December 10 meeting of 2019. Any additions or corrections . Ill move approval. President caen any Public Comment on the minutes of december 10 . All those in favor . Opposed . Motion carries. Next item, please. Item 4, general Public Comment, members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commissions jurisdiction and are not on todays agenda. President caen i have three speaker cards here. The first is dave warner. I dont think i can present this, but can i hand it out. You can put it on the overhead. Im dave warner. Im a palo alto resident. Im also a participant in the mayors water supply stakeholder group. Some of you know ive been speaking at your meetings for three years now, which is a terrific honor. The sfpuc is not sharing draws. Its more important than after as you face major decisions. Should we invest an additional 2 billion or more to develop Water Supplies and raise the rates accordingly to cover the costs . Should we implement rationing as has been suggested . How do we assess Climate Change . What is the right balance for water in ecosystem in drought risk. Addressing these topics is more difficult. Heres a chart that is the image here. Its often a way to determine probablities. My point is, that you should ask staff to invent their own analysis and share it with you. If you knew the probabilities, youd know better how to spend the 2 billion. The chart is a frequency of the low storage point of every 8year sequence in the last 1100 years. The horizontal is the amount of storage remaining at this low point during this 8year period. The vertical is the occurrences and that low point of storage. For each period, below each year, the low period was identified in the chart. Given we have 1. 5 million storage capacity, you can see that we use very little of it. Thats this black vertical line over to the right. Thats where most of the time we end up with the storage, which is just what we want. You can see the chart has that in the chart, the 8year period is requiring more storage, becoming rarer as the storage increases. And thats you can see moving off to the left how the instances go down. Many exciting parts, but you can see the period using the first six years of the design drought is small, but not nonexistent. For storage using the first seven years of drought, that is the second one from the left. There has never been a drought that used that much storage. Storage is exciting, also ask in the case of Climate Change, what if my [bell ringing] president caen yes, we would appreciate that. Thank you so much. The next speaker. Peter . I also have a few images to share. Peter, policy director for the Tuolumne River trust. As you know, demand has been way down. The first trigger was the plant that raised the price of water, sending a price signal and then the drought response. Since the drought, demand has rebounded a little bit, but its interesting, this fiscal year, ending last june, demand was down from 2018. It was 192mgd. This offers us a real opportunity. So i looked at what would happen if the sfpuc contributed share of 40 unimpaired flow for the first two years of any sequence. If we hit a third year, you say were not going to volunteer, well go back to base flows. In that scenario, you end up with 105,000 acre feet in storage. Following up on commissioner vietor and the need do something immediately, that is an easy thing to do. Give your share of 40 for two years and if the drought continues, you can cease doing so. Level goals exceeds them because you get through the eight and a half years with no rationing at all. Here you see what the benefit would be. You see the original slide, often we point to the 20122016, when the average unimpaired flow was 12 for those five years. And then the water had to be dumped in 2017. This looks at the first two dry years in the sequence. It actually assumes also that the irrigation districts are contributing their share of 40 , which wouldnt been easy thing to do. You imagine those yellow bars half as big for the sfpuc share. But thats a big improvement for six years, if the last 25 years of hydrology were to repeat. And thats something again that fits into your level of service goals, so i hope youll consider doing this. Thank you. President caen thank you. Next speaker, mr. Da costa. Commissioners, i want to discuss a number of issues. The first thing that has come to my attention reading some of the documents is in the bayview we have an address and its named the south Community Facility commission building. Now somebody has chosen to remove the word community. Let me tell you, for those i know there are some people going with the removal of the word community, but any way you look at it, that building was built by the community. The community who understood then many years ago that they needed a building more for educational purposes. And they needed some space, or they call it that time, horticultural uses. They had that vision. And we see over the years that has been eroded. And eroded in recent years by some people thinking they can build a better building which is prone to flooding. I dont get it. But maybe you all need to know what is going to happen in the future. Im not going to predict, but i do know that if anybody tears down the building at 1800 oakdale to build housing, thats wrong. And i do know that if you choose to build a building for Recreational Purposes at 1550, that is wrong, too. Having said that, i attended your budget meeting. Boring. Boring. Boring. And i try to dont try to hood wink us by moving the targets by saying were going