OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
January 21, 2022, through January 31, 2022
Date Received From Subject
January 21, 2022 David Pilpel PUC Operating Budget and Capital Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and
2023-24
January 24, 2022 Dennis Herrera Copy of Letter Sent to Secretary Crowfoot and Secretary Blumenfeld
January 25, 2022 Brian Browne https://westsideobserver.com/news/ browne.html#jan22
January 27, 2022 Nicole Sandkulla Request for an Appointment of a Director on the SF Bay Area
Regional Water Financing Authority
January 31, 2022 Nicole Sandkulla BAWSCA Review of the SFPUC Bi- Annual 10-Yr Capital Improvement
Plan for the Water Enterprise and
Hetch Hetchy Water for FY 2022-32
through FY 2032-33
Weekly Earned Media Clips
• January 12, 2022 to January 21, 2022
• January 24, 2022 to January 28, 2022
1 David Pilpel
San Francisco CA 94116-1730
Anson Moran, President, and Commission Members
Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Ave Fl 13
San Francisco CA 94102-3220
January 21, 2022
Re: PUC Operating Budget and Capital Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-23 and 2023-24
Dear President Moran and Commission Members,
I write to provide notes from my prepared comments for the January 7, 14, and 20, 2022 Commission Budget Meetings, to assist you and PUC staff in considering and following-up. I think the shorthand I used here is clear enough based on the context. In any event, thank you, as always, for listening to me and considering my thoughts. I look forward to further discussion on the budget at the February 8, 2022 Commission meeting.
A. PUC Comm 1-7-22 Item 3 PUC Budget Priorities for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 comments:
1. I have reviewed the slides made available to the public this week and I may send written comments.
2. I don't recall a slide that listed the various Commission policies, i.e. debt and ratepayer assurance.
3. I would add to the staff presentation a request to not increase total PUC authorized FTE positions.
4. I also request a copy, by mail, of organization charts for the entire PUC, to inform my comments.
5. We should assess asset management and SGR, including condition assessment and depreciation.
6. I think I understand that the 10-Year Capital Plan is not fully funded but the 2-Year CIP is balanced.
7. I don't see the details on capital projects, the 2-Year CIP, or the 10-Year Capital and Financial Plans.
8. When does the next 5-year W and WW rate process start, with the rate consultant, RFB review, etc.?
9. I heard a proposed pause on previously approved W and WW rate increases; I don't support that.
10. As you may know, I have followed PUC for over 40 years and budget hearings for almost that long.
B. PUC Comm 1-7-22 Item 4 PUC Bureaus Operating Budget FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 comments:
1. As I alluded to earlier, I have reviewed and considered the PUC organizational structure over time.
2. I would consolidate and restructure to some degree. Ultimately, I would have a smaller Infrastructure Bureau, providing centralized common services to the Enterprises, with a Chief Engineer and staff in each Enterprise; this change contemplates moving Katie Miller to Water and Stephen Robinson to WW.
3. I have said many times that we should reduce the amount of contracted work and hire more in-house.
4. I would move Human Resources back to Business Services, consistent with most City departments.
5. In HR, I'd probably have three divisions: Workforce, Workplace, and a third box (payroll / admin.).
6. I would move External Affairs functions under the new (and very capable) Chief of Staff; no AGM.
7. I challenge the Data Maturity Initiative; either delete it or just fund an initial study; $100K maximum.
8. I will study the slides more carefully and intend to submit these comments (maybe more) in writing.
9. Otherwise, I support the thoughtful work presented here and the various managers and their staff.
C. PUC Comm 1-14-22 Item 3 Summary of 1-7-22 Budget Hearing # 1 Questions comments:
1. I agree strongly with Commissioner Harrington; MTA also has too big a capital program, so what?
2. Rates were set several years ago based on the budget and capital plan at the time; costs aren't less.
3. As we heard on Tuesday, water sales and wastewater use are down; trends that likely will continue.
4. Combination of less use and rate freeze leads to less rate revenue; are we back to the 1990's again?
5. Today's conversation marks a substantial change in tone on organizational capacity and priorities.
6. I would review existing Commission policies, including Asset Management, as applies to budget.
7. Item 7 should read Thursday 1-20-22; please be clear with the public on the continuance. Thanks.
2 8. I assume that my request for a full set of organization charts is underway and will be coming soon.
