alicense for San Francisco, san mateo, santa clara, and alameda counties, for a nottoexceed amount of 5,000,000, to the lowest, qualified, responsible, and responsive bidder, cal state constructors, inc. , to perform general Engineering Construction tasks for all San FranciscoPublic UtilitiesCommission Enterprise operations and bureaus. how c accept work performed by Michels Jay Dee coluccio, joint venture, for contract no. Wd2531, Bay Division Pipelines reliability upgrade bay tunnel; approve modification no. 48 final , decreasing the contract amount by 401,175, for a total contract amount of 217,619,067, with a time extension of 319 noncompensable consecutive calendar days approximately 10 months , for a total contract duration of 2,252 consecutive calendar days approximately six years, two months ; and authorize final payment to the contractor. how d accept work performed by jdb Sons Construction inc. , for contract no. Wd2779, college hill learning garden; approve modification no. 1 final , increasing the contract amount by 57,252, for a total contract amount of 580,652, with a time extension of 119 consecutive calendar days approximately four months , for a total contract duration of 189 consecutive calendar days approximately six months ; and authorize final payment to the contractor. how e accept work performed by shimmick construction company, inc. , for contract no. Ww490, Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant 620 digesters sbr tpad conversion and facility improvements; approve modification no. 11 final , increasing the contract amount by 158,021, for a total contract amount of 19,034,533, and with a time extension of 167 consecutive calendar days approximately five months , for a total contract duration of 1337 consecutive calendar days approximately three years, eight months ; and authorize final payment to the contractor. how f authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute, on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, a memorandum of agreement moa with the California Department of fish and wildlife cdfw , for an amount not to exceed 585,000, and with a duration of 12 months, which will allow for the sfpuc to provide funding to cdfw for the design, procurement, and installation of a temporary Water Treatment and reuse system pilot recirculation system at Moccasin Creek fish hatchery. Cdfw intends to implement the pilot recirculation system to enable they to successfully operate from january 3, 2017 through march 4, 2017, a period in which water deliveries through mountain tunnel will be interrupted due to maintenance, and consequently, water deliveries to the hatchery will be significantly reduced. ritchie regular session 9. Authorize the general manager to exceed 50 mw average demand for the cleanpowersf program and set the new Program Enrollment cap at approximately 75 mw average, as long as the additional demand can be met in accordance with the adopted cleanpowersf power content and phasing policies. I would urge the commission to remove the full load of San Francisco and i think that staff should be free to move at whatever pace is expeditious and im not sure whether you would get this information from anywhere else so i will run through this with a couple of things to buy comparison our neighbors in the peninsula will offer a 50 renewable and 70 gst three default product for 2 1 2 cheaper than pg es rates. Theyre going from the date of serving customers to full rollout to their Service Territory will be six months. Further down, the Silicon Valley cca further default product will offer a 50 renewable and ghd project that will be closer to ours and again, that rollout from the date of serving to total rollout to the whole Service Territory will be six months. That will be october 2017 schedule for both of them. So, this achievement in our neighbors and we are the leader in the south bay and were talking about the rollout staff i support your staff i support being prudent and fluid i think we can do both. I urge you to support your staff and following the policies that you have it adopted to bring them as expeditiously as possible to full enrollment in the city with a priority of as soon as possible these will be fully enrolled in shorter time than we are generated a Program Growth plan thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, commissioner moran. Yes, a question and a comment. Is there a rate impact for existing customers with the expansion . We will be assessing that went before we make any supply commitments to serve the expansion. That is part of the business practice policy is the commission adopted. The supplies that we looked at to support Fall Enrollment do not cause a rate impact. Okay and if we were getting into a position where the market might require a rate change the commission would know about it for those changes were made . Absolutely the other thing that want to mention is if we go out to purchase power and it is so expensive that we have to take pause. So, that is why we have to be very cautious because we talked about affordability and that is why that has to be measured instead of trying to roll it out just to roll it out. We made a promise to try to make this affordable. So when we do come up with a rate to expand and its more expensive than pg we will have to have you come and we will have a dialogue. That didnt expand beyond that. And finally understand why we have a cap of approximately anything. I dont know how on earth you would administer that. If 75 isnt enough then approximately 75 is meaningless. Question to straight. Yeah, i agree with that. I