so were charging our customers for both of those things. Were providing the credits for both of those things. And, we are proposing to apply similar to the Net Energy Meeting program the hetch hetchy proposals as well as the over well as the overthe credit gearing forward. For those that assigned the Renewable Energy credits to us we are willing to pay a little bit more. Were proposing to use the 2015 average market price for the Renewable Energy credits for. 0123 cents 2 people that are assigning there were new Energy Credits to us. This would be capped at 7 months totals that the net Energy Program proposal here is the Share Program the net Energy Program is good for customers with one meter and one roof. That is what deal with. We do have a number of accounts in San Francisco that have multiple meters under the same account like a campus environment. And one thing that we are proposing is that they are generating electricity on the roof and they have more than they need they could say to the continuous property in a similiar situated account appropriately they would tell us how to proportion those kilowatt hours to the account that they identify or the property on the account that they had in a fight. So that allows them to maintain the benefit of the project on there properties. So what we intend to do here is to limit the size of the project to 1 mw and maintain the expectation that they would offset that consumption to their properties and to participating accounts and they would be responsible for apportioning those benefit accounts that they will be benefiting and then there would be additional share account fees 12 as a onetime accounting set up charge and a 5 monthly bill service fee for the participating accounts and we would this participation at 5 mw. Next step is we would like to see adoption of item 14 the clean power sf time of use rate schedules and Net Energy Metering program for our customers and that would allow us to offer these programs in may consistent with our main launch of the clean power sf program overall. We are asking for the general manager to be authorized to implement the new rate schedules as they come up within the policy at that was stated in december along with tthe agreement that we would stay below pg es. And with that, i will take any discussion you may have . Commissioners, any questions or discussions on items 14 or 15 . Just one question. I had a conversation earlier with general manager kelly about the general manager authorities and i think there are 2 things that need to be rationalized here. One is that we need to be commercially flexible and responsive. We need to be able to act quickly. In that line i think having that authority makes sense. On the other hand i think its important that the commission be in charge of rates. For an awful lot of cases as rates move it is subject to a cpuc and they are really slow and we have to keep up with those. And, what i have asked for is that staff come back with a recommendation to us as to how we maintain both objectives of both commercial flexibility and the puc being the ultimate Rate Authority and that can be subject to our future meeting. I think the authorities that are here makes sense in getting these programs up to speed quickly and we are giving specific authority with respect to that but i would like that item to come back at a future time for what our longterm practices. Isnt that a contradiction to how this reads . What would we be doing by the general manager would be adjusting the existing rates . Is that correct . What im understanding is that from this slide the commissioner wants to remove that item from the slide off of item 14. It is my understanding that he wants to move everything forward with that except for our adjustments 2 rates in which he feels the commission should still have the authority for that. As we get a year down the road and pg is changing their rates again this is a policy matter. We no longer want to track our rates. We need to do better. Is not just a matter of tracking for perpetuity it needs to come back to the commission to reassess what our policy is and whether it continues to make sense in light of what is happening at the cpuc. I am really not concerned with this item. What im concerned with is that we put in place proper authorities for the gm and the commission to meet those objectives and make both flexible and have the commission be in charge of the policy. Okay, i think practically speaking as we look at the resolution associated with item 14 the final page of the resolution has a resolved clause that would have the general manager authorized to periodically incorporate new schedules to the clean power rate sf customers as general customers of pg es continues. That resolve clauses at the bottom. I think that resolved cause can be removed to respond to what you have expressed commissioner. And on the final resolved clause, it says that this commission directs that general manager to adjust our rates and charges and the authorization of annual Rate Adjustments based on cpi. I think that language handles your concern commissioner and allows the gm to handle any adjustments that may be needed within the ratesetting action that are taken today. At some point in time i would then move as an amendment to remove that from the bottom. Then, i would note as well that we notice that the attachment to this resolution that shows the rates are missing the footnotes that it has in the body so on table 2 on the 5th page of the agenda item it has the rates and some notes and those notes should appear as an attachment to the resolution. Okay. So, i believe a motion has been made to amend the resolution by removing the 4th result from the bottom which is the 5th resolved clause. Which is the 5th from the top [laughing]and to add the footnotes. And add the footnotes. Is there a motion . So there is a motion by commissioner moran. Is there a second. I second. Okay at this time we will vote. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes] okay that amendment was approved unanimously. Now, iis there a motion to approve the second . I motion. I second. Okay, at this time we will vote. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes] and that amendment is approved unanimously. At this time we will take Public Comment. There will be more rooftop solar that will be able to be produced because sometimes its not produce because it is not costeffective. With this nem there will be more roofs that are costeffective because of that. We will get more energy and more jobs and will not impact the clean power sf program and when its negative. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon again commissioners. I am eric brooks groups with the groups that i mentioned before and i am also old here to represent Community Choice which is here on Community Choice policy and i just want to echo what jason freid said which is that it is great to have better net metering rates and i concur with commissioner morans amendments and i think that is prudent policy and i just have 2 questionswell one question and one ask for staff i will say. The question is, i realize the Interconnection Agreements are more difficult and more limited but it seems like we ought to have a similar Share Program for clean power sf so that customers can group together in micro grids as clean power sf customers and do something similar, so, i want staff to speak to that and hopefully we can get that moving soon. The big thing i wanted to raise today is that we have these good metering rates but you cannot tell from reading any of these documents how they are compared to pg e. I talked to tens of thousands of people and i continue to talk to hundreds and eventually thousands more about clean power sf and one of the main things that i need to be able to say to every person that i talked to that has solar pounders or is thinking about having solar panels is is how does this compared to and how does this affect pg e . So, it would be nice to have a one page pamphlet and we need to be when we are going out in the community we need to be able to show them this and they can compare this. So, my question was about the Solar Program under clean power sf and then when can we get a one page document any webpage so we can show people how great these rates are compared to pg e. Thanks. Any comments . Commissioners, we will call our vote all those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes] approval of item 14. Are you ready for a threeminute movie or do you want to put it off . Okay. [video] can you turn up the volume . Clean power sf will provide cleaner more Renewable Power to all san franciscans. Best of all, clean power sf offers a Renewable Energy option called supergreen to reduce omissions and reach our greenhouse goals. We decided to sign up for super green for a number of reasons. We mirrored our goals after the city of San Francisco. I spent the last few years researching how can we get solar panels on our roof and after years of wondering how i would solve this question clean power says do you want 100 Renewable Energy and just like that [snaps] here we are. We chose to sign up for 100 super green it was a little bit more expensive but the difference was very large. Super super simple to sign up for. It just takes 5 minutes you just click a button and it is renewable. Having clean power sf is important to me and easy for me as a consumer and now i have Renewable Energy through clean power sf. I hope to support green energy and hopefully make an impact. This means so many things. This means reduction air pollution and we deftly benefit from that and it also means that we can take control of something that is locally a sustainable and now you can profit. We signed up for green and you can too . Sign up for super green now. [sign up for super green now] great video thank you. It makes me want to go run out and sign up if i had signed up already. There was a little bit of humor at the end. Sorry. That is all right. That is all right. We keep saying we are on target, we are on target. That is great. But meanwhile, behindthescenes there is a ton of work being done behind the pc staff and i want to just recognize tyrone as he leaves and charles as he is been the Communications Lead on clean power sf i think they are both out of the room by now but a lot of folks are making this happen and that is some of the work that they are doing so thank you. All right, thank you very much. Okay, next item please. Item 16 b item 1616. Approve amendment no. 3 to agreement no. Cs913, Construction Management services bay tunnel project, with Jacobs Engineering group, inc. , to continue providing Construction Management services; and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment, with a time extension up to 11 months, for a total agreement duration of eight years, seven months, with no change to the agreement amount. how i will move approval. I will second. Any questions or comments on that . Hearing none. We will vote on this item. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay [chorus of ayes] the motion carries unanimously on this item. Next item please. Item 17. Approve amendment no. 1 to agreement no. Cs1010 g , Front Yard Ambassadors Program grant, with friends of the urban forest to continue providing program and project Management Services for the Front Yard Ambassadors Program; and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment, increasing the agreement by 80,000, for a total nottoexceed agreement amount of 160,000, and with a time extension up to one year, for a total agreement duration of two years. ellis 18. Authorize the general manager to execute, on behalf of the city and county ofSan Francisco, a memorandum of agreement with the county of tuolumne, for an amount not to exceed 2,365,354, and with a duration of six years, which will provide funding for Fire Suppression and protection, sheriff protection and patrol, road maintenance, ambulance services, and other essential services for the hetch hetchy water and power project. ritchie i will move it. I will second it. Okay, any questions any Public Comment . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay [chorus of ayes] item move. Next item please. 19. Authorize the general manger to request the mayor and board of supervisors approval of a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 5,937,594 for the warnerville substation upgrades project, if required. The project is necessary to mitigate the impacts to the citys electric system caused by the interconnection of electric generating projects to the electric grid. ritchie any comments on this question . Any Public Comment . Hearing none. I move. I second. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. [chorus of ayes]. Next item please. 20. Adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental quality act; approve the partial quitclaim of a public utility easement encumbering San Francisco block 8709, lot 020; approve the terms and conditions; and authorize the general manager to execute the easement quitclaim deed, transferring the city and county of San Franciscos interests in a portion of the easement to Kaiser Foundation health plan, inc. carlin 21. Authorize the general manager to negotiate to extend the water system improvement Program Project Labor Agreement pla to the sewer System Improvement Program and auxiliary water supply system pumping station 2 project, subject to Commission Approval of the terms of the pla as modified. how 22. Adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental quality act related to an ordinance proposedto be introduced at the board of supervisors on april 19, 2016, entitled street vacation and sale of property at jessie street and elim alley, oceanwide center, concerning matters that are within the jurisdiction ofthe San Francisco Public Utilities commission; and authorize the general manager of the sfpuc to recommend that the board approve the proposed ordinance. russell i will make a motion. I will second. Any comment . Any Public Comment . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay [chorus of ayes]. Motion carries unanimously please. The next item is 23. Public comments on matters to be discussed in closed session. Would you like for me to read the items . Yes, would you like me to read the items that will be Public Comment . Sort of. If you will indulge me because i cant be here for the general managers reports so that is my excuse. A couple of meetings ago assistant general hail put out a pretty good report in response to the public request aboutwhat about this pacificorp merger and the report showed very well that we need to be weary of this and it probably would not be good for us even though the report did not take a stand either way. What i wanted to mention was that i found out through discussion with other groups that i work with on this issue is that not only is pacificorp a private company instead of a quat is a Public Company were talking about Warren Buffett the same person that just went to nevada and attacked clean energy and i just wanted to put that final point on the report which is that i dont see how it could possibly benefit us to have a person like Warren Buffett and his Company Merger attacked clean Energy Simply become largely in charge of her energy grid which may lead to litigation which may end up in your close session items. So, thanks. Thank you for that. So, yes if you could please read the items in closed session. 25. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 2 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 2 ambrose anticipated litigation as defendant 26. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 roddy unlitigated claim state Water Resources control board v. City and county of San Francisco City Attorney file no. 160984 27. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 sheinfield existing litigation alfaro v. City and county of San Francisco filed amended complaint december 8, 2015 City Attorney file no. 160241 28. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 mueller existing litigation city and county of San Francisco v. Pacific gas electric federal Energy Regulatory Commission Case no. el153000 date filed october 10, 2014 29. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 mueller Pacific Gas Electric federal Energy Regulatory Commission Tariff withdrawal per 35. 15 notice of termination of the 1987 ccsf Interconnection Agreement pg e rate schedule ferc no. 114 to be effective june 30, 2015. Case no. er15702000 date filed december 23, 2014 30. Conference with mayor lee welcome to the public laggard on not going to ruin the morning by my spanish but i want to at least say, hola, welcome. We are here i merely because of supervisor scott weiner and hes been a champion for working families and i want to say, thank you, supervisor for doing this and bring us together. We are here at our San Francisco name the library for the good reason that our librarian and all the wonderful friends and people that he serves to our Public Library process system has said that we need to have libraries that are connected to all of our communities. This is one way that the library is connected. There directed and so many other ways, but one way is really to have a room dedicated to our spanishspeaking families and people who want to make sure that they can learn the languages that are appropriate for here, so they can better themselves. Have their kids have places where they can go and emerge into other languages. This is another example. Its