D. PUC Comm 1-14-22 Item 4 Water Enterprise Operating Budget and Capital Plan comments:
1. I am pretty supportive of the Water Enterprise budget, including new positions and capital projects.
2. One of Commissioner Harrington's great accomplishments was increasing water (and sewer) I&M.
3. On the issue of maintaining new assets and capital projects, I would identify O&M costs of projects.
4. I would find a way to show the public a summary of asset conditions that drive the capital program.
5. I had a discussion recently about Peninsula facilities maintenance work; we need an ID work group.
6. Please check project manager names; Mary Ellen Carroll is on page 149 and Carol Isen on page 219.
E. PUC Comm 1-14-22 Item 5 Hetch Hetchy Water Operating Budget and Capital Plan comments:
1. I still think that HHWP should be under the Power Enterprise; would better balance the 3 enterprises.
2. I think that CAISO power cost formulas should have meaningful incentives to maintain assets (lines).
3. I'm also a big fan of the Old Moccasin Powerhouse and hope to see it put to a new use again someday.
4. I don't understand why page 124 is there with financing costs; all bond projects have financing costs.
5. Decentralizing some of Infrastructure might allow some staff to spend more time directly on projects.
F. PUC Comm 1-14-22 Item 6 Wastewater Enterprise Operating Budget and Capital Plan comments:
1. The reference to debt service reminded me of former AGM Todd Rydstrom's score cards; bring back?
2. I would reduce vacant positions and salary savings; make the budget more accurate for all audiences.
3. How much asset management and IT support should be in enterprises and how much in Bus Services?
4. To Commissioner Harrington's point, OH includes enterprises, Infrastructure, and DPW; it's too much.
5. To AGM Ritchie's point, what are the O&M costs with new WW facilities like the SEP Digesters?
6. On page 230, 237 to 239, and others, those projects have all zeroes; please update or remove them.
7. I think page 273 should be in BS Customer Service; it doesn't seem to me like a WW-specific project.
8. I'm happy to talk to staff about the WW CIP, including some thinking from 10 years ago (WW CAC).
9. We should think more about O&M, capital, project delivery, staff, organizational capacity, and rates.
G. PUC Comm 1-20-22 Item 3 Summary of 1-14-22 Budget Hearing # 2 Questions comments:
1. I'm stunned at Commissioner Harrington's resignation. He's a great public servant and a good friend.
2. I looked at the 9-28-21 agenda and minutes (Item 7b); no rate freeze referred to; post or send the PPT.
3. I still don't know the fiscal impact of the proposed rate freeze, along with less Water and WW use.
4. In some previous year I asked a question in a budget hearing and it ended up on the tracking chart.
H. PUC Comm 1-20-22 Item 5 Power Enterprise Operating Budget and Capital Plan comments:
1. Thanks to Barbara's great team, including Pam Husing, Rich Stephens, Barbara Carr, and Rosie Scott.
2. I already commented at last week's meeting on moving HHWP under Power, and CAISO power costs.
3. On the capital program, I agree that the Sunset Reservoir South Basin should have solar generation.
4. I'd also like to see a new power line from Newark to San Francisco, either on land or under water.
5. I'm no electrical engineering expert, but I think transmission loss argues for more in-City generation.
6. Is the new SEP Digester Project included, reducing long-term Wastewater Enterprise power needs?
7. There should be a proportional approach to intervening facilities; greater load needs more protection.
8. I support increasing General Use rates to achieve at least cost of service (or fully allocated costs).
9. To promote conservation, all power rates should default to time-of-use rates with limited exceptions.
10. I'll think about the new position requests; similar comments on pages 123 to 125; 157 Julia Allman.
11. If I had time, I'd discuss streetlight acquisition and PG&E's demand for all metered connections.
Sincerely,
/s/
David Pilpel
cc: Dennis Herrera, General Manager
From: Nicole Sandkulla
To: Calvillo, Angela (BOS)
Cc: Hood, Donna; Herrera, Dennis J; Feitelberg, Brittany K; Scarpulla, John; Flynn, Ronald P; Kastama, Alison A; [email protected]; Lourdes Enriquez