think we could amend that. That would be my proposal. It sounds like you also have another proposed amendment that is not addressed in this resolution that has to do with the rates. I want to make sure that there was reference to existing policy and unless you have read the policy, its not altogether clear what that entails. I want to make sure explicitly that those polities were such that by extending the program we were not obligating ourselves to a rate increase. If the answer from staff was that the existing policies cover that it would not result in a rate increase i dont think there was an amendment there necessarily. But, i appreciate your support on the approximately and i would make an amendment to move the word approximately in the resolution. And, to delete the number 75 . As long as 75 can sufficient to get us to that point i dont see any point in deleting that. And when would we get updates on that . The end of this year. I think again, the most important part of this rollout is the ability to find the capital or the reserve that we need to continue to purchase contracts and i mean, that is really the main reason why weve been doing it in phases because we want this program to be selfsufficient. The other thing is, we talked about lockbox versus not lockbox and advantages and reassessing that so theres a lot of moving parts and things that we want to include into the program that were talking about that. So, it is a lot of stuff and remember, we shift from residential to commercial and it sometime this year you want to do commercial so all of that were trying to put together and as we mentioned today, we will come back and talk to you about the things that we are thinking about so that you will at least know what we are planning to include and look at the different options and stuff like that. I wanted to make one comment on the approximately term and to explain why that is in there might be helpful. So, a couple things that are at play, whenever we do an auto enrollment there are opt outs. In order to meet a targeted resulting demand we enroll more customers then our demand. We use the data that we have citywide to make projections for customer enrollments and because we are serving a subset of the customers in the city we might have outliers in there so there is an amount of variability thats created due to that. So, the approximate wasnt intended to be510 movement necessarily, but what we didnt want is if we ended up point megawatts to be in that regulation. If you need more headroom well give you more headroom to deal with that availability it sounds like you dont need that initially and if you do you come have plenty of time to come back for an amendment for that. I motion to approve that. Do i hear a second . I second. There is motion and a second is there a Public Comment . I think the approximate 20 we should leave that approximate 20 if we get a higher opt out it will be less. You are talking about paul 75. I will agree with that amendment to my amendment. Only if it is above the 75. Jason fried, michael can correct me on this if im wrong but there is a formula to between the two but if you want to get rid of the word approximate that is fine and i personally agree with some of the comments that the public made about the being there and its as long as you are staying within the pricing policy goal is you should encourage staff to get as big as it can well stay in the procedure in some ways i think take out the word 75 because as long as you stay within your policies and procedures because as long as her staying within your policies and procedures it shouldnt matter if it is 75 or not. This is just bad drafting. At least is clear drafting to take the word out. It should be Something Else and come forward with Something Else. Yes . Jed holtzman i didnt identify myself for the tv earlier but i would like to set can officer frieds comment on the amendment because if we remove the number 75 or commenting on the established policies and proceduresthat your staff is approving and were counting on that to move us forward and of course any report if there is a significant retribution and that path. I would urge you to take officer freids suggestion and remove the number 75 ae thank you. What is the disadvantage of 75 . Do so with the unlimited. And will be governed by the policies and practices weve already adopted civic to be read impact or purchase and supply issues that could potentially come up. Feeling this will come up again if we go to 100 are to 200 at some point. They said they are going to come back and address the longterm growth issues and hopefully it will come back in a way that we dont have to keep rehashing this. Staff hasnt said that they need more than 75. So, i dont see where we need to give them unlimited. If we were giving them Unlimited Authority i would want to review the policies to make sure they were consistent with that kind of authorization and absent the kind of review im not ready to give them unlimited authorization. It removes checks and balances of its unlimited. If i could just comment that this authority is important for our next enrollment and, 75 does give us room to grow the program in a manner that is responsive to customer proactive demand. Customers are reaching out to us and saying they want to be in the program and a staff, one thing we could really use is additional headroom to say that will get you into the program. And, this will help that. And, i think that i can understand the comments of the public and we want to grow the program as quickly as we can and as prudent and that will come