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
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-3155
sfpuc.gov
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
October 8, 2026 through October 20, 2026
Date Received From Subject
October 8, 2026 City and County of
San Francisco
City Letter to CPUC re PG&E Outages
and Reliability Issues
October 9, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC
Commission October 13, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid
October 9, 2026 BAWSCA October 14, 2026 BAWSCA Board
Policy Committee Meeting Agenda
October 12, 2026 Lydia Vance UC Berkeley Goldman MPP Students Request for Brief Interview
on San Francisco Public Power
October 12, 2026 Lydia Vance UC Berkeley Goldman MPP Students Request for Brief Interview
October 15, 2026 Lexus Moncrease SFPUC Full CAC Meeting - Tuesday, October 20, 2026
October 20, 2026 Vice President Stacy Report from the BAWSCA Meeting
DANIEL LURIE DAVID CHIU
Mayor City Attorney
RAFAEL MANDELMAN DENNIS HERRERA
President, Board of Supervisors General Manager, SFPUC
October 8, 2026 Via Electronic and U.S. Mail
President John Reynolds
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
Re: Renewed Request for Commission Assistance to Ensure Reliable Electric Service
Dear President Reynolds,
The City and County of San Francisco renews its request for Commission action to investigate and remedy PG&E’s continuing failure to provide safe and reliable service to San Francisco customers. We received your June 1, 2026 letter denying the City’s request for a proceeding to address the December 2025 fire and outages and ALJ Baker’s July 1, 2026 ruling denying the City’s motion to consider this matter in Rulemaking 24-05-23. 1 We requested a public
investigation, and you responded that the Commission is investigating privately. But in light of PG&E’s actions over the last nine months and the ongoing pattern of outages and disruptions including two fires in the last week, an open and transparent investigation is even more critical now than it was when we sent our letter in March.
As in past cases, the Commission can open a proceeding that considers the larger context of the reliability issues that continue to impact San Francisco customers, includes an investigation of the December outages and provides the opportunity for participation by the public.2 Given the direct impact of this investigation on the City and its residents, we respectfully request the opportunity to participate in the investigation. The City’s staff and consultants would bring
1 Attachment A, Letter from the City and County of San Francisco to Commission, dated March 27, 2026, and Letter from Commission to City in Response, dated June 1, 2026. 2 See e.g., I.98-12-013 (Order Instituting Investigation Into the Power Outage Which Occurred on December 8, 1998 on PG&E); I.05-03-011 (Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion Into the Operations and Practices of PG&E; Notice of Opportunity for Hearing; and Order to Show Cause Why the Commission Should Not Impose Fines and Sanctions for the December 20, 2003 PG&E Mission Substation Fire and Electric Outage Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 451); and I.12-01-007 (Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Determine Violations of Public Utilities Code Section 451, General Order 112, and Other Applicable Standards, Laws, Rules and Regulations in Connection with the San Bruno Explosion and Fire on September 9, 2010.)
President John Reynolds
October 8, 2026
additional expertise to the analysis. The need for prompt Commission action remains. We address below new information further supporting the City’s request for Commission help. 3 In addition to the Mission Substation fire and outages, several other matters raise concerns about safe and reliable service in San Francisco. These include PG&E’s continuing delays in completing electric infrastructure improvements, PG&E’s recent statements about curtailing spending to save money, PG&E’s recent proposal to sell Substation I, and the now regular occurrence of unplanned outages.
1. Information Related to PG&E’s December 2025 Fire and Outages
Nearly ten months have passed since the December 2025 outages, yet PG&E has provided little information on how and why the Mission outage caused by the fire escalated to 130,000 customer accounts, lasted several days for some customers, and was followed by repeated outages over the next month for others. PG&E has yet to provide a comprehensive root cause analysis or indicate when that information will be available. Nor has PG&E identified the actions it will take to correct the recurring problems at the fire-prone Mission Substation and the ongoing reliability problems across the City. Given the multiple fires at Mission Substation over the years, understanding the problem and potential solutions, and explaining those to San Francisco customers should be a high priority for the Commission and PG&E. Understanding what happened in December 2025 is important for holding PG&E accountable, and more importantly, for making improvements that prevent it from happening again.
On May 5, 2026, PG&E released Exponent’s report summarizing its investigation into the direct cause of the Mission Substation fire on December 20, 2025. 4 Exponent determined that the fire
was directly caused by an arc-flash initiated from the surface breakdown of an insulating board, which failed due to its contact with the breaker arms in the presence of moisture and surface contamination.
5 Similar damage patterns were found in other breaker cells housing separate insulating boards.6 The Report also identified environmental conditions that PG&E was aware of and had failed to prevent, including a heater that was not energized, insufficient climate controls, and standing water. Despite its narrow scope, the Report’s findings make clear that PG&E’s maintenance and operational failures warrant a more through examination. Further details on the
3 City and County of San Francisco’s Motion to Establish a Separate Track Investigating PG&E’s December 2025 Outages, Or Alternatively To Open An Investigation Under Rule 5.1, R.24-05-023, March 27, 2026, (Motion),
<https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M603/K466/603466563.PDF>. 4 Exponent, SF X (Mission) Substation Outage Event, December 20, 2025, Direct Cause Evaluation, prepared May 5, 2026 (Report), <https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/newsroom/press- releases/Mission-X-Outage-Event-12202025-DCE.pdf>.
5 Report, pp. 3-5.
6 Report pp. 3, 39, 45-47.
President John Reynolds
October 8, 2026
findings of Exponent’s report and the additional questions the report raises are noted in Attachment B.
7 2. Other Issues that Raise Reliability Concerns
PG&E’s Continuing Delays on Electrical Infrastructure Projects in San Francisco
PG&E continues to delay several projects to upgrade or add facilities serving San Francisco, including the Egbert Switching Station, the Hunters Point Substation Upgrade, the Larkin Reliability Project, and the Potrero-Mission-Larkin Seismic Upgrade. 8 The Egbert Switching
Station Project, a critical upgrade to increase reliability and reduce the risk of widespread outages in San Francisco, was expected to be in service in 2021, but recently has been delayed again, now until 2029.
9 Has the delay of these projects contributed to the continued reliability problems in San Francisco? This is a reasonable question for San Francisco leaders and customers to ask. At a City public hearing addressing the Exponent Report, PG&E was asked a related question:
whether San Francisco’s grid meets modern resiliency standards for a dense urban environment.