Subject: Request for an Appointment of a Director on the SF Bay Area Regional Water Financing Authority (RFA) Date: Thursday, January 27, 2022 10:24:50 AM
Attachments: image001.png
22 January27 NS LTO SFBOS RFA Appointment FINAL NS.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear President Walton (c/o Angela Calvillo, Board Secretary),
This email transmits my letter respectfully requesting the SF Board of Supervisors to appoint a Director to serve on the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Financing Authority (RFA).
The attached letter provides details on the RFA and the statutory qualifications as well as mechanics for the appointment.
Please call me directly if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Nicole Sandkulla
_________________________________________
Nicole M. Sandkulla
Chief Executive Officer/General Manager
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650
San Mateo, CA
94402
Ph: (650) 349-3000
Cell: (650) 743-6688
EMail: [email protected]
Website: www.BAWSCA.org
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650 349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org January 31, 2022
Via email
The Hon. Anson Moran, President
and Members of the Commission
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: BAWSCA Review of the SFPUC Bi-Annual 10-Yr Capital Improvement Plan for the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Water for FY 2022-32 through FY 2032-33
Dear President Moran and Members of the Commission,
Created by the California Legislature through AB2058 in 2002, the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) represents the interests of 24 cities and water districts, and two private utilities that serve over 1.8 million residential customers and 40,000 businesses in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. A primary role of BAWSCA is to monitor the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's (SFPUC) operation and long-term maintenance of the San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS) that provides two-thirds of the water supply delivered by BAWSCA's 26 member agencies to their customers. The SFPUC's 10-year Capital Improvement Program (10-year CIP) presents the critical projects necessary to ensure long- term water supply reliability for the BAWSCA member agencies and their customers.
The 2018 Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement (WSA) between the City/County of San Francisco and its Wholesale Customers includes a requirement for BAWSCA’s input to SFPUC’s CIP development process (see WSA Section 6.09). In this current CIP development cycle, the amount of engagement with BAWSCA represented a significant departure from the previous 10-year CIP development cycle, during which more meetings with BAWSCA were held and additional materials were provided well in advance of the SFPUC’s budget hearings.
BAWSCA received a briefing meeting with SFPUC staff on 12/6/2021 at which time only a partial set of preliminary materials was shared. While additional materials were received on January 6, 2022, they were in draft form. In conversations with SFPUC staff, they have committed to meeting the obligations of the WSA with significantly more engagement moving forward and with future 10-year CIP cycles.
BAWSCA offers the following comments, which are relevant for both the Water Enterprise 10- year CIP and the Hetch Hetchy Water 10-year CIP:
1. The SFPUC should review and make changes to its CIP planning and project delivery efforts to address its trend in not meeting its CIP delivery targets. As with the prior 10-year CIP, the SFPUC’s approach to funding the first two years of the CIP is to use the already appropriated funds to maintain progress and minimize new appropriation requests in those fiscal years. The need for this approach at this time has been explained to BAWSCA. However, this method should not be standard practice in The Hon. Anson Moran, President
January 31, 2022
the future as appropriating funds well over what can be reasonably expended gives a false sense of expected productivity. BAWSCA appreciates that the SFPUC is taking a closer look at project delivery and looks forward to better understanding the changes being made internally and seeing improved capital program delivery results.