to do this after three years, seven years, 15 years, and whatever. We started with a 6 billion for our sewer system improvement project. I bet you its going to go up to 20 billion. Think about that. Thank you very much. President caen thank you. Anyone else like to speak . Okay, moving on. Communications. Any comments, statements, commissioners . Any Public Comments . Moving then to the report of the general manager. All right. So the first item is the 2018 hetchy Energy Benchmarking. Good morning. Im going to use the overhead to go through our 2018 Energy Benchmarking report. The Energy Benchmarking report is a requirement of annual requirement of city regulations. We prepare it for the city. This is our 8th reporting year. And its really provides data to aid and educate our customers. It only looks at a subset of our customers. It looks at municipal customers, so its excludy hetchy, it excludes our direct business and residential customers. It excludes our clean power sf, but its inclusive of buildings like this, San FranciscoInternational Airport, schools, community college, a lot of the rec and park facilities, our own puc facilities. A lot of the bread and butter city Service Functions are benchmarked under this report. So let me talk about the approach that we take to do this. And what the results are. So we utilize a nationally used approach. Its a tool called the Energy Star Portfolio manager that is was developed and is managed by the u. S. Cpa. And what we do, we rate buildings performance by the type of facility. Not all facilities that the city operates have been included by epa, so the report isnt able to benchmark all buildings, but we do benchmark all buildings that the uscpa has a facility type identified for. And it sets performance benchmarks. The idea is that no matter where you are, you can look at a building and understand the Energy Performance and compare that to similar buildings within the community, similar buildings across the nation. And try to get a sense of what your overall performance is from a Energy Use Intensity perspective. It looks at the Carbon Footprint of facilities and for San Francisco, what we do, we look the our electricity consumption at these facilities. Natural gas consumption, steam use. And calculate an Energy Use Intensity based on the buildings square footage. It measures more than 49. 5 million square feet of city facilities. So thats the approach. Now lets take a look at what weve learned about city Facility Energy use applying that approach. So what you see depicted here is the fact that on average, when we take out San FranciscoInternational Airport theyre a really big energy user and we want to tell the city story, not just the airport story, so telling the city story excluding the airport, our Energy Use Intensity fell 1 , our Carbon Footprint fell half a percent from 2017 with reductions since 2009 of 15. 2 and 24. 8 respectively. Heres another look at some of the same information but by facility type. So here you see the categories that the uscpa uses. Airport is a category, a facility type. Education a facility type. Transit stations, a facility type. You can see the slices. The puc performance would be in the im not going to call it a color purple, lavender, that shows Service Repair and storage. And this green color here which is offices. Thats where most of our facilities would appear. This reporting function weve been performing now for eight years has been used by other city departments to help them identify where they need to focus some of their Capital Improvement efforts with respect to energy. So we use this to help educate them about how they should be improving their facility. You can compare, for example, a Police Station to another Police Station in the city. Firehouse to another firehouse. School to a school. But as the Department Head or operator of facilities, you can get a sense of where youre performing well, where youre not. Are there operating differences that can be addressed to improve the Energy Performance . So again, were seeing more efficiency compared to 2009 because our hetch hetchy is zero carbon. What this report is telling us, we need to focus our help with our customer departments on converting natural gas to electricity. We have 93. 3 of the citys carbon from facilities, Carbon Emissions from facilities, are from natural gas use. So more fuel switching, more of a focus in the programming on fuelswitching is part of the message that were learning from this benchmarking effort. As we present our budget on the 30th of this month, youll see that some of our Customer Program work is taking that seriously, focusing dollars toward electrification. With that, im happy to take questions. Id like to acknowledge the work of Dan Heffernan and charlotte on my team who compiled a lot of information that came from a lot of different forces throughout the city to put this report together for you. And we have it posted online. Its also available if folks would like to get copies. Thank you. President caen i have a question. Or two. So 93 of our city facilities are currently powered by natural gas . 93 of the city Carbon Emissions are from natural gas. So most of the facilities use both electricity and natural gas. Because our electricity is carbonfree from our hetch hetchy system, when were looking at Carbon Footprint, we know its not coming from electricity consumption. Its coming from their other uses. Steam and natural gas. President caen so the strategy i know well hear more about this in the budget hearings to decrease that portion of their use, of their emissions, will you have specifics . It sounds like the goal is to convert that 93 remaining to electricity if possible. Yes. President caen how long would it take . How much would it cost . And you can answer that during the budget. Great. President caen but id be curious about that. Sounds good. President caen and how much we can do in the next budget cycle for example. I want to put a quantity toward it. If you have a building and you have a little gas and the rest is hetchy and hetchy zero. You see 93 is from a little source. I think we want to quantify how much each building, because sometimes we get diminishing returns for small amounts. My sense was it wasnt the emissions tracking as much as the use tracking, so to differentiate between what the supply is and the emissions are. Right, wed be happy to talk about what weve done historically. And the general managers, right . We want to focus on intense successes. So well talk about that during budget when we talk about how were spending some of our Customer Program dollars in the capital plan. Great. Then my second question is around the private sector. Well i guess the two pieces that would, i hope come next, which is the cleanpowersf and then the private sector and what opportunities might be, first to like apply this model approach to them, to be able to measure. Because i bet that might be an appetite, especially with the clean power customers, but are there strategies to apply and roll out with cleanpowersf in private or some combination thereof . Wed be happy to talk about that. The ordinance that requires us to prepare a benchmarking report for the municipal facilities, also requires certain commercial buildings to similarly report their Energy Use Intensity. So i can talk about that and how we might be able to use that information on the cleanpowersf to inform our Customer Program approach. That would be great. Do we know how our airport compares to other airports in size . In size, i dont know. I can come back with that. President caen okay. Thank you. And this report includes this is a question, although it sounds like a statement general Fund Departments that get power below cost and departments that pay a higher rate . Correct. Are we prioritizing for people who pay the higher rate . In terms of Customer Program dollars or . Yes. No. We have taken historically, taken the approach that the general fund customers typically dont have the resources to apply to help solve these problems. So we have prioritized our support for the general Fund Departments. The enterprise departments, we have supported by helping them access some of the same professional Service Consultants that we use. But we dont fund the actual tax that those consultants perform for them. Okay. From the Business Planning standpoint, the more general Fund Departments that we spend money on, the more electricity they buy, the more money we lose . Yeah, so historically our focus has been on reducing their consumption of electricity. So thats why we have historically taken that prioritization approach. As we shift, then were going to need to think about where our priorities lie. As we shift towards increase fuelswitching to electrification. And just to am plyfy that, when we talk about how can we reduce their consumption, when we look at the cost of changing out heater system, or some system like that, they look at the cost and then the payback on the reduction of utility bill just doesnt pan out. So its kind of in our best interests to reduce their usage, so it reduces our loss. And then the general Fund Departments i mean the enterprise departments have resources, so they would be more mindful and have funds to help address some of the the point i was going at was the last one that barbara made. As we shift to an Energy Source shifting program where were increasing electric demand, the logic flips. Another aspect of that to bear in mind is the funds that were spending, oftentime the funds were spending, for example on the general fund department, converting their boiler to an electric boiler would often not be our hetchy revenues that were spending, but rather dollars through capandtrade and fuel programs where were restricted to spending those dollars on carbon reduction. And in communities that are regarded by the state as disadvantaged. Thank you. Have we seen this report in the past . You have. This is i havent done a presentation of it in a number of years, but its always distributed to you and your communications. With a cover memo on it. Since were going to since we have a stronger focus on Customer Programs, it seemed appropriate to highlight it. And clearly, there is an interest, so im glad i did. And well talk more about it in the budget and Subsequent Commission meetings as we develop programs. President caen thank you. Any Public Comment on this report . The next item is the bay delta Water Quality control report, mr. Ritchie. Good afternoon. Steve ritchie. Ill make that brief, working with the state and other entities on voluntary agreements that could be enfolded into the bay delta Water Quality control plan. There has been very little activity since the middle of october. Not a lot has happened. The state, i think, is in a lot of internal communication about where they would like to see this go. They have released raw modelling results which weve had a chance to vie and provided review and provided comments back to them where we think they misunderstood some of the parts of our voluntary agreement, but those are just little comments. So very little has happened in term