10 PG&E didn’t directly answer that question but stated that San Francisco has better reliability than several other large cities, including several in California. PG&E did not disclose any metrics, but its statements only underscore the need to address reliability in a public proceeding before this Commission.
PG&E’s response in the hearing also noted that it had spent over $3 billion on the local grid in San Francisco over the last 20 years, with $700 million of that spent directly on substations. 11 While the City lacks the information needed to understand or verify these statements, we note that over 20 years, $3 billion translates to an annual expense of $150 million, and $700 million spent on substations translates to an annual expense of $35 million. These are not extraordinary numbers in the world of utility facilities. It appears that PG&E is expecting to spend even less. In its 2026 Distribution Upgrade Project Report, PG&E’s total authorized capital expenditure
7 Attachment B, Additional Findings from Exponent Report Supporting Further Investigation. 8 See Motion, pp. 9-10 and fns. 28-33 for more details on these delayed projects. 9 Attachment C, City and County of San Francisco Comments, submitted to CAISO Transmission Development Forum, August 12, 2026.
10 City and County of San Francisco, Public Safety and Neighborhood Services – 260035 Hearing Widespread Power Outages Affecting San Francisco Neighborhoods, May 14, 2026 <https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/52421?view_id=10&meta_id=1240531&redirect=true>; See also Hearing Transcript <https://sfgov.legistar.com/Transcript.aspx?ID1=52421> (Timestamp 2:20:59).
11 Id. (Timestamp 2:21:25).
President John Reynolds
October 8, 2026
amount for distribution for 2025 was $4.2 billion.
12 For San Francisco, PG&E has allocated
about $55 million for distribution capital spending for 2026 and 2027, which is only about 1% of its 2025 total distribution capital spending.13 This suggests PG&E may be underinvesting capital in electrical assets in the City, which may be contributing to the escalating reliability problems in the City. Further, if PG&E is not investing sufficiently in capital assets, it also may not be sufficiently funding O&M within the City.
The City cannot determine on its own whether the amount of money PG&E spent on San Francisco infrastructure is reasonable in view of the high rates paid by customers, ongoing outages, and continued delays in reliability upgrades. Rather than relying on snippets of information provided by PG&E in oral comments, and other snippets gathered by the City from public documents, San Francisco customers should be able to rely on information from the Commission about what PG&E spent serving them, whether those expenditures were sufficient and effective, and what additional steps are needed to ensure customers receive the safe and reliable service they pay for.
Moreover, PG&E’s recent public statements about its plans to curtail spending raise further concern about the future of reliable service in the City. 14 PG&E’s Public Proposal to Sell Substation I
In August 2026, PG&E notified the City of its intent to sell Substation I, located less than a block from the Mission substation.15 Substation I is not currently in use, but PG&E has indicated it would be used to serve load growth in the future.16 For this reason, the City included Substation I
12 2026 Grid Needs Assessment Report and Distribution Upgrade Project Report of PG&E (R.21-06-017) filed August 17, 2026, p, 57,
<https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M615/K003/615003295.PDF>. 13 Id., Appendix N, Planned Investments Tab.
14 See Good (Sept. 8, 2026) PG&E Corp. launches strategic review, shares fall 10%, S&P Global <https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/articles/2026/9/pg-e-corp-launches- strategic-review-shares-fall-10-105638542>; See also Munce (Sept. 2, 2026) PG&E says it will scale back planned work after California wildfire reforms fail, SF Chronicle, <http://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/pge-ceo-politics-bill-22414649.php?utm >See also PG&E Press Release (Sept. 2, 2026), PG&E Launches Strategic Review to Build a Better, More Affordable Energy Future for California Customers <http://www.pge.com/en/newsroom/press-release- details.77a6f479-b055-45f1-bbea-0bea442774c2.html>.
15 Attachment D, PG&E Letter to City and County of San Francisco, dated August 4, 2026; See also JLL formal listing for Power Bunker (111 - 117 8th Street, SF), <https://invest.jll.com/us/en/listings/industrial- logistics/power-bunker-111-117-8th-street-sf>.
16 PG&E’s Comments on Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Requesting Comments and Responses (P.21- 07-012), filed February 24, 2025, p. 7,
<https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M557/K608/557608532.PDF>. PG&E states “Substation I. This currently decommissioned substation is geographically proximate to the Mission President John Reynolds
October 8, 2026
in the list of assets it intends to acquire and for which it seeks a Commission valuation in Petition 21-07-012. The City is evaluating whether it should make a separate offer for Substation I now, in advance of acquiring the other assets it identified, to ensure the availability of Substation I for electric reliability purposes.
The materials PG&E has disclosed for the proposed sale indicate PG&E’s intent to sell the facility for a non-utility purpose. Given the recurring fires at the Mission Substation and the lack of a root cause analysis or a remediation plan, selling Substation I is not reasonable. The Commission should not consider approving a sale of this property for a non-utility purpose until it has completed a root cause analysis of the December outages, developed comprehensive improvement plans, and determined that Substation I is not needed for remediation of problems at Mission or to serve future load growth. PG&E has indicated in a discovery response in Petition 21-07-012 that PG&E believes Commission approval for this sale is not required.
Continuing Outages and Recent Fires in San Francisco
San Francisco customers regularly experience unplanned outages, with little explanation of why they continue to happen or what is being done to address them. Since January of this year, the City has experienced at least 40 large-scale unplanned outages, each affecting thousands of customers, often in the same neighborhoods affected by the outages from last December. 17 Twenty-three of these outages were significant enough to catch media attention.18 Just this week, two separate outages occurred – first, in Visitacion Valley and Bayview affecting 2,700 customers, and the second in Outer Richmond, Sea Cliff and Golden Gate Park affecting 4,430 customers.19
In recent weeks, the City also experienced two fires downtown caused by PG&E’s underground electrical equipment. On September 17, a fire near Mission and First impacted traffic during the morning commute, closing streets for several hours.
20 The second fire was just last week and
Substation, and PG&E plans to bring Substation I back online once the Mission Substation reaches its operational capacity.” (emphasis original).