2. BAWSCA recommends the use of appropriate placeholder funding where necessary to provide greater level of transparency regarding what funding may be needed in latter years of the 10-year CIP. In his presentation to the Commission at its January 14, 2022 budget hearing, Steve Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Manager for the Water Enterprise, pointed out that certain CIP projects, such as Pilarcitos Dam, San Andreas Dam, and Bay Division Pipeline No. 4) are not fully funded in the CIP, and therefore, the monies proposed in the CIP to fund the work required is significantly lower than what will actually be needed in coming years. BAWSCA agrees with Mr. Ritchie that more exacting costs estimates will be generated in the short-term, following the completion of additional facility assessments. However, this approach may pose a constraint to doing future work in the expected timeframes as future CIPs with greatly increased budgets in certain projects may require phasing work on other projects to balance cash flow needs. Placeholder funding would provide a greater level of transparency regarding what funding may be needed in latter years of the 10-year CIP cycle.
3. For future 10-Year CIPs, BAWSCA suggests that the SFPUC consider including separate tables and spreadsheets that document projected cash flows. Such cash flow tables would be similar to the current tables which show budget appropriation. In this approach, an initial column would indicate the prior year’s cash flow (indicating monies spent in the year prior to the 10-year cycle) followed by the anticipated cash flow for each year in the 10-year cycle. This cash flow table will show timing of project activity much more clearly than can be inferred from the appropriations table, avoiding the confusion that can be created by concepts such as the use of already appropriated funding. BAWSCA is willing to meet with SFPUC to provide examples of how other water agencies incorporate such a concept in their CIP documentation.
4. BAWSCA is pleased to see that the project data sheets that accompany the 10- year CIP documentation have been revised for this particular cycle, such that they provide much more detail. Specifically, the data sheets now include information stipulating the total budget proposed, the project’s start and finish date, the current stage the project is in, as well as text that provides a more detailed description of specific work actions that will be taken in the coming years. The discussion in the tables also notes if the scope of the project has been modified since the prior CIP was adopted.
BAWSCA is focused on ensuring that the SFPUC successfully delivers a 10-year CIP that includes the necessary projects with appropriate implementation schedules, robust cost estimates, and budgets.
BAWSCA appreciates the efforts of the SFPUC staff to develop the 10-year CIP and the opportunity for discussions that have been constructive for both BAWSCA and SFPUC, and beneficial to the water customers. BAWSCA understands that this particular 10-year CIP has The Hon. Anson Moran, President
January 31, 2022
been more challenging than many of those that preceded it, and we are pleased to see that the SFPUC has continued to incorporate, into the CIP, a robust number and type of projects that are required to maintain the integrity of the RWS.
Sincerely,
Nicole Sandkulla
CEO/General Manager
TF/NS//le
cc: Dennis Herrera, SFPUC, General Manager
Steven Ritchie, SFPUC, Assistant General Manager of Water Enterprise Alan Johanson, SFPUC, Chief Engineer / Assistance General Manager of Infrastructure Alison Kastama, SFPUC, BAWSCA Liaison
BAWSCA Board of Directors
BAWSCA Water Management Representatives
Allison Schutte, Hanson Bridgett, LLP, Legal Counsel
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Earned Media Clips
January 12, 2022 – January 21, 2022
Date Outlet Story
1/12/22 Half Moon Bay
Review
Coastside water district
weighs drought fees
1/14/22 SF Business
Times
Viewpoint: S.F.'s drought response is all
wet
1/18/22 SF Examiner ‘Solar tax’ divides local environmental community
1/18/22 Potrero View SFPUC Commissioner Sophie Maxwell
Encourages More Activism | Potrero View
1/20/22 Solar Power World Large-scale battery will be added to 62- MW Blythe IV solar project in California
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Earned Media Clips
January 24, 2022 – January 28, 2022
This is a weekly roundup of local, regional and national media stories related to the SFPUC.
