Full compensation differences are between the two workforces, between the two represented workforces, and thats just part of the ongoing work that we are doing. As i say, i think we are concluding in this plume and airy report that there are longterm benefits. We think there are durable longterm costsaving potentials to customers. This opportunities for timely and cost efficient grid modernization, you know, solar plus storage for resiliency, sharing solar, you know, across rooftops, e. V. Charging for customers, cars, scooters, that whole opportunity. We have meeting the citys priorities unaffordability and clean energy, safe, reliable, the Workforce Development that we were just talking about and equity. Community directed, community accountable electric service in San Francisco is a prospect we are looking at here. That concludes the review of the options and i want to take us through a few of the next steps. The report concludes that the study work should focus on acquisition of pg es electric assets serving San Francisco. That focus will include assessing which particular assets to purchase, the current condition and value of those assets, our own internal operational readiness for the organizational readiness, assessee equity impacts, understand the impacts on the remaining pg e customers and develop a transition plan. The timeline for this is accelerated and influenced by factors outside of the citys control. Pg e filed for bankruptcy and that timeline really accelerates the study. We have one known point on the calendar and that is that pg e has the exclusive right to form a plan of reorganization until september 29th. We are working within the city to position the city to be ready to engage. Our next steps really are centred on helping San Francisco answer a big question and that is, can San Francisco purchase the assets, invest in separation costs between the pg e system in the system we would own, provide affordable, reliable, safe public Power Service consistent with our values on clean energy and equity, well meeting our financial requirements . With that, i would like to thank you for your attention and i am happy to answer any other questions you may have. I have a question or a potential edit for that big question, which is, you know, coming back to the climate question and if theres been any analysis done on what the benefits to meeting our climate goals or reducing our emissions or, you know, if youve thought about any of those related questions in the same way that we have with clean power s. F. , putting that out there is a real goal. Since we are already providing most of the supply, this acquisition is really looking more carefully at the changes associated with owning the grid because we already have control over the supply piece. Maybe it is not an emissions question it is a resiliency question, it is an infrastructure resiliency question in the face of sealevel rise, flooding, all the things that were talking about contextually that the p. U. C. Manages. Sure. And looking at the Program Opportunities that really build on that ability to modernize the grid and give us more options. Correct and in light of some climate disaster that we are better prepared if it is under our control. Right. Thank you. It seems like the big question is a matter of, i dont want to simplify it, but giving information. It is not like something that is in the sky, i mean this is very logical in a logical way to approach it to answer this question. Each of these elements have a cost component, cost assumptions underneath it. Can we, with expected revenue stream coming in, afford all those costs . Yes. Can we, but like anything else, you figure out how you can if that is something you want to do and then you need to know those costs and then you figure out how you can. So the question is, to me, do you want to . Because you can figure things out, i mean that is what a city does. You figure things out that you need to have to do, so what are we doing to get some of the issues that may stand in our way resolved . We know certain revenue that we have. We have 300 million coming in that we can use yearly and then other revenues that are coming in. What is some of the other questions, or what is our timeline for getting the answers to those questions . We are working diligently under the assumption that the timber 29th date, the bankruptcy judge has put before pg e is when they will want to say what their plan is and so we would like to be able to have our answers so we can engage with them ahead of that and be part of a plan, part of a solution. Pg e is in bankruptcy because they have financial obligations they cannot meet. What we are proposing is to purchase the assets that will bring cash to that table, help them meet those financial obligations. You said that so we do have a plan. I guess by september 29th we will have to know the answer to some of these questions. Correct. That is what we are working on now. That is the target we are aiming for today. So the thing i want to put out there is that taking over the distribution, we are not taking it lightly and, yes, we can say, yeah, we will do it, but we have to be thoughtful because if we are successful, it is ours, and if i come back and say, well, then it will be there will be some challenges, i would imagine. So the first thing we are doing is we are actually, with the information we have or can obtain, we are trying to see, you know, what their assets are worth because you want to give a fair market value, not just what they want you to buy it for. It is what it actually is worth. And the other thing is, given the costs that are coming in, what does that mean . How much can we actually afford, and believe me, if i can purchase it and i cant maintain it, then i would recommend not purchasing it. You have to have all the components. So that is why we want to look at all