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
March 9, 2023 through March 16, 2023
Date Received From Subject
March 9, 2023 Brian Browne How are rates are computed by the SFPUC
Barklee Sanders Emergency Response Required:
Addressing Ongoing Power Outages
on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena
Island in Accordance with SF
Charter and Administrative Code
March 12, 2023 Victoria Pletsch Please Invest in Solutions to Prevent Harmful Algae Blooms & Fish Kills
March 13, 2023 Dave Warner Alternative Water Supply Report March 16, 2023 Thomas Crumpton Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Form Letter
Please Invest in Solutions to Prevent Harmful Algae Blooms & Fish Kills March 12, 2023 through March 19, 2023
Date Received From City
March 12, 2023 Victoria Pletsch San Jose
March 19, 2023 Mary Moycik San Francisco
From: Brian Browne
To: Hood, Donna
Cc: Peter Drekmeier; Elsbernd, Sean (MYR)
Subject: Re: March 14, 2023 SFPUC Regular Commission Meeting Agenda Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 12:34:59 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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 Donna
Thanks. I am trying to figure out how rates are computed by the SFPUC. Below is a simple and non- real construct (example purposes only) that should be easily replicated by staff with real numbers and thus also easy for the layperson to understand.
Period 20XX 200XX+N
Debt Service $1,000.00
O&M $560.00
Total Billable $1,560.00
Quantity Units Provided to
customers 2000
$/Unit $0.78
Debt service under the SFPUC's cash method (2009 MWS Agreement) could be calculated using a level annualized approach where t (time) = the best estimate of the facility (project) life expectancy and i = weighted average cost of capital. t and i should be well explained straightforwardly and understandably for stakeholders (customers).
O&M should apply only to the facility/facilities for which rates are being set
Please ask the Commission to make such information available to me and other stakeholders in an understandable format with all assumptions shown (including any forecasts).
The approach suggested is consistent with how the state constitution mandates local government utility rates are to be set.
I am available to answer any questions, however, rate-makers should understand exactly what I want to see.
Cheers and thanks,
Brian Browne
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Emergency Response Required: Addressing Ongoing Power Outages on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island in Accordance with San Francisco Charter and Administrative Code Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 6:11:29 PM
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.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UmI1ora6dgrtkWCn5IiLL6SFH15MF2hihgnTW2JU4DI/edit? usp=sharing
I am writing to express my concern about the ongoing power outages on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island that have negatively impacted the public health, safety, and welfare of residents in the area. I fully support the resolution presented to address this issue.
As the resolution notes, Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) has the authority to address power grid issues in the area but has failed to take sufficient action to address the ongoing outages. It is imperative that TIDA takes immediate action to ensure the safety and reliability of the electric distribution system on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island.
The resolution recommends that TIDA conducts a comprehensive inspection of the electrical distribution system and creates a detailed inventory of the necessary items, along with their estimated costs for replacing and removing outdated above and below ground infrastructure. This is a crucial step in evaluating the required resources for executing the proposed upgrades and guaranteeing that the project is completed in a timely and cost-effective manner. The resolution also urges TIDA to formulate a plan to replace any outdated electrical infrastructure and provide regular updates on the inspection outcomes and improvement plans.
I also support the recommendation that a repayment plan be implemented for any borrowed funds used to finance the power reliability improvement plan or related projects, ensuring the financial integrity of both projects.
The resolution highlights that the frequency and duration of power outages on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island pose a significant impact on the lives, property, and welfare of the City and County of San Francisco, such that urgent action is necessary to address this situation. I fully agree with the resolution's recommendations that the SFPUC urge the Mayor to exercise her authority to remedy the ongoing power outages and that TIDA authorizes the SFPUC to immediately inspect the electric distribution system and develop a plan for replacing the aging electrical infrastructure.
I urge the Board of Supervisors to direct TIDA to work with the SFPUC to ensure that necessary emergency repairs are completed in a timely manner, and to develop a long-term plan to improve the reliability of the power grid on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. In the event of a power outage on Treasure Island and/or Yerba Buena Island, TIDA should take all necessary actions to restore power as quickly as possible, including authorizing SFPUC to make the improvements to further mitigate such outages.
I support the resolution's call for the allocation of additional funds to the power reliability improvement plan for Treasure Island, to ensure that the current community living on the island benefits from these measures. I also urge TIDA to utilize all available funds and authority to remedy the unreliable electric service by funding any repairs, work, and contracts that the SFPUC deems necessary.
In conclusion, I strongly support the resolution and urge the Board of Supervisors and SFPUC to take urgent action to ensure the safety and reliability of the electric distribution system on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Barklee Sanders
Technology Consultant
More about me: barkleesanders.com
Schedule a meeting: https://cal.com/barkleesanders
March 13, 2023
Re: March 2023 AWS Report: Improved but Biased
Dear Commissioners, General Manager Herrera and Assistant General Manager Ritchie, Thank you for the improvements to the quarterly alternative water supply report. In some places transparency has improved and it is becoming clearer that it is not intended as a comprehensive report.
But there are parts that are biased and unnecessarily alarmist. Please reduce bias in future reports.
Two examples:
Stating 69 mgd Shortfall in 2025 Without Context Shows Bias It is overly alarmist. At a minimum a range should have been given and factors influencing the range should have been mentioned in order to reduce bias. Instead, the report is setting up for distribution of misinformation. The figure is based on demand of 221 mgd. Demand in 21/22 was 182 mgd and 22/23 is likely to be less than that. Demand is going to jump by almost 40 mgd in two years? The finance department projects 2026 demand to be 186 mgd.