out of our planning effort and we do see with the other cc are doing and we are in touch with them and i think that the 75 will help us to be responsive to the customer demand that we are seeing and ensure that we stay on track too with this current phase. I think the issue is if we are limited and the limiting factor is their ability to support above 75. So our son everybody to understand what our top margin is now and we need to reevaluate that if we do something differently may come back and propose changing some of those policies so that we can expand faster. So, that is why we put the 75 in there. Is there any other that is helpful. Maybe when we have a rollout plan we can understand what some of those implications are and the rate of rollout if we were to go to 100 or 300 whatever that might be thats a very important consideration. And, there are different options for scaling the program. We actually took a path that no other cca has taken to date. We secured power outside of secure account with a single counterparty in a single supplier that was the model that we were investigating earlier and in earlier efforts to launch the cca program. Will we did here there was that we solicited from and ultimately a broader pool of suppliers in order to create as competitive of solicitation as we could. But, there has been a lot of motivation happening because we are learning there are multiparty out boxes and there are many paths we can take to scale the program up and it might be that we take multiple options. It might be smaller phases or even larger auto enrollments. There might be smaller options available to us now but i just want the Planning Commission to understand what the options are now because i want this to remain competitive. I dont love natural gas i think that is a fuel we should be moving away from. With the solar and all of the great news and supply questions that will give us an opportunity to clean up our green. I should say there is a companion plan to our Expansion Plan and that is an integrated Resource Plan and that is actually part of our business practice policies but we will develop an integrated Resource Plan that provides supply, demand, and the resources going forward. It will make a projection of that plan going citywide and this is really a buildout place of that program aspirations and supply needs and that will bedone in conjunction with the growth plan. It may follow it a little bit because we want to do is lay out some low growth projections and put some inputs into the Resource Plan. So, i wanted to put that out there and with respect to natural gas something that i wanted to do is have as many specified resources as possible rather than just leaning on the grid where you can lean on a mix of unspecified supply projects. That is one of the emphasis of what we had done before and that is to specify within the mix. Yeah, but you specify with natural gas . Isnt that right . There is a third option you can go with the grid, you can specify or you can specify without the gas. The natural gas would have to go 20. As part of the growth plan is it the same as the rollout plan . The two together is what i think you think of as the rollout plan. The growth plan is whether we meet the demand and the rollout plan is the supply and resources and technology and type of Energy Supplies that we will want to procure or developed to meet that plan. I think the integrated Resource Plan we cant even have have them done in the exact amount of time as the power energy enterprise. The Silicon Valley plan is how much less than pg e . Well, the question is how did they achieve that because we arent there, are we . Just to be clear, Silicon Valley has right now just one product. Is 100 ghd free but it is only 50 clean power. In that area its in 50 below. We have an amendment on the floor. Are there any other questions or comments . And, the proposed amendment is to remove the word approximately before 75. I think we have a motion and a second already on the main resolution. Any Public Comment on the resolution . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. Can you read the next item please . 10. Approve the revised records retention schedule and record retention policy of the San FranciscoPublic Utilities commission. sandler is there a motion to move the revised schedule . I will move it. I will second it. Is there any Public Comment . Is there any Public Comment on the retention schedule . [indecipherable] thank you. Are there any other Public Comments on this item . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries. Next item please. 11. Approve amendments to agreement nos. Cs211ad, specialized and technical services, Natural Resources division, water enterprise, with cdm smith ats, joint venture cs211a ; icf avila, joint venture cs211b ; shaw environmental and infrastructure, inc. , cs211c ; and Urs Corporation cs211d , to provide continuing permit compliance monitoring of Water System Improvement Program wsip habitat mitigation sites; and authorize the general manager to execute future amendments within the existing contract capacity of 20,000,000, with no single contract exceeding 7,500,000. Is there a motion . I motion i will second. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries. The next item will be closed session16. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 ambrose existing litigation federal insurance co. , et al v. San francisco independent taxi assoc. , et al. San Francisco Superior Court no. cgc14543173 City Attorney file no. 150762 17. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 549