these components, see with the costs are, and maybe instead of, oh, we want to underground every block or whatever, maybe that is not a realistic goal, and so these are the things that we want to come back and say, hey, this is our priority. These are all the things we want , but to actually make this happen, this is what our recommendation would be. I guess my concern is, can San Francisco purchase the assets . I want to know, when will we know whether we can or not . What are we doing to find out because then the question is like this big, a looming thing, and actually it is big, but what you are saying is you guys are looking at what it looks like. Maybe the next one could say, this is where we are in the can, in the question, and i would like to see if we can answer the question, like when we would he have when would we have answers to the question. The report says we think we can, knowing what we were able to put together in the period of time we were given. We didnt stop there, though, we are continuing to look at these aspects of the question, you know, assessing which assets we would purchase, and the current condition and value, looking at our operational readiness, that goes to what our costs will be, and looking at the System Engineering impacts, that has helped us understand, along with condition, can we continue to afford to operate it in a safe and reliable way that is affordable for san franciscans. So the preliminary answer is, we think we can, but we need to dig deeper to really understand if we are ready to take on this responsibility. Not only that, we havent engaged pg e, we havent engaged the bankruptcy judge, i mean there is a whole side that want to maximize if they are willing to engage in them, so that is something that we havent done and we brought in some folks who can actually help us in that arena to help us manoeuvre or in the bankruptcy court. But i think, excuse me, the question here is about San Francisco, you know, it is about can San Francisco purchase . And i would just like to know, how far are we along in answering the question . And when we have gotten into a better situation to answer the question that we will know that, and we will say, we have three out of the five here, and then we will know more because this is the question. People could say, you know, it needs to be a little bit then i would like to hear more about the answers. Sounds good. Thank you. One question on that. A key part of that question is the condition of the asset that we would be acquiring. How transparent is pg es accounting within the structure that was established, was this the kind of thing that you can do a deep dive into their financials and figure out, you know, age of assets and that kind of thing, or does Due Diligence require a more hands on look at it approach . Because it is not entirely transparent, what the condition of the assets are, what the age is, we know the average system agent reported. They report the average system age of their process of their assets. We dont know the average located in San Francisco. Our expectation would be if you find ourselves with authority to make an offer to pg e, that was the conditions on additional diligence on issues like that. I think there is concern about what existing cross subsidies there might be. Do the urbanized parts of their Service Areas subsidize the rural areas versus the other way around . And both of those outcomes have impact that were subsidizing the rest of the system, then separation is a problem for the rest of the system. If they are subsidizing us, the revenue may not cover the actual cost of maintenance or replacement. We would continue to be paying transmission costs to the bills we receive through the independent operator that reimburses pg e for transmission assets that they own. When we talk about the subsidies , it really is narrowly goes in because we are already providing supply in most of San Francisco, we really are talking narrowly about distribution related charges. Thank you very much. Are there any Public Comments on this presentation . Thank you, chair. Im here for the record. I have lived in places with both public and investorowned power and i believe in public power. We have our larger neighbour to the south, los angeles, with their own department of power and water. They have been serving 100 of los angeles for quite a long time and they own transmission lines and power stations and do lots of things for their customers, and in new york, where i came from, i am a product of albany, new york. We have the New York Power Authority which provides many, many things, including powering the legendary and historic new york city subway. We have some things in common here. I think, to benefit this great city that i enjoy, i think it is reasonable to consider the idea of purchasing these assets and forming some kind of a municipal utility district. So that way we can keep that money in San Francisco and build the kind of Power Distribution system that we want, and we the people can come and talk to you in Public Meetings about it like i am doing now. Beyond that, certainly, how can we get as much of this inhouse . In looking at the map, seeing that you run a line to newark, that we could run a line of our own from newark to hear to capture some of that. That idea is not new. Amtrak has its own Transmission System in the northeast corridor for powering their trains that run through that 450mile stretch. A looking at the beginning of this presentation, i sought disconnecting numbers. We have 385 megawatts of generation capacity, which is a really good thing, but yet i see we only have 150 megawatts of that generation being offered to this approximately 3500 customer accounts, so theres 235 megawatts that are not being shown in the report, and i think that certainly warrants some outreach for clarification because if we are making 385 megawatts, we should be deploying that in using that here in the city, so hopefully somebody can reach out on that sometime. So i think it is reasonable for us to take on this challenge of building the power grid that we want. It will be an investment, not a cost. Thank you. Thank you. Barb, i dont know if you can respond to that question offline on the missing 235 megawatts. That would be great. Thank you. Any other Public Comments on this item . Hearing on, next item, please. Item nine is a bay area water supply and Conservation Agency update. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, commissioners i am the c. E. O. Thank you for having me here today. Im here to speak briefly about the future dry your water supply for the customers at the San FranciscoRegional Water system in alameda, san mateo, in Santa Clara County whose interest i represent under state law. In 2002, the California Legislature enacted aba 1233 that mandated the system be rebuilt to withstand a future large earthquake that could threaten the health, safety, economic wellbeing of those people, businesses and communities. It also required San Francisco to report to the state annually about quote, the progress made during the previous calendar year on securing supplemental sources of water to augment existing supply during dry years , end quote. That means not just looking for supplemental supplies, it means tangible progress in finding and developing them. The p. U. C. Focused first on rebuilding the system to ensure the safety of the water customers that rely on it. The system put together a large skilled organization to complete what became known as the water system improvement program, a massive fourpoint eight billiondollar Capital Improvement program. It is reviewed annually by the state of california and monitored closely by mosca today , the system faces increased risk of significant drought shortages. As part of this, we have focused on developing new groundwater supply and restoring existing drought water supply. These efforts are insufficient today to address the magnitude of the current projected supply shortfall. If the current plan provides more water for fish in the river is mandated and a voluntary agreement is rejected, the loss of water for agencies and customers will be very serious. The p. U. C. Has estimated that they it could result in a loss of 90 million 99 gallons of water per day. It work work it could require a 50 reduction for residents in the service area and corresponding reductions for businesses, Community Agencies that support them. Losing that much supply would severely impact people, businesses and communities that rely on the system. Jobs will be lost, much needed housing will be delayed and our communities will suffer. Furthermore, the sipc must make a decision by 2028 about permanent customer satisfaction. We believe the governor and the strong water team supporting these counties will continue to support a voluntary agreement, which they have done aggressively so far. The current negotiations can be concluded with benefits for the fish and our residents, and the businesses and communities which depend on a reliable supply of highquality water. At the same time, the p. U. C. Must build on the Lessons Learned in a meeting the challenge and develop critically needed new supplies to ensure drought year reliability in the region. The sfpuc should now focus on developing new sources of supply in the same manner that was successfully implemented. As a water supply program. With clear objectives, persistent focus, a dedicated team and a plan for successful execution. Bosco will support the p. U. C. To develop new supplies as it did with the implementation of the agreement. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. I be pleased to answer any questions about this or anything else. Thank you. I think that is a very wise recommendation which we will take under consideration. Thank you very much. Im just going to say, we had the opportunity to talk to nicole about it. I think that we share a lot of the sentiments in her comments. I have will say that you will see part of our budget that we are going to start asking for some new positions to focus on water supply and then we are planning to Work Together and talk about a framework where we can actually make this a program and have someone help facilitate and deliver these alternatives for water supply. You will be seeing it in the upcoming year as part of our twoyear budget. I very much like the idea of designing it as a plan. I think we need a water supply plan, especially in light of all these challenges that we are facing and then i think the program then supports single mentation of the plan, and i think it would be really interesting to frame it as such so that when the positions are proposed in the budget, it is really implementing a plan that has specific goals and objectives so we can meet our supply and whatever the state mandates and protect our ecosystem. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Next item. Other Commission Business. Commissioners, any other Commission Business . Comments . Any other Commission Business . Hearing on, next item. Item 11 is a consent calendar all items are constituted as a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the San FranciscoPublic Utilities commission and will be acted upon by single vote. Be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the public or the commission requests, and then it would be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. Would any commissioners like to remove any of the items . Yes, i would like to remove item be. We will remove item 11 b. And here that separately. If you could go ahead and please read the other items. I would also like i have a question about item c. Okay. Would you like it removed . Yes, please. Item b. And c. , and then if you coul