The Drought Frequency Bullet is Highly Misleading and Shows Bias While the data in the drought frequency bullet is accurate, the conclusion is not. The SFPUC has much more relevant data in its recent Long Term Vulnerability Analysis (LTVA) which shows that the RWS is not adversely affected by climate change, the opposite of the conclusion from the bullet. The LTVA supports what we’ve seen in the last 20 years, that dry years will be drier and wet years will be wetter, but overall drought severity will reduce in frequency with global warming. 1 This bullet is misleading and shows bias by its inclusion. To make it less biased the authors could have also noted that had the Bay Delta Plan been in effect for the last 20 years, the SFPUC would not have even come close to running out of water. Or they could have used LTVA conclusions. Or they could have left out the bullet.
Other notes
While the report uses 105 mgd for the impact of the Bay Delta Plan (not obvious in the report), it refers to a 2021 Water Supply and Demand Worksheet. The Water Supply and Demand Worksheet from
1 See table 5-1 of the LTVA on page 157. Note that for a 2 degree increase in temperate, the return period for various droughts gets longer. Note also the first bullet in section ES.4 of the LTVA on page xxii: “According to climate projections and expert elicitations, there is a central tendency of warming of +2°C and +4°C by 2040 and 2070 (Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 8.5), respectively, with no clear direction of change in mean annual precipitation over the planning horizon.” This means that the most relevant columns in table 5-1 are the two columns on the right reflecting 2 and 4 degree increases in temperature.
March 24, 2021 shows 93 mgd as the impact from the Bay Delta Plan. I still have not been able to get a clear explanation for the source of the 12 mgd increase2.
The 221 mgd and 246 mgd demand projections are based on significant population increases, which so far have not occurred.
Modestly increasing the rationing plan would reduce the projected shortfall and should be considered in any comprehensive document.
While at the moment the SFPUC has not taken action to explore the risk return tradeoff of the current drought planning model, LTVA data and other independent analyses have shown that reducing the design drought required storage would have little impact on risk but could mitigate any supply shortfall by 23 mgd or more, a significant savings against other AWS costs.
Thank you for the improvements made to this report. Please strive to reduce bias in future reports.
Best regards,
Dave Warner
2 An explanation has been provided, but is convoluted. The explanation states that the 12 mgd is due to a reduced impact from the rationing policy because supply (firm yield) is lower with the Bay Delta Plan. However the rationing policy impact should be calculated using demand, not supply, particularly as different levels of demand are contemplated and as the purpose of AWS is to offset lower supply. At a demand of 221 mgd, the rationing policy adverse impact would be only 4 mgd rather than the 12 mgd used in the shortfall calculation. This means that the 2025 shortfall is overstated by 8 mgd, not taking into account the other considerations mentioned in this letter. If my interpretation is accurate, this is another example of bias.
From: CRUMPTON FAMILY
To: Commission
Subject: BAY DELTA WATER QUALITY CONTROP PLAN
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:18:01 AM
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.
Urge Newsom to drop his support for Voluntary Agreements and empower the State Water Board to move forward expeditiously on implementation of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.
Thomas Crumpton
Crumpton Family
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: [email protected] on behalf of Victoria via San Francisco Baykeeper To: Commission
Subject: Please Invest in Solutions to Prevent Harmful Algae Blooms & Fish Kills Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 7:40:16 PM
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.
To: Mayor London Breed
CC: SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera, SFPUC Commission, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Dear Mayor Breed,
I urge you to direct San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to aggressively increase the city’s investment in water recycling today.
This summer, a large harmful algal bloom has spread across the Bay, leaving unimaginable numbers of dead fish in its wake. We’re still learning about this particular bloom, but what we do know is that San Francisco’s sewage effluent contributes to excessive levels of nutrients in San Francisco Bay that make the Bay fertile territory for the spread of harmful algae blooms.
Water recycling and other wastewater management technologies can help by reducing the volume of polluted discharges into the Bay. In addition, by producing potable supplies, water recycling will reduce San Francisco’s reliance on water diverted from the Tuolumne River, increasing the city’s resilience to climate change effects on water supply.
Other cities have learned the lessons of California’s unpredictable climate and are quickly adopting water recycling to reduce their burden on the ecosystem, while increasing the reliability of their supply. Orange County gets more than 75 percent of its water through its water reuse program. Las Vegas recycles nearly all of its water used indoors. And Los Angeles is on the path to reusing 100 percent of its wastewater by 2035.
But, as San Francisco’s draft Urban Water Management Plan recently revealed, the city currently has no plans to make recycled water widely available in the next 25 years. Instead, the city is pursuing multiple expensive and misguided lawsuits so that it can continue to rely, almost exclusively, on the Tuolumne River—one of the state’s most overtapped rivers—for the next several decades. San Francisco and large agribusiness water districts divert four out of every five gallons of water that flow in the Tuolumne River during a typical year.
This overuse has caused the river’s once mighty Chinook Salmon populations to crash. Meanwhile, low freshwater flows contribute to deteriorating water quality—including harmful algae blooms—in the Delta and San Francisco Bay.
I agree with Supervisor Aaron Peskin that “it is time for San Francisco and our sister cities in the nine Bay Area counties to start looking at what kinds of infrastructure investments will need to be made as this becomes, sadly, the new normal.” It’s unacceptable for the city with the nation’s greenest reputation to shirk its responsibilities to conserve California’s precious and unpredictable water supply.
I support increasing river flows to protect San Francisco Bay’s fisheries, water quality, and recreation. The city should do its part to protect the Bay and its rivers—water recycling is a common-sense way to limit the city’s water use, increase the reliability of its supply, and protect the Bay from harmful wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Thank you,
Victoria Pletsch
San Jose, CA