17 The City defines large-scale outage here as affecting at least 1,000 customer accounts. The City receives information from PG&E’s outage map tracker in real-time and tracks unplanned outages where at least 1,000 customer accounts are impacted and the outage lasts more than 15 minutes. 18 Attachment E, E - Table of 2026 Unplanned PG&E Outages in San Francisco. 19 Vaziri, (Oct. 6, 2026) San Francisco hit by multiple large power outages affecting thousands of PG&E customers, SF Chronicle, <https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/bayview-power-outage-pge- 22465051.php>; See also Baker (Oct. 6, 2026) SF power outage impacting thousands of customers in Golden Gate Park, Outer Richmond, KRON 4, <https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/smoke-from- underground-electrical-lines-prompts-downtown-sf-street-closures/>. 20 Mense (Sept. 17, 2026) Smoke from underground electrical lines prompts downtown SF street closures, KRON 4, <https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/smoke-from-underground-electrical-lines-prompts- downtown-sf-street-closures/>; See also Mense (Oct. 1, 2026) Shelter-in-place lifted after underground
ATTACHMENT A
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID CHIU
City Attorney
FOX PLAZA ∙ 1390 MARKET STREET, 7TH FLOOR ∙ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 ∙ FACSIMILE: (415) 554-8793
March 27, 2026
President John Reynolds
Commissioner Darcie L. Houck
Commissioner Karen Douglas
Commissioner Matthew Baker
Commissioner Christine Harada
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
Re: December 2025 PG&E Outages
Dear President Reynolds and Commissioners,
Today the City and County of San Francisco (City) filed a motion in Rulemaking 24-05-023 asking the Commission to open an investigation into the recent outages on PG&E’s electric system in San Francisco. These outages started on December 20 and lasted for several hours and up to several days for hundreds of thousands of residents, businesses, and visitors during some of the busiest days of the year. Many customers experienced recurring outages over the following weeks. PG&E reported that a fire at the Mission substation caused the outage. But much remains unknown.
C
alifornia law requires PG&E to provide safe and reliable electric service and empowers the Commission to ensure that service is provided. We ask the Commission to use its expansive authority and considerable expertise to conduct a proceeding that will investigate and determine the cause or causes of the fire and outages, review PG&E’s outage response, and provide an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions and share their concerns and experiences.
A
s detailed in the motion, there is a long history of fires, explosions, and significant outages in San Francisco. The Commission has investigated previous outages and required corrective actions, but problems persist. As also noted in the motion, the City is open to the Commission’s guidance on the best procedural approach, but we urge the Commission to move quickly. Just last week, 14,000 San Francisco customer accounts lost power due to another equipment failure.
T
he City’s residents and businesses require safe, reliable electric service every day, and they pay dearly for it at rates established by the Commission. The City believes the failure of this service is an urgent matter requiring the Commission’s immediate attention.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Letter to CPUC Commissioners
March 27, 2026
T
hank you for considering this request.
V
ery truly yours,
DAV
ID CHIU
City Attorney
cc:
Executive Director Leuwam Tesfai,
[email protected]
Administrative Law Judge Colin Rizzo
[email protected]
Service List in R. 24-05-023
June 1, 2026
David Chiu
City Attorney
City and County of San Francisco
1390 Market Street, 7
th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
SUBJECT: City and County of San Francisco’s (CCSF) Motion to request a separate track to investigate PG&E’s December 2025 Outages in Rulemaking 24-05-023
Mr. Chiu:
Thank you for your March 27, 2026 letter regarding the City and County of San Francisco’s motion concerning PG&E’s December 2025 outages.
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) is aware of the motion and takes seriously concerns regarding the safety and reliability of electric service. The Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED), which is responsible for conducting investigations into utility safety matters, initiated an investigation following the December 20, 2025 fire at PG&E’s Mission Substation and the resulting outages.
Since that time, SED has conducted multiple site inspections, reviewed evidence, and issued numerous data requests as part of its ongoing investigation. SED continues to examine the circumstances surrounding the fire and subsequent outages consistent with its established investigatory processes.
Because this investigation remains active and ongoing, the Commission cannot comment further on matters that may be under review. SED will continue its work to determine the relevant facts and assess compliance with applicable safety and reliability requirements
2 If you have any questions, please contact Stephanie Green, at 415-703-5245 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
John Reynolds
President
California Public Utilities Commission
ATTACHMENT B
B-1
Attachment B
Additional Findings from Exponent Report Supporting Further Investigation
1. The Report identifies common environmental conditions that PG&E was aware of and able to prevent, including a heater that was not energized, insufficient climate controls, and standing water.
PG&E noted the insulating board’s damage weeks before the event, when Breaker 56 was examined. During that inspection, PG&E found the insulating board warping, burn marks, and contamination. (Report at 16-34.) Yet PG&E did not remove or replace the board, nor did it inspect the back side of the board at all. Instead, PG&E wiped the front surface and reenergized the cubicle after replacing Breaker 56 with Breaker 52 on November 16, 2025, about five weeks prior to the December 20 outage. Exponent determined “the most likely failure mechanism is degradation of surface insulation of the Incident Insulating Board, likely assisted by moisture and surface contamination, that resulted in the failure of the Incident Insulating Board.” (Id. 5.) Notably, the Report recognizes that surface tracking, driven by contact of energized conductors with insulating surfaces in the presence of moisture and contamination, is a known cause of insulation failure that can result in arc flashes. (Id. 3, fn 4)
Exponent also found the following environmental conditions that can increase the presence of moisture and contamination in switchgear room:
• Heater Not Energized: The heater that should have mitigated the relative humidity within the cubicle housing the board was not energized because it was configured to only energize if both breakers in the cell are open. (Id. 5); • Insufficient Climate Control: The building lacked heating, cooling, and humidity control for the ventilation configuration of the building, which exposed the building interior to the variability of outdoor climates. (Id. 6-7, 23-27). The Report states that such conditions can also lead to condensation, especially in sudden temperature changes and that this is what happened in the weeks leading to the December 20 outage. (Id. 6) The Report also notes that 4 supply fans, used to route ventilation into the switchgear room, were non-operational. (Id. 24, 27).
• Standing Water: Ventilation shafts extending from the roof to the basement allowed for rainwater intrusion into the basement and ventilation air intake pits during rain events.
Exponent observed ponding of water in the basement of the building directly below these openings and water in the air intake pit that provided ventilation for the switchgear room where the arc flash occurred. The Report explains that standing water in these areas would lead to higher humidity and higher probability of condensation in the switchgear room. (Id. 6, 23-24)
The findings raise further questions about the circumstances that led to the fire at Mission Substation and to what extent PG&E could have avoided this incident altogether:
• Why was Breaker 52 installed prior to determining what caused the erosion on the Breaker 56 breaker arms? Why did it take two weeks to replace Breaker 56? • What was the rationale to set the breaker cabinet heaters to operate only when both breakers are open? Has PG&E changed this setting for its substations? B-2
• Was PG&E aware of other cells having similar damage and what is PG&E’s action plan regarding these damaged cells?
• Over what time period does PG&E believe the surface tracking that occurred on the insulating boards developed (months, years)?
• The Report indicates that PG&E went to an exception reporting system for their inspections. How does this system confirm that inspections were conducted if there are no exceptions to report? Does PG&E audit its inspection reports to confirm accuracy? • Was Mission Substation in a normal operating configuration at the time of the arc flash? What is the present operating configuration and when will it be returned to normal? • Did PG&E previously identify the issues at Mission Substation and defer repairs, and how did those deferrals contribute to the fire?
• Have all of the required measures stemming from the 1996 and 2003 and 2005 outages at Mission Substation been fully implemented?
2. The Report recommends straightforward measures that PG&E should have already implemented.
The Exponent recommended the measures below to reduce the likelihood of recurrence (Id. 69- 70). These recommendations are not novel—they reflect common sense maintenance and facility management practices for an indoor high‑voltage substation. It is not reasonable that PG&E has not already implemented these basic measures and PG&E should explain why it had not done so prior to the December 2025 outages, and whether these measures have been implemented at all for any of its San Francisco substations.
• Inspecting, replacing or removing degraded insulating boards; • Monitoring environmental conditions, including temperature and relative humidity in switchgear rooms;
• Upgrading HVAC and ventilation systems to prevent moisture accumulation; • Evaluating the roof and building to identify water intrusion pathways; • Fixing heater control logic to ensure condensation protection; and • Installing functional air filtration inside switchgear cubicles.
3. The Report reveals issues at Mission Substation that imply system issues and necessitate a broader review across PG&E’s other substations within the City.
The Report exposes failure patterns and environmental vulnerabilities at Mission Substation that should prompt evaluations of whether similar conditions exist elsewhere in PG&E’s system.
Evidence of breaker‑arm contact and insulating‑board damage was found in multiple non‑incident cubicles, demonstrating that the conditions contributing to the failure were not isolated to a single location. The City is seriously concerned that other substations with similar designs or maintenance histories may face comparable risks. The City urges the Commission to further investigate the following:
• How the fire and outage at Mission Substation spread to outages in the western section of San Francisco;
• How PG&E evaluates operational risk, monitoring and situational awareness for all of its substations;
• Whether other substations in the City face similar risks and have the same failing or damaged equipment and environmental conditions as Mission Substation; B-3
• How PG&E evaluates operational risk, monitoring and situational awareness for all of its substations; and
• The changes PG&E has made to operating and maintenance procedures at Mission Substation and other substations to address the findings in the Report.
ATTACHMENT C
CCSF comments dated August 12, 2026
Submitted by email to: [email protected]
1 City and County of San Francisco Comments on Transmission Development Forum
The City and County of San Francisco (City) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the materials presented by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) at the Transmission Development Forum (TDF) on July 29, 2026.
Martin 230 kV Bus Extension aka Egbert 230kV Switching Station
The In-Service Date (ISD) for this project (1415-R-03), approved in the 2014-2015 Transmission Plan with an original in-service date of December 2021, has now moved from the last reported in-service date of October 2028 to December 2029. During the July 29, 2026 TDF meeting, PG&E reported that this additional 13-month slip was attributed to an updated Siemens GIS commissioning duration. This latest change brings the cumulative slip to approximately eight years beyond the project’s original in-service date. The City is very concerned about this delay.
Following are CCSF questions regarding the status of this critical project:
1. Delay of 13 months due to a vendor update in commissioning duration suggests that the duration of commissioning exceeds 13 months. Please provide the specifics behind the vendor input—including the prior and revised commissioning durations, the date PG&E received the updated schedule, and whether this is a Martin-specific constraint or a fleet- wide Siemens GIS issue affecting other projects.
2. Also, the TDF note indicated “scope development” as a cause for delay. Please elaborate on this scope development.
3. The July 2026 TDF workbook categorizes the Reason for ISD Change as “Financing” (Delay Resolver: Utility), while the accompanying note and PG&E’s verbal explanation cite scope development and a vendor commissioning update. Please reconcile the standardized “Reason for ISD Change from Original Committed Date” categorization with the note and verbal explanation.
4. CAISO determined that this project is needed to meet NERC reliability and CAISO planning requirements, in addition to mitigating critical infrastructure vulnerability.
Please describe the actions PG&E has taken, and any interim mitigation measures in place, to assure the reliability of the supply to the City until this critical project is completed.
5. During the July 30, 2026 Transmission Project Review (TPR) stakeholder meeting, PG&E indicated that Egbert will now be used as a supply for a large load increase. a. Please provide scope information for the new large load increase, including timing, amount of load, proximity to the Egbert Switching Station site, special supply requirements, etc.
CCSF comments dated August 12, 2026
Submitted by email to: [email protected]
2 b. Please explain whether, and to what extent, accommodating this new large load connection requires any change to the design or scope of the Egbert 230kV switching station as approved by CAISO.
c. Will the new large load customer be charged for the design changes and associated construction required at Egbert to serve this load? d. Could serving this new large load require accelerating construction of the Egbert Switching Station, and if so, how will PG&E accommodate this? e. Please explain how the service to this new large load will impact the project’s enhancement of reliability of service to San Francisco. Will the potential new design still enhance the reliability to the City, consistent with the benefits that CAISO identified for the original project?
6. Will additional CPUC permitting approval or environmental review be needed for Egbert as a result of any design or scope changes associated with it? If so, what impact would that have on the project schedule?
The City looks forward to working with the stakeholders in this important forum.
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Pushkar Wagle ([email protected])
___________
Amie Conklin-Rauch
1390 Market Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
Telephone: (415) 554-3954
E-mail: [email protected]
ATTACHMENT D
Writer’s Direct Contact
(213) 683-9516
[email protected]
August 4, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Tim Lindl
Jacob Schlesinger
Sheridan Pauker
Alissa Greenwald
Yonatan Moskowitz
KEYES & FOX LLP
580 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
David Chiu, City Attorney
Theresa Mueller,
Chief Energy and Telecommunications Deputy
Sandy Goldberg
Camille Stough
Christopher Chou
William Rostov
Deputy City Attorneys
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
City Hall
1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl,
San Francisco, CA 94102
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Update Regarding Substation I in Petition of the City and County of San Francisco for a Valuation of Certain Pacific Gas & Electric Company Property Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 1401-1421
Dear Counsel:
We are writing to provide you with an update regarding Substation I, a deactivated substation located at 111–117 8th Street in San Francisco, which CCSF has asked the Commission to value as part of this proceeding. PG&E has recently decided to sell Substation I on the open market.
Tim Lindl
Theresa Mueller
August 4, 2026
As you will recall, PG&E and CCSF discussed Substation I in the course of the parties’ workshops with the Energy Division. Consistent with our understanding at the time , we explained that PG&E planned to bring Substation I back online once the Mission Substation reached capacity. However, PG&E’s assessments in 2025 and 2026 concluded that it is in PG&E’s best interests to sell Substation I, rather than attempt to bring the substation back online.
On July 6, 2026, PG&E placed Substation I on the market. PG&E has been in contact with the Mayor’s Office, including the Chief of Infrastructure, Climate, and Mobility , about the sale of this property. Of course, should CCSF prefer to obtain Substation I for its own use, CCSF is welcome to place a bid in connection with the public listing, which is available online at https://invest.jll.com/us/en/listings/industrial-logistics/power-bunker-111-117-8th-street-sf.
PG&E believes that the valuation proceeding can continue as -is notwithstanding this potential sale . The date of CCSF’s valuation petition is July 27, 2021, and as of that date, PG&E owned Substation I. A ny sale of Substation I would be just one of many updates (both additions and subtractions) PG&E will have made to its grid in the intervening years since the petition date. A subsequent proceeding under Public Utilities Code § 1417 will be necessary to address such updates, and a sale of Substation I could be addressed in that context.
Nonetheless, if CCSF prefers to remove Substation I from consideration in this proceeding, PG&E does not oppose, provided that CCSF so informs PG&E before September 1, 2026.
Please let us know if you would like to discuss this matter further and, if so, propose dates and times for a meet and confer.
Very truly yours,
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
John B. Major
ATTACHMENT E
E-1
Attachment E
Table 1 – 2026 Unplanned PG&E Outages in San Francisco Affecting at Least 1,000 Customer Accounts
Incident
Date
Area affected Number of
Impacted
Customer
Accounts
Reported
Cause
Source
1/2 Richmond
Panhandle
Golden Gate Park
3,338 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
1/20 Hayes Valley 1,239 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
1/21 Crocker-Amazon 4,556 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
1/26 Fisherman's
Wharf
North Beach
Chinatown
Union Square
4,133 Cable failure https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage- tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, Surprise San Francisco
power outage resolved
1/27 Sunset
Parkside
4,676
Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
2/26 Mission District
South of Market
3,190 Unknown at
time of
reporting
KTVU, Power outage in San Francisco affects
thousands
3/13 Lakeside
Stonestown
1,717 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
3/15 Richmond
Sea Cliff
2,272
Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, PG&E restores power to
thousands in Outer Richmond, Sea Cliff
neighborhoods
E-2
Incident
Date
Area affected Number of
Impacted
Customer
Accounts
Reported
Cause
Source
3/20 Castro
Forest Knolls
Haight-Ashbury
Ashbury Heights
Cole Valley
Rolling
outages:
Up to
14,000
across a
series of
overlapping
outages
Underground
equipment
failure at 18th &
Guerrero plus a
separate cable
failure
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, PG&E outages leave
thousands without power in San Francisco.
KTVU, Power restored for most PG&E customers
after equipment failure
4/7 Noe Valley
Dolores Heights
1,789 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
4/10 Lake Merced
Stonestown Mall
San Francisco
State University
1,614 Unknown at
time of
reporting
SFist, Around 1,600 PG&E Customers Lost Power
Near Lake Merced Stonestown Mall
4/16 Golden Gate Park
Outer Sunset
Parkside
4,372 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
4/19 Pacific Heights
Nob Hill
5,483 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, Power mostly restored
after outage in S.F.'s Nob Hill neighborhood.
4/22 Portola
McLaren Park
Visitacion Valley
1,224 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
4/26 –
4/27
Marina
Presidio
5,414
Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, S.F. PG&E outages: 5,000
customers in Marina, Presidio neighborhoods left
without power.
5/14 Marina
Nob Hill
Pacific Heights
2,763 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
SFGate, SF: Over 1,000 Customers Lose Power In
3 Neighborhoods Early Thursday
E-3
Incident
Date
Area affected Number of
Impacted
Customer
Accounts
Reported
Cause
Source
6/13 Ingleside
Oceanview
Outer Mission
1,972 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
6/21
Castro
Dolores Heights
1,601
Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, S.F. power outage
impacts PG&E customers in Bernal Heights
6/24 Mission
Potrero Hill
3,406 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco PG&E
outages left more than 3,500 without power
6/25 Golden Gate Park
Inner Sunset
Haight-Ashbury
Mount Sutro
Castro
4,862 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, Thousands of PG&E
customers lose power in San Francisco for second
straight day.
7/1 Parkmerced
Ingleside Heights
Oceanview
1,775 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
7/2 Design District
Mission Bay
2,413 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco PG&E hit
Costco area before July Fourth weekend
7/18 Richmond
Presidio
9,500 Unknown at
time of
reporting. Arcing
wires at Anza
and 16th Ave
reported
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, PG&E restores power in
S.F. after hourslong outage affecting thousands
KTVU, PG&E mistakenly notified 120K customers
of SF power outage
7/20 Glen Park
Bernal Heights
Excelsior
12,000 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
E-4
Incident
Date
Area affected Number of
Impacted
Customer
Accounts
Reported
Cause
Source
8/9 Russian Hill
North Beach
Chinatown
2,200 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
Hoodline, Russian Hill, North Beach, Chinatown
Go Dark in Fifth SF Outage This Year
San Francisco Chronicle, Power restored in 3 San
Francisco neighborhoods after large PG&E
outage
8/12
Outer Sunset
Lakeshore
5,176 Cause under
investigation,
but the outage
was related to
the Daly City
substation
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, PG&E outage wipes out
power for 5,000 customers from Outer Sunset to
Daly City
8/14 West Portal
Forest Hill
Saint Francis
Wood
2,137 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
8/18 Outer Sunset
Parkside
West Portal
4,395 Utility-pole fire;
power was
switched off
while crews
responded
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
Hoodline, Pole Fire Blacks Out 5,000 Sunset
District Homes, Second Outage in a Week
San Francisco Chronicle, Thousands lose power in
Outer Sunset, Parkside neighborhoods
8/19 Sunset
Outer Sunset
6,692 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
8/21 Forest Knolls 1,007 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
8/24
Inner Richmond
Western Addition
7,000 Underground
electrical-vault
fire, reportedly
caused by
equipment
failure
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
ABC 7 News, Vault fire in SF’s Western Addition
neighborhood knocks out power near 2 schools
E-5
Incident
Date
Area affected Number of
Impacted
Customer
Accounts
Reported
Cause
Source
8/29 Bernal Heights 2,825
Unknown at
time of
reporting
San Francisco Chronicle, Power restored to
thousands of PG&E customers in S.F. after pair of
outages
8/29 Haight-Ashbury
Western Addition
6,000 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, Power restored to
thousands of PG&E customers in S.F. after pair of
outages
9/8
Hayes Valley
South of Market
Mission
3,269 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
Kron 4, SF power outage leaves thousands in the
dark amid heat wave
9/17 South of Market 1,031 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
9/24 Golden Gate Park
Haight-Ashbury
1,043 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
9/28 Richmond
Sunset
Golden Gate Park
Presidio
Seacliff
8,860 Unknown at
time of
reporting. Arcing
wires at Anza
and 16th Ave
reported
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
Hoodline, Richmond and Sunset go dark in San
Francisco’s latest big PG&E outage
10/1 Western Addition
Lower Nob Hill
Civic Center
Tenderloin
2,665 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
10/6 Visitacion Valley
Bayview
2,700 Unknown at
time of
reporting
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco hit by
multiple large power outages affecting thousands
of PG&E customers
E-6
Incident
Date
Area affected Number of
Impacted
Customer
Accounts
Reported
Cause
Source
10/6 Richmond
Golden Gate Park
Seacliff
4,430 Equipment
failure
https://pgealerts.alerts.pge.com/outage-
tools/outage-map/
San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco hit by
multiple large power outages affecting thousands
of PG&E customers
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: [email protected]
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 13, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Friday, October 9, 2026 8:21:16 AM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of October 13, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- b) Approve execution and submission of an attestation of veracity for Hetch Hetchy [keywords: Hetch Hetchy]
- e) Award Contract Nos. PRO.0347.A-E, As-Needed Engineering Services for HHWP [keywords: Hetch Hetchy]
- h) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. PRO.0226, Treasure Island Water [keywords: Treasure Island]
- i) Award Contract No. DB-136, Wastewater Facilities Security Enhancements, to the [keywords: electric]
- 12. Authorize the General Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Wastewater [keywords: capital plan]
- 14. Adopt the 2026–2028 Wildfire Mitigation Plan (WMP) and Independent Evaluator Report [keywords: wildfire mitigation] Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
21208055.3
October 14, 2026
1:30 p.m.
Burlingame Community Center – Sequoia Room
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame
CLICK HERE TO VIEW LIVESTREAM
AGENDA
Agenda Item Presenter Page#
1. Call To Order, and Roll Call (Ragsdale)
Roster of Committee Members (Attachment) Pg 5
2. Comments by Chair (Ragsdale)
3. Consent Calendar (Ragsdale)
A. Approval of Minutes from the June 10, 2026 meeting (Attachment) Pg 7
4. Public Comment (Ragsdale)
Members of the public may address the committee on any issues not listed on the agenda that are within the purview of the committee.
Comments on matters that are listed on the agenda may be made at the time the committee is considering each item. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of three (3) minutes.
5. Action Calendar
A. Resolution Approving the Temporary Re-Appointment of Nicole Sandkulla (Schutte) as Special Counsel to the CEO/GM (Attachment)
Issue: What outside expertise and resources are needed to achieve critical results during FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28?
Information to Committee: Staff memo, resolution, and oral report.
Committee Action Requested: That the Board Policy Committee recommend the Board adopt Resolution #2026-02 approving the temporary re-appointment of Nicole Sandkulla to the position of Special Counsel to the CEO/GM.
Pg 15
B. Annual Review and Consideration of BAWSCA’s Statement of (Tang) Investment Policy (Attachment)
Issue: BAWSCA’s Investment Policy requires the Board to act on it annually irrespective of any changes. No changes are recommended.
Information to Committee: Staff memo and oral report.
Committee Action Requested: That the Board Policy Committee recommend Board re-affirmation of the current Statement of Investment Policy.
Pg 23
21208055.3
6. Reports and Discussions
A. Discussion of Desirable Skills and Background for the Next SFPUC (Smegal) General Manager (Attachment)
Issue: What key attributes and priorities are BAWSCA and its member agencies seeking in the next SFPUC General Manager?
Information to Committee: Staff memo and oral report.
Committee Action Requested: Comments and feedback.
Pg 35
B. BAWSCA’s Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy (Strategy 2050) - (Ashoori) Draft Implementation Plan (Attachment)
Issue: How should BAWSCA implement Strategy 2050?
Information to Committee: Staff memo and oral report.
Committee Action Requested: Comments and feedback.
Pg 49
C. BAWSCA’s Request to the SFPUC to Review its Design Drought (Smegal) (Attachment)
Issue: What questions and comments do the BPC members have about the CEO’s proposed action?
Information to Committee: Staff memo and oral report.
Committee Action Requested: Comments and feedback.
Pg 53
7. CEO Reports (Smegal)
A. Bay Delta Plan/FERC Update
B. CEO’s Letter (Attachment)
C. Board Policy Committee Calendar (Attachment)
D. Correspondence Packet (Under Separate Cover)
Pg 59
Pg 61
8. Closed Session (Schutte)
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Final License Application Proceedings for Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, P-2299-082, and La Grange Hydroelectric Project, P-14581-002.
B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - State Water Board Cases (Third Appellate District Court, Case No.
C101232).
9. Report from Closed Session (Schutte)
10. Comments by Committee Members (Ragsdale)
11. Adjournment to the Next Meeting (Ragsdale)
December 9, 2026 at 1:30pm
Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities
Upon request, BAWSCA will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings.
21208055.3
Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 650-349-3000. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Lydia Catherine Vance
To: Meghan Thurlow
Cc: Commission; Madison Leah Madrid
Subject: UC Berkeley Goldman MPP Students Request for Brief Interview on San Francisco Public Power Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 8:00:21 AM
Dear Commissioner Thurlow,
My name is Lydia Vance, and I am a Master of Public Policy student at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy. I am reaching out on behalf of myself and my research associate, Madison Madrid, who is also a Goldman MPP student. Knowing that you also teach at Haas, we were especially glad to have the chance to reach out to a fellow member of the Berkeley community.
For a research paper we are working on, we are examining San Francisco's potential acquisition of PG&E's local electric distribution system and the broader question of whether and how the City should move toward public power. We are looking closely at the financial, operational, regulatory, and equity implications of the potential acquisition, including the competing perspectives on valuation, costs, rates, reliability, and local control.
As we work through the research, we want to understand how the SFPUC Commission weighs these questions in its oversight role. We would especially value your perspective on the key considerations the Commission is focused on, how it balances costs and risks against the potential benefits for ratepayers, and what you think the public may not fully appreciate about what an acquisition would mean in practice.
If you would be willing to speak with us for 20 to 30 minutes, we would be extremely grateful.
We are happy to meet virtually or in person, including on campus, and can work around your schedule.
Thank you very much for considering our request. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to learn from your perspective as we work to produce a balanced and evidence- based analysis.
Best,
Lydia Vance
MPP Candidate
UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Lydia Catherine Vance
To: Commission
Cc: Madison Leah Madrid
Subject: UC Berkeley Goldman MPP Students Request for Brief Interview on San Francisco Public Power Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 8:00:23 AM
Dear Commissioner Stacy,
My name is Lydia Vance, and I am a Master of Public Policy student at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy. I am reaching out on behalf of myself and my research associate, Madison Madrid, who is also a Goldman MPP student.
For a research paper we are working on, we are examining San Francisco's potential acquisition of PG&E's local electric distribution system and the broader question of whether and how the City should move toward public power. We are looking closely at the financial, operational, regulatory, and equity implications of the potential acquisition, including the competing perspectives on valuation, costs, rates, reliability, and local control.
As we work through the research, we want to understand how the SFPUC Commission weighs these questions in its oversight role. We would especially value your perspective on the key considerations the Commission is focused on, how it balances costs and risks against the potential benefits for ratepayers, and what you think the public may not fully appreciate about what an acquisition would mean in practice.
If you would be willing to speak with us for 20 to 30 minutes, we would be extremely grateful.
We are happy to meet virtually or in person and can work around your schedule.
Thank you very much for considering our request. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to learn from your perspective as we work to produce a balanced and evidence- based analysis.
Best,
Lydia Vance
MPP Candidate
UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy
1 From: Moncrease, Lexus
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2026 5:28 PM
To: SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee
Subject: SFPUC Full CAC Meeting - Tuesday, October 20, 2026 Dear Members and Stakeholders of the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC),
The next Full CAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 20, 2026, in- person at 525 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA 94102. Members of the public are invited to observe the meeting in-person or remotely online as described below.
To access the agenda and link to the Zoom meeting, please check the CAC website here.
*** CAC members, please confirm your attendance by Monday October 19 , 2026, close of business to ensure quorum.
Thank you,
External Affairs
View the Agenda
This email was sent by: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA, 94102, US
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Citizens’ Advisory Committee
2 MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 20, 2026
5:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
525 Golden Gate Ave., 3rd Floor Tuolumne Conference Room Members of the public may observe and participate via Zoom virtual conference software.
Join the Zoom meeting:
https://sfwater.zoom.us/j/84720265674?pwd=MQh5UrzRFgOHKOfbclmmK1gxkylqYL.1
Meeting ID / Passcode
847 2026 5674 / 263404
Phone (audio):
669-219-2599
Find your local number: sfwater.zoom.us/u/koINZGz3v
Mission: The purpose of the SFPUC CAC is to provide recommendations to the SFPUC General Manager, the SFPUC Commission, and the Board of Supervisors regarding the agency’s long-term strategic, financial, and capital improvement plans (Admin. Code Article XV, Sections 5.140 - 5.142).
Members:
Douglas Jacuzzi (Chair) (D4)
Cal Law (D1)
Erin Roach (D2)
Sally Chen (D3)
Lila Holzman (D5)
Alex Francois (D6)
Julia Hernandez (D7)
Amy Nagengast (D8)
Aaron Hebert (D9)
VACANT (D10)
Jennifer Clary (D11)
VACANT (B-Small Business)
Arthine Cossey van Duyne (B-Environ. Justice)
Katie Zheng (M-Large Water User)
Sarah Atkinson (M-Environmental Org.)
Thomas Smegal (M-Regional Water Customers)
Loretta Dickerson-Smith (M-
Engineering/Financial)
D = District Supervisor appointed, M = Mayoral appointed, B = Board President appointed
Staff Liaisons: Lexus Moncrease and Lupita Garcia
Staff Email for Public Comment: [email protected]
ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Ohlone Tribal Land Acknowledgement
2. Approve September 15, 2026, Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comment: Members of the public may address the Committee on matters that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.
4. Report from the Chair
Welcome members, staff, and the public
5. Discussion: SFPUC General Manager Search Feedback
After reviewing the resources below the Council will discuss potential challenges the next PUC GM may face in the new role. The Council will also discuss any qualifications they see as important for the role.
3 Resources:
o SFPUC General Manager Job Description & Posting
o Department of Human Resource (DHR) Executive Recruitment Process Presentation to the Commission (Presented on July 14, 2026) o July 14, 2026, Commission Meeting Recording
o SFPUC General Manager Recruitment Survey Questions (Closed on October 9, 2026)
6. Presentation and Discussion: The Future of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Mallory Irene Albright, Regulatory & Legislative Affairs, Power Enterprise
7. Staff Report
8. SFPUC Communications (Information Only)
a) Future Agenda Items & Resolutions
b) Correspondence Log
c) Water Supply Conditions Update
d) Annual Alternative Water Supply Program Report
e) Annual Street Light Program Update
f) Water System Improvement Program Quarterly (Q4) Report FY 2025-26 g) Green Infrastructure Grant Quarterly Report Pursuant to Board of Supervisors Ordinance 207-24
9. Please visit www.sfpuc.gov/cac for announcements, comments, and confirmation of the next scheduled meeting, agenda, and materials.
10. Adjournment
For more information concerning the agendas, minutes, and meeting information, please visit sfpuc.gov/cac. For more information concerning the CAC, please contact by email at [email protected] or by calling (415) 517-8465.
Disability Access
The following services are available on request 48 hours prior to the meeting; except for Monday meetings, for which the deadline shall be 4:00 p.m. of the last business day of the preceding week:
For American sign language interpreters or the use of a reader during a meeting, a sound enhancement system, and/or alternative formats of the agenda and minutes, please contact Lexus Moncrease at (415) 517-8465 or our TTY at (415) 554-3488 to make arrangements for the accommodation. Late requests will be honored, if possible.
In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals. Individuals with chemical sensitivity or related disabilities should call our accessibility hotline at (415) 554-6789.
LANGUAGE ACCESS
Per the Language Access Ordinance (Chapter 91 of the San Francisco Administrative Code), Chinese, Spanish and or Filipino (Tagalog) interpreters will be available upon requests. Meeting Minutes may be translated, if requested, after they have been adopted by the Committee. Assistance in additional languages may be honored whenever possible. To request assistance with these services please contact Lexus Moncrease at (415) 517-8465, or [email protected] at least 48 hours in advance of the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible.
4 語言服務
根據三藩市行政法第91章"語言服務條例"，中文、西班牙語和/或菲律賓語口譯服務在有人提出要求後
會提供。翻譯版本的會議記錄可在委員會後要求提供。其他語言協助在可能的情況下也可提供。請於會
議前至少48小時致電((415) 517-8465或電郵至[[email protected]] Lexus Moncrease 提出口譯要求。逾 期要求， 在可能狀況下會被考慮。
ACCESO A IDIOMAS
De acuerdo con la Ordenanza de Acceso a Idiomas “Language Access Ordinance” (Capítulo 91 del Código Administrativo de San Francisco “Chapter 91 of the San Francisco Administrative Code”) intérpretes de chino, español y/o filipino (tagalo) estarán disponibles de ser requeridos. Los minutos podrán ser traducidos, de ser requeridos, luego de ser aprobados por la comité. La asistencia en idiomas adicionales se tomará en cuenta siempre que sea posible. Para solicitar asistencia con estos servicios favor comunicarse con Lexus Moncrease al (415) 517-8465, o [email protected] por lo menos 48 horas antes de la reunión. Las solicitudes tardías serán consideradas de ser posible.
PAG-ACCESS SA WIKA
Ayon sa Language Access Ordinance (Chapter 91 ng San Francisco Administrative Code), maaaring mag-request ng mga tagapagsalin sa wikang Tsino, Espanyol, at/o Filipino (Tagalog). Kapag hiniling, ang mga kaganapan ng miting ay maaring isalin sa ibang wika matapos ito ay aprobahan ng komite.
Maari din magkaroon ng tulong sa ibang wika. Sa mga ganitong uri ng kahilingan, mangyaring tumawag sa Lexus Moncrease at (415) 517-8465, o [email protected] sa hindi bababa sa 48 oras bago mag miting. Kung maari, ang mga late na hiling ay posibleng pagbibigyan.
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements
Individuals and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance [SF Campaign & Governmental Conduct Code §2.100] to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94102, Phone: (415) 252-3100/Fax: (415) 252-3112, Email:
[email protected].
Know your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code)
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.
Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s review. For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, by mail to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4683; by telephone 415-554-7724, by Fax 415-554-7854, or by email:
[email protected]
The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound- producing electronic devices.
1 From: Stacy, Kate H
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2026 8:59 AM
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J; Flynn, Ronald P; Feitelberg, Brittany K Subject: Report from the BAWSCA Meeting
Hi Tiffany,
I’m hoping you can share this email with all the commissioners today. (I’ve also copied Dennis Herrera, Ron Flynn, and Brittany Feitelberg, above, for their information too.) I attended the BAWSCA Policy Committee meeting Wednesday, October 14, to listen to their views on the search for a new General Manager at the SFPUC. 8 directors were present at that meeting, along with Tom Smegel and other BAWSCA staff. A few members of the public also attended the meeting. The Directors generally were very positive about the survey and thought the questions and lists of possible responses were comprehensive.
The Directors identified these issues as important for the future GM:
Financial sustainability and affordability of rates
System resilience
Managing the CIP
Affordability for different populations and communities, with attention to lower income customers
Potential for rebates and funds for community projects Need for further infrastructure resiliency, possibly a second WSIP-level program Escalating costs of water - the costs are already too high The BAWSCA-SFPUC legal relationship is important; requirements of the agreements must be enforced, and the regional balance and accountability should be a priority.
The Committee also weighed in on the characteristics and approaches they would desire in the next GM:
Expertise in the utilities and on the issues
Open communication and collaboration with BAWSCA (this idea was articulated several times) Willingness to collaborate with BAWSCA and work together on mutual projects Seeing BAWSCA as a partner, more than a client
Shouldn’t lead with resistance to BAWSCA
Listening to the historical knowledge and expertise of BAWSCA and trusting that knowledge Awareness of the relationship with BAWSCA and how that relationship is governed Providing early estimates of rate changes (surprises are problematic) Engaging early on issues in a constructive way, attempt to resolve technical disagreements Understanding the regional balance, equity issues, and accountability to BAWSCA Focus on being a manager, not a politician
Ability to manage numbers, budgets, and the distribution system The new GM should plan to meet at least once a year with BAWSCA at one of the public meetings. 2 I hope I’ve accurately captured all the comments.
Kate Stacy
Get Outlook for iOS