Date Outlet Story
1/25/22 Yahoo! News /
Moody’s
Moody's announces completion of a
periodic review of ratings of
CleanPowerSF
1/26/22 SF Chronicle Court sides with S.F. in its claim that onerous PG&E requirements hold up
projects
1/26/22 48 Hills Court rejects PG&E, sides with SF in
major public-power case
1/26/22 NBC Bay Area Appeals Court Sides With SF Over
Federal Energy Commission's Decision on
PG&E Power Hookups
1/28/22 Palo Alto Daily
Post
Council members propose selling some of
the city’s water rights
1/28/22 Storm Water
Solutions
Greywater Recycling System Activated In
San Francisco Condominiums
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
February 1, 2022, through February 2, 2022
Date Received From Subject
February 1, 2022 Chris Shutes Request for Data on Diversion Patterns from the Tuolumne River
Watershed under 200 mgd Demand
Scenario
1 California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
“An Advocate for Fisheries, Habitat and Water Quality”
Chris Shutes, FERC Projects Director
1608 Francisco St., Berkeley, CA 94703
Tel: (510) 421-2405 E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.calsport.org
January 31, 2022
President Anson Moran and Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via email
Re: Request for Data on Diversion Patterns from the Tuolumne River Watershed under 200 mgd Demand Scenario
Dear President Moran and Commissioners:
Over the past several years, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), as part of a coalition of environmental and fishing groups, has made a concerted effort to collaborate with the SFPUC on solutions to water supply with the needs of the Tuolumne River ecosystem. Most notably, CSPA made presentations and offered comments at several of the Commission’s very productive workshops over the past 14 months. CSPA was particularly encouraged by the Commission’s November 9, 2021 Resolution 21-0170 which committed to “Improve relationships with Non-Governmental Organizations.” On December 10, 2021, CSPA participated in a web meeting with SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera and several other representatives of the above-referenced coalition. As a follow-up to this meeting, Peter Drekmeier of the Tuolumne River Trust sent an e-mail to SFPUC’s Ms. Brittany Feitelberg that included, among other things, a data request from CSPA.
This request asked for data already developed by SFPUC staff regarding how the SFPUC would divert water from the Tuolumne River watershed under a 200 mgd demand scenario. A copy of this data request is attached for your reference.
More specifically, CSPA requested this data in a format that would describe the diversion pattern over the period of record, and allow CSPA to use it, in developing scenarios in the Don Pedro operations model. The Don Pedro operations model was developed by Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, in collaboration with SFPUC, for the relicensing of the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project.
On January 25, 2022, Mr. Herrera responded to Mr. Drekmeier on this issue, stating:
Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts are the entities that developed these models and produced many runs to support the Districts’ Amended Final
2 License Application and FERC’s FEIS. For information relevant to this request, please reference the FEIS for the Don Pedro Relicensing and the FERC record. If you have further questions, we recommend contacting the Irrigation Districts.
CSPA is aware that the Districts developed this model. It is also, however, our understanding that SFPUC provided the
data to the Districts regarding the diversion patterns to SFPUC through the San Joaquin Pipeline to the Bay Area under different demand sc enarios. The
request, therefore, went specifically to SFPU
C’s data for input into to the Districts’ model, not
to the Districts’ model i
tself.
CSPA is also aware of the many model runs of the Districts. None of them modeled a 200 mgd demand scenario for SFPUC (including SFPUC supply to BAWSCA) . In the absence of such model runs, CSPA (with whatever QA/QC SFPUC or anyone else may choose to provide) simply wants the data so that CSPA can accurately run the model itself. CSPA is, to our knowledge, the only conservation or fishing group presently capable of performing such model runs.
As noted in the data request, CSPA’s previous efforts t o acquire this data from SFPUC staff were also rebuffed. CSPA was hopeful that under new leadership, and in consideration of the November 9 Resolution, the Commission would see the benefit of sharing data. As CSPA understood Mr. Herrera to say in our December 10 web meeting, everyone is better off when starting from agreed-on facts. We recognize that there will often be disagree ments over the interpretation of data. That’s where the discussion should be: not over who gets data, or whether data developed in the absence of sharing is accurate.
Therefore, CSPA respectfully requests that the Commission confer with Mr. Herrera and direct SFPUC technical staff to provide CSPA with the data requested in the attached docum ent.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Shutes
FERC Projects Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance