Will now come to order.

Ms.

Lanier, can we please call roll?

President Arce.

Here.

Vice President Leverone.

Here.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Here.

Commissioner Stacey?

Here.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Before calling the first item, I'd like to announce that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission acknowledges that it owns and are stewards of the unceded lands located within the ethno-historic territory of the Mowekma Alone tribe and other familiar descendants of the historic federally recognized Mission San Jose Verona Band of Alameda County.

The SFPUC also recognizes that every citizen residing within the Greater Bay Area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the Moekalone tribes or Aboriginal lands since before and after the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's founding in 1932.

It is vitally important that we not only recognize the history of the tribal lands on which we reside, but also we acknowledge and honor the fact that the Moekma Alone people have established a working partnership with the SFPUC and are productive and flourishing members within the many greater San Francisco Bay Area communities today.

Item three, approval of the minutes of January 12, 23, 29, February 5, and February 10, 2026.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Colleagues, have you identified any corrections, additions, anything to discuss within the five minutes, five sets of minutes that are in front of us for approval today?

No.

Okay.

Can we take public comment, Ms.

Lanier?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item three.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any calls who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanyard, there are no callers in the queue.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues, can I get a motion to approve all five sets of minutes?

So moved.

By Commissioner Stacey.

Second.

From Vice President Leverone.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item three passes.

Item four, general public comment.

Members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda.

Members present who wish to speak are encouraged to complete and submit to the director of commission affairs a speaker's card located on the table to the left of the public gallery seating area.

Please note that members are called to the podium to speak in the same order that cards are received.

The commission values civic engagement and encourages respectful communication at the public meeting.

We ask that all public comment be made in a civil and courteous manner, and that you refrain from the use of profanity.

Thank you.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide general public comment.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any calls who have their hand raised?

Lanier, there are no callers in the queue.

Thank you.

Item five, report of the general manager.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Item 5A is a quarterly audit and performance review report.

Uh Nancy Hum will be presenting.

Good afternoon, President Arce, Vice President Leverone, and Commissioners.

Today I'm presenting the quarterly audit and performance report.

Review update for the second quarter ending December 31st, 2025.

Before I begin, I'd like to welcome back Irella Blackwood, Audit Bureau Director.

She will present this report again starting in Q3.

I also want to thank Christopher Crane, who's here also, who acted as audit director while Iorella was out on the thank you.

This quarterly report reflects our continued commitment to transparency, accountability, and timely resolution of audit recommendations.

At the end of Q2, PUC completed 14 audits thus far, with a majority of these being financial in nature.

We currently have nine audits in progress, and those include six performance audits, two financial, and one for revenue bonds.

Okay, um, slides are gone, but I can go through still.

Um, if the slides can come up, that'll be great.

Looking forward to Q3.

We anticipate five audits uh scheduled to begin.

Uh, again, these are primarily tied to fiscal year-end activities.

Seven audits were completed in Q1, and are summarized here on this table.

Five of the issued reports were related to fiscal year-in reporting for 2024-25.

Those were the audited financial statements for each of the water enterprise, the wastewater enterprise, and Hedgehead Water and Power and Clean Power SF, as well as the annual comprehensive financial report and the popular annual financial report.

The remaining audits include performance work conducted through the controller city services auditor and specifically for Chapter 14B LBE compliance and then a revenue lease audit for Mission Valley Rock LLC.

Our audit spotlight for Q2 is the recently completed revenue lease audit of Mission Valley Rock LLC.

This audit was conducted under the controller's authority pursuant to the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 10.6-2, which requires periodic audits of city-owned leases, generating revenues of $500,000 or more annually.

Mission Valley Rock LLC operates a sand and gravel facility in Synol, California, and leases property from the SFPC, paying base rent and royalties on quarry aggregate.

Total revenues during the three-year audit period were 4.6 million dollars, primarily from royalties.

Overall, the audit concluded that Mission Valley Rock generally complied with key lease requirements and that SFPUC effectively managed the lease during the audit period.

And as with most audits, even when the results are overall positive, there are always opportunities to strengthen processes.

And in this audit, findings that were noted were related to the oversight of received lessee payments, primarily in timeliness, accuracy, and documentation.

The auditor issued eight recommendations focused on assessment and collection of underpaid royalties, which were about $18,000 from the $4.6 million collected.

Timely payment, receipt and processing and proper documentation and more frequent independent reviews of lease revenues, including validation of Mission Valley Rock's price listings.

The PUC implemented four of the eight recommendations prior to the issuance of the final report in December 2025.

Management then implemented the remaining four recommendations prior to the end of Q2, and we're now awaiting formal notification from the City Services Auditor regarding the closure of this specific audit.

All recommendations have been implemented for the two audits that you see here.

Um CSA's follow-up schedule for public integrity audits is per their discretion, and as such, the these audits will remain on our list until we receive a formal notice from them that these have been closed.

Again, our internal goal here is to implement all implement all recommendations within six months.

In Q3, we anticipate completing the financial and performance audits listed here.

I'm not going to read through them, but they're here for you, and I'm glad to answer any questions later if you do have any.

We also expect to begin the audits listed here in Q3.

And these do include two franchise fee audits, one for each of Pacific Gas and Electric and the Energy Center of San Francisco LLC.

We will also begin the 2024-25 wholesale revenue requirement audit, specifically the financial statement for the statement of changes and the balancing account for our wholesale customers, as well as a performance audit of calendar year 2025 accounting transactions.

This concludes my presentation today.

I'm glad to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, CFO.

Questions from colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the report.

Yes.

Um if I read that correctly, nothing has been started on that yet, or something is in process.

This is the public integrity audit you're referring to.

Yes.

Yes, so uh we had implemented both recommendations for that specific audit um relate to public integrity.

I I actually received a notice this morning that the City Service Auditor intends to do a follow-up on this, and usually when they do that, they come and validate that we did implement the recommendations and hopefully everything goes well and we won't see this uh in Q3 or maybe by Q4.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Stacy.

Uh thank you.

I had a question like Commissioner Leverone.

What were the two recommendations on that public integrity assessment?

Do you remember?

I'm gonna hand that over to Ireland.

Okay, thank you.

I believe that had to do with um I think I would like to get back to you on that.

I'm not going to guess off the top of my head.

It had it had a lot to do with tone from the top and our procurement practices.

Yeah, the whistleboat whistleblower program.

Would you like to share?

That's all I remember.

Okay.

I will make sure that I provide something in detail to you, but those recommendations have been um have been implemented.

It's been a well over a year, so I apologize that I don't have that with me.

Oh that's okay.

Thank you for the follow-up.

And just to make sure I understand the two audits listed on your page six are the only outstanding recommendations uh based on all the other audits.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Thank you.

Um thanks for the presentation.

I have a question about the LBE audit.

Um it says that uh there was it could not be validated due to incomplete records um for LBE participation.

Yes.

Um is there any follow-up based on that finding or any changes to processes so we can get data from sure.

I can explain that audit a little bit more.

So this is the um compliance audit for chapter 14 B LBE compliance.

Um usually what the controllers does is they do a sample of various contracts across the city, and in this case uh they sampled five contracts, of which one uh did not have the proper documentation to validate uh compliance.

Um fortunately for the SFPUC, what contracts that we uh participated in did not generate a finding.

This is related to a um a supplier that uh had work related to the Garfield swimming pool, and this involves Wreck and Park and the Department of Public Works.

Um and so the recommendation was made for those two departments to ensure that their form seven and form nines, which were um payment request forms and then for uh contractors as well as form nine, the payment affidavit affidavit for subcontractors to ensure that those forms were included.

Um I have my notes here, so it's nine of the 25 payments were missing documents as well as incomplete information that was retained at the um CMD division at the at the city at the uh city level.

So for PUC, no findings.

Okay, great, thank you.

Any other questions, colleagues?

None from me.

Thank you for the report.

Thank you.

And it sounds like we'll take public comment at this time, Ms.

Lanier?

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item five A.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanyard, there are no callers in the queue.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, CFO Hom, and we have um any additional items, Mr.

General Manager?

Uh Mr.

President, that concludes my report.

All right, thank you all.

Item six, consent calendar.

Colleagues, any questions about the four items on the consent calendar?

Any discussion at all?

Commissioner Stacy.

Um I thank you, Mr.

President.

I had a question about consent calendar item sixa and its relationship to our agenda item eight.

Will the um next era analytics solutions company be advising us on projects like Willow Rock, or are there separate projects over which we have more control that 6A would be advising us on?

Good afternoon, Commission.

Michael Himes, I'm a deputy assistant general manager for the Power Enterprise.

Commissioner Stacy, the answer is no.

There is no actual relationship between those two contracts.

Where we are scheduling the resource in the California Independent System Operator Energy Market.

The project that you'll be hearing more about in item eight is an we have an indirect relationship to through our joint powers agency.

So we won't need that software for this particular project that we'll be talking about later.

Great.

Thank you.

That's sort of what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure I understood the thank you for your question.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks, Commissioner Stacey.

Anyone else?

No.

Other questions?

Alright, then before we act, can we take public comment on the consent calendar, Ms.

Lanier?

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on the consent calendar.

Are there any members present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any calls who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there are no callers in the queue.

Thank you.

Motion to approve motion from Commissioner Jamdar.

There's a second.

Second.

Commissioner Stacy.

President Arceus.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item six passes.

Item seven.

Authorize the general manager to seek board of supervisors approval to extend the authority in section 99.5 of the administrative code for streamlined customer installation of electric infrastructure.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh, may I please have the slides?

I am Catherine Spauldine.

I'm a deputy assistant general manager in the Power Enterprise responsible for planning and capital delivery.

I'm here before you today to seek your approval for us to pursue Board of Supervisors approval to extend the authority and administration administrative code 99.5.

The purpose of this is for streamlined customer installation of electric infrastructure.

So some background on this.

We are currently facing a need for electric infrastructure in response to very strong demand.

We need new substations, transmission and distribution upgrades.

As you know from assistant general manager Barbara Hale's budget presentation last month, there are large load customers who are very interested in taking our Hetch Hatchy Power, our clean, reliable, affordable Hachi power service as soon as possible.

As we take on these new customers, we need to build out new electric infrastructure to serve them, often on their property.

Such private sector partners are accustomed to constructing and turning over such facilities to utilities like ours as part of larger construction projects that they are undertaking.

Let me give you an example to make this all more concrete.

A capital project that you heard about from AGM Hale last month that I know you have great interest in is the Steam Loop Decarbonization Project.

A quick reminder, Cordia is the owner operator of this Steam Loop system, which provides space and water heating to approximately a two square mile area in Civic center and downtown.

Cordia is updating its facilities and converting its natural gas boilers to be served by clean hedge hedgey power.

They're going to become our customer.

And for us to provide this service, a substation is needed, and the most feasible location is on Cordia's Jesse Street property.

CORDIA is willing to construct this substation for us as part of their larger construction project to update their facilities, provide us the land for the substation, and then turn it over to us to own and operate.

It would be much more cost effective and expedient for us to have Cordia do the construction rather than attempting to do our own contracting and construction in parallel.

And we have other prospective customers in a similar situation as Cordia, where new substations are needed.

These customers are willing to pay for them, provide us land, and then turn these facilities over to us to own and operate.

And even like Cordia, these prospective customers are willing to allow us to build extra large facilities so that we can provide electric service to other customers in addition to them, so that we can best meet the city's growing demand for electricity for municipal services and expanded housing.

So the opportunity is before us so that we can capture the efficiencies of scale and accelerated schedule of construction that is already underway.

Today we are seeking authorization to contract with a customer to install facilities on our behalf.

The intention here is to facilitate existing city policy that we provide electric service to all new customers whenever that is feasible.

But because of the scope of work necessary and all the other work on other capital improvement projects, PUC would not otherwise be able to complete the project in the time frame that the customer requires.

And if we are not able to meet this time frame, we risk losing the customer entirely.

For those of you who are not familiar with 99.5, this was added by the Board of Supervisors in 2021 to facilitate our redevelopment work in the city's redevelopment areas.

It gave us the authority to contract with developers that had existing development agreements with the city to install facilities on our behalf, and this has been very successful.

In the past five years, we have electrified nearly 3,000 residential units as well as commercial and public spaces.

Building on the success of 99.5 to date, we are proposing to extend this to allow us to contract a purchase from a customer electric utility facilities that SFPUC would otherwise install, but only under some very unique conditions, that it wouldn't create any additional costs, that we have very clear agreements on responsibilities and scope with the customer, and importantly, all city equity, labor, and local economic participation requirements are met.

So specifically what I'm referring to here are things like non-discrimination and contracts, prevailing wages, utilization of local business enterprises, project labor agreements, and local hiring.

In addition, some other conditions are that the fills facilities would be owned by the city, and all such construction is in compliance with all city rules and applicable codes.

So to conclude, we believe strongly that this proposal is in the public and the agency interest.

It would make us prepared and commercially ready to act.

By streamlining the contracting processes proposed, we will deliver new utility capacity more quickly.

We can build a larger customer and rate base sooner.

We can facilitate private sector investment in clean energy electric infrastructure that will help us meet San Francisco's climate action plan goals and our growing municipal and housing needs.

This proposed authority would enable infrastructure to be delivered more efficiently and at a lower cost than what the city could otherwise provide due to utilizing construction processes that are already underway, all the while still maintaining all of the city's important equity labor and local economic participation standards.

Thank you very much.

That concludes my presentation.

Happy to hear your questions and feedback.

Thanks so much, Ms.

Spaulding.

It all sounds like the proverbial win-win to me, and I'm curious to hear from colleagues as well.

Vice President Leveroni.

Thank you very much.

I was a little bit my question's going to be currently, we um have some private industry that build the structure and then turn it over to us for to operate and maintain.

Am I correct on thinking that way?

I I so we currently do um there are facilities that are constructed on our behalf and then turned over to us.

I think the difference here is that we're seeking the authority to have a streamlined process whereby we can have the customer construct the facilities as part of their larger construction project, and then have a more streamlined process whereby they can do that construction per our specifications and then turn the facilities over to us to own and operate.

So this was possible before.

This is just a more streamlined process, so that we can serve these customers more expediently.

Okay, and and with that, then what we would be looking at in our budget at some point in time, the maintenance uh costs.

And do we uh have we like with the ones that might already be existing that we've done?

Is that a a big um say number?

Um, is it?

Yes, I understand where you're you're interested in the cost implications of this, and so nothing about this arrangement changes our cost allocation.

So who pays for what, including um something that we call cost of ownership, which is the cost that a customer has to pay to us on an ongoing basis so we can own, operate, and maintain infrastructure on their behalf.

This cost allocation is specified in our rules and regulations governing electric service, which is something that this commission approved some years ago, and generally we follow a best utility practice, um, something called a cost causation principle, right?

So if the customer incurs the cost, they should pay for it.

Those costs should not be pushed on to other customers to bear the cost.

And in addition, with these large load customers that we're talking about, there are some risks in terms of procurement costs or building infrastructure.

But what happens if the customer doesn't follow through in the way that they said we're we're left uh holding some costs, so we're very careful.

Um, this is also outlined in our rules and regulations.

We structure our agreements with the customers so they bear the risks of those costs, so our existing rate base is protected.

And last question would be then when we look at this and the um private entity would come to us and say, This is what we want to build, we look it over, and then if we see at this time there might be an advantage that we need to tweak it or make it we're able to work with the contractor on doing that, and is that been has that happened, and are we uh in the affirmative that the con the entity that we're working with is always willing to do so?

So, in our conversations with these prospective customers, some of some are farther along than others, some have put in an application for service like Cordia, we're moving along.

We have discussed um our requirements and our interests and our standards that all of the city standards and roles and codes are going to be in effect still, and that we're asking the customer to construct using the way the city approaches construction with all of those protections I mentioned before, and they're very willing and interested.

So, you know, all signs are pointing to us being able to work with our customer in that way.

In addition, we're really thrilled to see that some of these customers are willing to allow us to upsize these facilities because it's very difficult to cite electrical infrastructure in a dense urban environment like San Francisco.

So this is a tremendous opportunity for us to be able to cite this infrastructure, make it larger, and serve multiple customers.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

I think it's a great opportunity to get new customers and uh, you know, make new buildings uh, you know, all electric and uh and customers of Clean Power SF.

My only question is a budget related.

Um is the budget for this?

You said it was beyond our capital plan to invest in these ourselves.

So in purchasing it, is it just a line item in the current budget?

Does it pay for itself down the line?

How is that?

I'm I'm sorry, I must have um misspoke or given the wrong impression.

All of this work is already included in our capital plan in terms of those dollars, where we face some challenges is given all of this demand and all of this need for electrical infrastructure to build it fast enough in order to capture the opportunity of working with some of these customers because if we're not able to meet their timeline, they're gonna go maybe to another jurisdiction or to another utility for service.

So, what this streamlined authority is allowing is for us to move at a more commercial pace, and so but we the budget is included in our proposed our current and proposed 10-year capital plan.

Thank you.

Mr.

Thurlow.

Thank you.

I think this might be a very basic question, but I'm still struggling to understand how specifically this is an extension and improvement of the process in the admin code today, right?

It seemed like Mission Rock is an example of a program that according to the staff report was relevant to this in the past.

Was it previously that these programs and development agreements were already articulated by customers, or how how is this an improvement?

Yes, it's it's really an expansion.

So what currently 99.5 was fairly narrow.

It spoke to the ability to contract with developers who are already in agreement and under agreements with the city for these large redevelopment projects where there's a lot of horizontal infrastructure being built, water power, sewer, um, there's new streets, it's these large redevelopment projects.

So 99.5 was originally put in place so those developers could install infrastructure on our behalf again as part of larger construction projects.

It's narrow to developers with development agreements with the city, and so this proposed expanded authority would take that same model and apply it to these large load customers who aren't in development agreements with the city, but we're gonna have other clear agreements with them outlining roles and responsibilities and cost responsibilities.

So it's the same idea, it's just broader in terms of who it applies to.

That makes perfect sense.

So people without development agreements with the city.

And then the approval process would still would we still see those decisions come through an approval process at the commission level, or does this kind of facilitate?

So my understanding is the um documents that are appropriate for approval.

The requirements are outlined in our rules and regulations governing electric service.

It talks about electric service agreements, it talks about facilities agreements, and so that's already under the has been approved by this commission, and so I am not aware of any additional processes for approval for those documents.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you.

I I think my question is the same as Commissioner Thurlow's.

I just wanted to confirm that I understood from the staff report.

The expansion of 99.5 really is to allow projects that are not subject to a development agreement or don't have a development agreement with the city to also build these facilities, and it lowers the threshold for the size, right?

That as long as the PUC thought or Hedgehog, it was it was an appropriate project for us to enter into that kind of agreement.

As long as we find it feasible to serve the customer, um, so yes, you're that your understanding is correct, but it might be helpful for me to note that we are really talking about a very small subset of customers who have the capacity, the real estate, to do this kind of construction work on our behalf.

So it's not necessarily lowering a threshold as much as sort of expanding uh slightly so that um private sector companies that have the capability to deliver on such a project, um, would be eligible to participate in this process so that we could partner with them and provide them service more expediently.

Maybe I misunderstood.

I I thought that we were also lowering the th the size threshold so that it could apply to smaller projects than it currently does, or did I just make that up?

I think that in reality the project sizes would be a smaller footprint and maybe a smaller dollar amount.

Um that's not necessarily explicit in the proposed language, as far as I understand.

Okay, thank you.

This feels to me like what I remember on various opportunities we had to partner with the private sector on power purchase agreements, whereby there's something that we need, which is additional energy, and this is uh a more sustainable form of electricity.

It's connected to steam, it's essentially pulling some of the steam and the heat that can contribute to climate change, and we're recapturing that and converting it into energy and reducing some of the carbon footprint, but we can't do it on our own because this entire asset is owned by a private sector partner on land owned by a private sector partner.

So here we have a really strategic opportunity to partner to set these terms and conditions that that are important to us as you've articulated in the presentation, and then rely on the private sector and their ability to get the work done in a way that uh they're better positioned than we are if we were going to pay for that upfront cost in return.

You already negotiated a really great price for us to be able to add what we need ultimately back to the beginning of what I said being the electricity.

So it just it feels like a really great approach to this project and hopefully others too.

Thank you.

All right, shall we take public comment, Ms.

Lanier?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item seven.

Are there any members of the public president who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any colleagues that have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, no callers in the queue.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, with that.

Can we get a motion to approve this item and grant the requested approval?

Motion to approve.

Commissioner Sacey.

Seconded.

From Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arceus.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Hi.

Commissioner Stacey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item seven passes.

Item eight.

Adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the project participation and share agreement and the buyer liability pass through agreement so that Clean Power SF may participate in California Community Powers procurement of the Willow Rock Long Duration Storage Project.

Authorize the general manager to execute the agreements on behalf of the Clean Power SF program with total contracts contract costs not to exceed $75,900,000 for a delivery term of 20 years, commencing with commercial operation of the projects and authorize the general manager to seek approval from the Board of Supervisors to execute agreements to the extent required.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Michael Himes, I'm the deputy assistant general manager for the Power Enterprise responsible for Clean Power SF and our power resources.

By way of introduction here, I wanted to mention that last year, with uh the support of the this commission, the Board of Supervisors delegated to the general manager the authority to approve contracts for the sale of power purchase and supply agreements.

This delegation allows the power enterprise to operate at the commercial pace necessary to secure cost-effective renewable energy and energy storage supplies for our customers.

We report contracts executed using that authority to you and the Board of Supervisors every quarter.

Today we have a contract where we do not need uh to rely on that delegated authority for timely execution.

If I could have the slides.

Today we are requesting that the commission adopt findings pursuant to the TSEQA, approve agreements that allow Clean Power SF to participate in California Community Powers procurement of the Willow Rock long duration storage project, and authorize the general manager to seek approval from the Board of Supervisors to execute the associated participation agreements if necessary.

CC Power is a joint powers agency formed in 2021 by community choice aggregators in Northern California.

The Commission and the Board of Supervisors approved Clean Power SF's membership in CC Power in February of 2021, and Clean Power SF formally became a member in April of 2021.

Today there are nine members of CC Power representing about 2.7 million customers across 112 municipalities, spanning from Humboldt County to Santa Barbara County.

By joining forces, Clean Power SF and other CCAs can leverage our larger buying power to develop projects or purchase energy from larger projects at a lower cost than if we went alone, providing financial benefits to the public with both virtual and in-person access options.

We're presenting this contract for your approval today because the California Public Utilities Commission ordered Clean Power SF and other power providers under its jurisdiction to procure long duration energy storage resources.

Long duration energy storage resources are defined as those that are capable of storing and discharging energy to the grid at their maximum power capacity for eight hours or more.

Clean Power SF was ordered to procure 15.5 megawatts of long duration energy storage by the CPUC.

In 2022, the Commission and Board of Supervisors approved Clean Power SF's participation in the Tumbleweed and Goal Line long-duration energy storage projects with CC Power.

These two projects would have satisfied Clean Power SF's regulatory obligation for long-duration storage.

While the Tumbleweed project is on schedule to reach commercial operation this June, the goal line project was terminated by the developer last year.

In anticipation of additional member procurement needs, CC Power issued a request for offers in 2024 for renewable energy and energy storage supplies, and as part of this solicitation, received offers from 30 long duration storage projects.

The Willow Rock project was selected by CC Power for a contract due to its high project viability, comparable economics, and technological diversification benefits.

If approved, this will be Clean Power SF's first non-lithium ion energy storage project.

CC Power approved an energy storage agreement with the Willow Rock project at its January 28th public meeting, and the agreement was executed on February 4th.

The six participating CC Power members, including Clean Power SF, now have 120 days to obtain approval from our respective boards and execute the participation agreements that deadlines May 4th.

In order to participate in the Willow Rock project, Clean Power SF will need to execute two agreements.

The first, noted on this slide with a number one, is called the Project Participation and Share Agreement.

This agreement governs the relationship between CC Power and the participating members.

It specifies the energy products to be delivered by CC Power to the members and outlines processes and procedures in the event any individual participant withdraws from the agreement.

The second agreement designated by the number two on the slide is called the buyer liability passed through agreement.

This agreement is executed between Clean Power SF, CC Power, and the Willow Rock project, and acts as a guarantee by Clean Power SF of its share of CC Power's payment obligations to the project.

This agreement is intended to address the fact that CC Power, our JPA, is an entity with no customers or revenues of its own.

This agreement mimics what Clean Power SF would commit to if it had entered into the agreement on its own.

Clean Power SF's guarantee is limited only to its specified share of the project.

The third agreement, not numbered on this slide to the left, it's labeled RA plus TB4.

Sorry, the text is hard to read on the projection.

This is called the Energy Storage Agreement.

This is effectively the power purchase agreement entered into by CC Power and the Willow Rock project.

Clean Power SF is not a direct party to this agreement.

This contract structure that I just laid out is the same structure that was used by the other CC power projects that were participating in, including the Tumbleweed Project.

Okay, let's shift to the project itself.

Here is a summary of the key elements of the Willow Rock project and the proposed agreement with CC Power.

WillowRock is a proposed 500 megawatt and 4,000 megawatt hour advanced compressed air energy storage project to be built in Rosamond, California, a region that has an abundance of utility-scale solar energy resources.

A rendering of that project is on the slide here.

On behalf of its members, CC Power has contracted for a 50 megawatt portion of the facility.

If approved, Clean Power SF's share of that would be 11.5 megawatts or about 23% of the total commitment.

Under the participation agreement with CC Power, Clean Power SF would commit to purchasing resource adequacy capacity and energy storage services from Willow Rock for 20 years from the project's commercial operation date, which is expected in July of 2020.

Under the participation agreement, Clean Power SF's costs are not to exceed $75,900,000 or about $4 million per year.

This amount includes a buffer to account for a step up in Clean Power SF's project share should another participating member withdraw from the project.

The developer Hydrostore has committed to using a project labor agreement to construct the facility.

They've also committed $2.1 million per year over five years for a total of 10.5 million in community benefits to various organizations in Rosamond to Hatchapi and the Antelope Valley region.

So how does advanced compressed air energy storage technology work?

I'm gonna do my best here, okay?

I'm not an engineer.

The illustration on this slide shows the major components of this project.

First, an air compressor, labeled one, uses electricity drawn from the grid to deliver pressurized air into an underground water filled cavern, specially designed for this purpose, and that's labeled three on the chart.

The process of compressing air generates heat, which is extracted using a heat exchanger and then captured by the project in a thermal management system, which is labeled two for later reuse.

As compressed air is pumped underground, it displaces water in the cavern, which is then forced up through a shaft into a reservoir on the surface labeled four.

When energy is needed on the grid, the water is allowed to flow back down into the cavern, pushing the compressed air back to the surface.

The compressed air is then reheated using the stored thermal energy in number three, which heats and expands the air as it passes through a turbine generator.

That generator produces electricity, which is then delivered to the grid number five.

So think of it as a loop.

Draws electricity from the grid, changes that into energy that's then stored in the cavern.

It's gonna do that by drawing power when prices are low and energy is abundant, and then discharge the energy when prices are high.

This is a proven technology that has been used pretty extensively for more than 30 years.

Not necessarily in this application though.

The project has completed environmental review and it's received its application for certification permit approval.

The California Energy Commission, acting as the SQL lead agency adopted a final decision for Willow Rock in December.

The decision adopts mitigation measures to avoid or reduce all significant environmental effects identified except for unavoidable impacts to visual resources.

The CEC's final decision meets the SFPUC's environmental review requirement.

Approval of the participation agreements today is within the scope of the CEC's final decision, and the SFPUC has no authority or responsibility for implementing the measures proposed by the CEC.

To conclude, staff recommends the commission approve the proposed resolution, allowing us to move forward with the participation agreements.

Participating in the project will support Clean Power SF's compliance with state law.

If approved, our next step will be to go to the Board of Supervisors for approval to execute the agreements, and all of the agreements must be executed by the various members as I mentioned before by May 5th.

Before I open it up for questions, I did just want to acknowledge the Power Enterprise and City Attorney staff for their work on this project, especially our project manager, one of our senior originators, Kiara Herman.

Chiara.

She worked closely with CC Power staff and the other members to get us to this point.

So that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Alright, thank you, Mr.

Hyams.

Questions from the commission.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Great.

Thank you for the presentation.

I have two questions.

One is about the technological maturity.

Has this type of I believe in the thermodynamic dynamics that are happening here?

They make sense to me, but like has a project like this been developed at this scale, and when we think about the sort of timeline and the fact that only one, it sounded like only one of the proposals was for this type of project.

Like how confident are we that this company will be able to deliver?

And then my second question is about I think it's about the contract structure and whether we get an offset from the contract amount that is the TB4 energy purchase price back, right?

And then my question is what is the magnitude of that or the projected magnitude?

Obviously, it's um dependent on market conditions.

Yeah, thanks.

Thanks for those questions.

To address the first one, uh, this will be the first project of its type in California, but the same developer is operating an existing project in Canada and has been it's been online for several years.

Uh so it is a proven technology.

Um, it's not the only project either.

Uh there are other projects in Europe as well that are like this one.

Uh, one of the things that makes this project unique is a lot of the other most I believe of the other compressed air storage projects require natural gas on site to support that uh reheating and expansion of the air through the turbine generator.

This project is novel in using the stored heat and the compression process instead.

So we're excited about that.

Um California needs a diversity of energy storage technologies, and uh it's exciting that CC Power is going to be part of an effort to bring a new technology type to the state, so that we're not reliant on just batteries.

Um there is a track record for this technology.

Uh the second question is about the what I would call like the financial settlement of the contract structure.

So because CC power and the membership are only taking a portion of the project, the project operator will manage the whole facility in the market on behalf of its various um purchasers or off takers.

Um the invoicing that happens will be the net of the contract price and the energy revenues that the project receives from the California ISO.

So I think you were alluding to that.

Um the market prices fluctuate over time.

Uh, but we do expect that uh the project will receive healthy revenues from this arbitrage in the energy market.

Um, and do you have a broad sense of order of magnitude relative to cost?

So the financial analysis that was performed for this project uh had the project um roughly uh a break-even type of project for the members when we account for the value of the resource adequacy capacity and the power market um revenues.

Okay, yeah.

Perfect, thanks.

Commissioner Stacey.

I'm sorry, could you repeat what you just said?

I'm not sure I followed it all the way through.

Yes, yeah, so um I I mentioned before that the not-to-exceed amount for the contract represents about four million dollars per year.

Uh that four million dollars will be offset by revenues that the project receives from the California ISO by charging and discharging energy.

So they're gonna they're gonna charge at low prices, discharge at high prices.

The difference between that will be credited to the members for this offtake.

So that'll be netted out of our cost obligation.

Got it.

I had a couple of other questions.

Um you mentioned that this goal line project uh had a seller default, and so that project is not moving forward.

What happens to investment in that project?

If the PUC has put money into that project, is it a loss, or do we get reimbursed for that default?

Yeah, good question.

So one of the benefits of this kind of model for securing our energy supplies is that the PUC does not have to commit capital to any of these projects.

So in this model, like the one that we you have before you, the developer is 100% financially responsible for raising the capital, building the project.

The agreement between CC Power and the developer identifies uh terms that could result in default and consequences to the developer if they fail to meet their contractual obligations.

In the case of the goal line project, members received their shares of the what we call the development assurance that the project developer had to post to CC Power to secure the agreement.

So Clean Power Stuff received about a million dollars in that termination payment due to the goal line uh project being canceled.

Okay.

So we have something similar in this case.

And uh it sounds another question just on the this whole negotiation and choosing Willow Rock and when and how to implement and uh use it.

It sounds like the PUC does work closely with the CEC, has input into these decisions and then input into the implementation of the project.

Is that is that a fair characterization?

In this particular case, the we have no we had no relationship with the project and um until um February 4th through our G JPA.

At this point in time, the SFPUC has no relationship with the project.

So we were not involved in the CEC process that respond that was entirely the responsibility of the developer.

Um, and one of the things that was attractive to CC power about this project is that they were so far along in the environmental review and permitting process that the risk to the members was very low, that one of some major issue may come up through that process.

So that allowed this project to score highly in the evaluation that that CC Power staff performed.

Thank you.

I um I spent a lot of time with your slide seven, trying to follow the science of it.

It's really fascinating.

It's also uh really nice to hear that we are looking at storage that doesn't involve lithium batteries, that we're looking at energy that doesn't involve natural gas.

It's a it's a really um interesting system, so seems like a promising project.

Thank you.

Before we take public comment, I was just curious with respect to the delegated authority that we I believe unanimously provided to our general manager that then the board of supervisors, I believe, was unanimous in their support to give the general manager and the agency the ability to to quickly move into these types of relationships and procure power to adapt to the changing circumstances that can shift one way or the other in real time.

I'm curious, in light of that authority, what it is about this particular project that requires another additional approval just for kind of knowing in the future what we when we might expect to see something like this again in the future, which is great and I fully support.

But I was just curious about what's unique about this relationship that requires you all to come back to us.

Yeah, thanks for your question.

I think the really key difference is time.

Uh we have time to go through our process, and it won't jeopardize the deal, so to speak.

Um CC Power has executed an agreement with the developer.

Think of that as the power purchase agreement.

So on the back end of that, all the members now have this 120 days to go and seek approvals from our board.

And we talked about it internally.

We felt this was an example of a contract.

And when we when we came to you and the board for approval of 2143, we indicated that if we had instances like this where we had the time and it wouldn't jeopardize the benefits to the city and our ratepayers, that we would bring it through this process.

So that's why we're here today.

And it's really about time, time and stability of the deal.

Well, thanks for following through on that commitment.

It's something I think that we should know it and the board of supervisors should know it too.

Alright, can we take public comment, Ms.

Lanier?

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item eight.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Linier, there are no callers in the queue.

Thank you.

Alright, colleagues, can we um get a motion to adopt these findings under CEQA?

Motion to adopt findings under by Commissioner Jamdar.

Sir Second.

Second.

Commissioner Thurlow seconds.

President Arceus.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item eight passes.

Item nine.

Approve modifications to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Green Infrastructure Grant Program Guidelines and authorize the general manager to increase the maximum grant award per project and the maximum cost per acre of impervious area managed and to approve non-material changes to the green infrastructure grant program guidelines.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm Willis Logston.

I'm a senior watershed planner in the Wastewater Enterprise.

And today I'll be introducing some proposed updates to the Green Infrastructure Grant Program.

May I have the slides, please?

Okay, so today I'll be giving a brief overview of the green infrastructure grant program, introduce the proposed updates to the program guidelines, and close with a summary of the requested commission action items.

The green infrastructure grant program is just one component of SAPEC's citywide strategy to building green infrastructure in San Francisco.

Our agency's long-term vision is to manage one billion gallons of stormwater each year using green infrastructure by the year 2050.

That's equivalent to capturing about 10% of the rain that falls on San Francisco in an average year.

In order to reach that goal, we have three approaches that we utilize to build green infrastructure.

We have the stormwater management ordinance, which has regulated new and redevelopment projects in the city since 2010.

We have capital projects that SFPUC builds and operates ourselves.

And we have grant programs that offer incentives to property owners and community groups to build green infrastructure, including the Green Infrastructure Grant.

And today we're currently about one-third of the way to our one billion gallon goal and are on track to meet that goal by 2050.

The Green Infrastructure Grant was launched in 2019 to provide funding for large properties in San Francisco to build green infrastructure projects that reduce the amount of stormwater entering SFPUC's sewer system.

This program provides funding for the design and construction of green infrastructure facilities on both public and private properties.

The program targets large, highly impervious areas, for example, asphalt schoolyards and large parking lots, which are the main contributors of stormwater to our sewer system.

To achieve that, we have a minimum project size requirement of managing stormwater from a half an acre of drainage area.

Awarded projects enter into a grant agreement with SFPUC, and the property owner is responsible for maintaining the project for the duration of the 20-year agreement.

To date, SFPUC has awarded about 30 million dollars in grants to 29 projects, including 11 public schools, five public parks, nine private schools, one housing development, and one artist cooperative.

Nine projects have been completed to date, and there are currently nine projects in construction that are anticipated to complete construction later this year.

When complete together, these projects will manage about 18 million gallons of stormwater each year.

Overall, we're really happy and excited about the outcomes that we've seen from this program to date and the level of participation.

Our team's outreach efforts have helped identify new projects over the years.

To date, we've completed about 68 individual property assessments, the 38 of which involve like an in-depth assessment of the property to provide the owner with an opportunities evaluation for green infrastructure.

And the result has been a consistent rate of new applications submitted over the last seven years, with an average of about four new applications and projects awarded each year.

The program is funded through the wastewater capital plan, which includes both grant funding and funds for program administration.

To date, we have awarded about half of that 61.3 million dollars allocated in the capital plan.

The grant awards are based on the size of the project and the proposed budget in the grant application, and we use a cost per acre managed metric to calculate the maximum grant award for each project.

So in summary, projects with larger impervious drainage areas that capture more stormwater are eligible for more grant funding.

And in addition to this cost per acre metric that we use, we also have a per project cap of 2.5 million dollars in funding per project.

The SFUC general manager has delegated authority from this commission and the Board of Supervisors to enter into grant agreements with a term of 20 years.

And this commission has approved previous updates to the program roughly every two years, which has aligned with the extension of the ordinance that grants the GM delegated authority.

The current ordinance will sunset in July, and if this commission approves these modifications today, we will then submit the revised program guidelines to the board along with the request to extend the delegated authority.

And because this program has reached a more mature state of implementation over the last seven years, rather than requesting a two-year extension, we're proposing to request an extension for a minimum of four years through June 2030.

And we'll also continue to submit quarterly reports to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

So here's a summary of today's proposed commission action.

So firstly, we're proposing to increase the maximum cost per acre under the program from 1,035,000 per impervious acre managed to 1,120,000 per acre to account for annual inflation and to continue to cover the full costs of design and construction of green infrastructure facilities.

The per project maximum grant award of 2.5 million would remain in place.

We are also proposing modifications to the program guidelines, including process improvements and updates to program requirements.

These modifications represent a collection of lessons learned over the last two years of program implementation and are aimed at clarifying program requirements and maximizing the benefits of this program.

A full list of the proposed modifications is in the agenda item, and I'm happy to answer any specific questions on these modifications.

And as I mentioned, previous program updates have been approved by this commission every two years because we plan to request a four-year extension to the GM's delegated authority, staff proposed to authorize the GM to increase the maximum grant award on an annual basis to account for construction cost inflation.

And this will allow the program to update the cost per acre as needed for each annual application cycle using a local inflation index called the San Francisco Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate, which is standard for infrastructure planning in San Francisco.

And then lastly, we propose to authorize the general manager to approve future non-material changes to the program guidelines, such as process improvements and clarifying edits to the guidelines.

Material changes such as changes to the program eligibility would continue to be subject to commission approval.

And with that, I want to thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have on this item.

Alright, thanks for the presentation.

Questions?

Discussion, colleagues?

Commissioner Jamdar.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I have a really basic question.

So green infrastructure, from what I'm reading, means just sort of absorbing some of the the rainwater, not exactly storing and reusing it.

Am I correct?

Uh yeah it could be it could be either.

We it's a general term.

I think it could be uh detention or retention of stormwater, so either capturing it, allowing it to slowly infiltrate into the ground, or capturing it and storing it, reusing it for something like irrigation, both would be considered types of green infrastructure.

And we've demonstrated that both those types in projects, so like storage of rainwater and then reuse because I couldn't find any active examples.

Yeah in this program I think most of what we see are uh more like landscape improvements permeable pavement um bioretention or rain gardens that that capture water and allow it to infiltrate but we do have a couple examples of rainwater harvesting projects I think in general in San Francisco we tend to see more water reuse in new and redevelopment projects that comply with the stormwater management ordinance but this in this program we've seen some um some of those projects as well yeah thank you.

All right Commissioner Thurlow Thanks for your presentation I have a question about how we think about this billion gallon goal and how it relates to this program in the sense that it sounds like we've used roughly half the budget through 203 um for a pretty small fraction of our billion gallon goal um which I think is still incredibly important and I'm just wondering how do we think about like what are the motivations of this program and how are they complemented to get to the sort of bigger picture objective.

Yeah that's a great question yeah so I think with like our citywide strategy we try to think about all different types of land uses in San Francisco and trying to have a program for um you know each uh land use category and so I think with that billion gallons if we're about a third of the way there a lot of that is due to the stormwater management ordinance which has been a huge factor in um you know any project that's complied with that over the last um 15 years has had to do some type of green infrastructure so that's um probably um 75% of that or more of of that um of that management that we have to date and so um yeah the remaining you know way we get there is through targeting large impervious areas and retrofitting areas of the city that aren't um going through new and redevelopment and so um this grant program is one way to do that and looking at large parcels we're also looking at the right of way and and some of the things that we can do in the right of way which are more under the capital project bucket so it's um it it is one portion of it and we're kind of at the stage of I guess like scaling up um throughout our programs and it's um I think it's just a matter of like having a strategy for you know each each land use in in the city yeah that that makes sense so if we think about this bucket do we expect that we'll kind of expand the pool of grants available between 2033 and 2050 and that this will drive you know at this point it seems like it's about two percent of the total goal is the goal to get it to 10% is it am I making things up here?

Yeah I think it will continue to we'll continue to look for ways to like expand the program I think like we've seen a lot like a big uptick in in like schools and parks but um we have not really tapped into like commercial properties and so I think like looking ahead like there may be ways beyond 2032 when the like the program funding is up like building on this program if we have more funding approved like how can we expand the portfolio projects and that could mean if we've found that the half an acre requirements too strict maybe we get us we have a smaller um minimum project size that we can start to tap into those like medium sized properties and so we would definitely look for ways to yeah continue to expand and look for untapped like land uses in the city.

But you think the largest opportunity for getting to this larger goal is through the sort of regulatory landscape and redevelopment I think that will continue to make up probably the largest portion of that billion gallons goal and then over time as we kind of scale our capital and grant projects like those will start to make up a larger portion of that total yeah.

Okay perfect thank you.

All right any other questions I I had the chance and uh toward the end of last year to get together with Sierra Club volunteer leaders from the San Francisco group and the Bay chapter and it was really clear to me how much support and and desire to both support expand and enhance the green infrastructure program was really a uh one of the main components of that discussion and and I see Kieran Farr who helps lead the green SF now initiative within the Sierra Club, and and I like everything I'm hearing.

I'm really hoping that we'll be able to hear from Mr.

Farr thoughts on from the Sierra Club about this program as well because I know it's so important to the club and the the members and the and the leaders within the organization.

I I like everything I heard.

It's a great program.

I love getting the quarterly reports too, especially the data-driven outcomes.

I think are really helpful and important part of how you've been successful with all the partners in getting us to this point.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, Ms.

Lanier, can we take public comment?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item nine.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Hello, Mr.

Farr.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

Uh hello, commissioners.

Hello, General Manager Herrera.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts.

I'm gonna wear two hats today.

Um here's my rate payer hat.

So I'm a mission resident, uh, I'm a rate payer, and I'm also an elected member of the Sierra Club San Francisco group.

So I'm gonna share these kind of two different sides of my brain going on.

Uh, first of all, we are super excited as a Sierra Club about the efforts of the Green Infrastructure Program with SFPUC.

Uh, we also have a similar goal of getting around 60 acres of permeable services in San Francisco by 2030.

Um, we really appreciate that we're not just fans of the work, but we're active um partners in this work.

So we've been doing a lot of work lately on doing community outreach to help residents and ratepayers understand why this is beneficial beyond just the aesthetic purposes that we often see and think about.

Um so we've actually officially endorsed many of these projects at the board level at the San Francisco group, uh, including uh a project that's planned in the Outer Mission, Cayuca Alamani Greening Project that's in the planning stages.

So we we really appreciate all that effort, and we think this is a great step in the right direction.

Um now we haven't had enough time to officially review this proposal.

So I'm gonna put on my rate payer hat.

So this is not Sierra Club comments, and I'll share two pieces of feedback about the proposal in front of you today.

First of all, when I go out there and meet with applicants or grantees of this program, uh I hear two pieces of feedback.

Uh, number one is that uh the program needs to pay a little bit more money per acre.

So I'm very happy to see that addressed.

Uh another thing, which was listed as a non-material thing, but I want to just call out super positive is that there's currently a deed restriction for green infrastructure and for commercial property, especially that is on financing.

This is really difficult for lenders to approve.

So I'm really excited that part of this proposal includes looking at that and having the authority to reevaluate that age restriction.

So, well, thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Farr.

Uh, yes, Commissioner Stacy.

Could I ask you a question?

Uh I don't know what the deed restriction um you mentioned is.

Could you?

Oh, thank you.

Yeah, so projects that enter into the grant agreement with us um record against the property deed restriction that identifies the maintenance requirements.

So if the property were to change hands, the maintenance requirements would follow with the deed.

And so the the proposal in this agenda item is to keep the deed restriction as the default um uh notice that's recorded against the property, but give us the option to evaluate alternatives to the deed restriction, including like recording a maintenance agreement, which are just I think different um options that um like Kieran mentioned could uh lower the barrier to entry for certain commercial properties and um allow some other um property types to potentially participate in the program that have seen that deed restriction as being too um restrictive for them.

Yeah, I guess what I didn't understand is what the suggestion is about the deed restriction just to move away from the deed restrictions and to go more towards the maintenance agreements.

Basically to have the authority to explore alternatives, and I don't think that's defined in this proposal, but it's exciting that you would have the authority to look at what those other options are.

Uh again, because usually it's the lender that says, oh, if you have a deed restriction, it's impacting the perceived assessed value of the property of that asset.

And so that's a non-starter for a lot of commercial groups, and so having the option is what we need to start, and then the team will figure out, you know, what's that right way to meet in the middle.

Okay, thank you.

And the only thing that I would maybe suggest before asking for a motion, although we didn't go to remote public comment yet, so I'll just wait until we see if there's any more remote public comment.

Moderator, are there any callers that have their hand raised?

So the thought I had was uh, well, a thank you to Mr.

Farr for coming out and sharing both perspectives around the program generally from the Sierra Club and then your individual perspectives as a ratepayer with knowledge and insight into what we're doing here today.

I do think that uh I know personally I support what's in front of us.

I have a feeling we we probably all do, although I'm no mind reader, but one thought might be to our general manager because of the important role that Sierra Club plays in partnership on green infrastructure and also as advocates, um, knowing that they need a little bit of lead time to take proposals to the Sierra Club to get review and and uh an endorsement of different kind of policies.

So when we go before the board of supervisors for the ordinance that's discussed in the very last slide, an ordinance to extend the sunset beyond July first.

That if we can I'm talking the general manager because it's it's it's for you to to to take this as you see fit, but that we might consider being in close communication with Sierra Club so when we have our ordinance ready to go, and we have our clear path to present it to policymakers.

So we see if we can get that endorsement so then the club could organize around that and help support us as the board of supervisors.

Just a thought.

I move to approve the modifications.

Motion from Commissioner Thurlow.

Second.

From Commissioner Stacy.

President Arcee.

Aye.

Vice President Leverone?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item nine passes.

Item 10, communications.

Thank you both again.

Communications.

We all take note that we received communications.

Item 11.

Items initiated by commissioners.

Is there any items to initiate for future discussion?

Colleagues, no?

No one on the stack.

All right.

Item 12.

Public comment on matters to be addressed during closed session.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 13.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lenny, are there no callers in the queue?

Thank you.

Item 13, motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters listed below.

Colleagues, may I have a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the closed session matters listed under item 13 for conference of legal counsel?

Motion to assert attorney client privilege.

Thank you, Commissioner Jamdar.

Second from Commissioner Stacey.

President Arcee.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 13 passes.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

We will now enter closed session.

Also, San Francisco Government television.

San Francisco government television.

Thank you all.

All right.

So we're back following closed session.

And my report is that the commission is recommending that the board approve the action item reference in item number thirteen.

Item fifteen motion regarding whether to disclose the discussion during closed session pursuant to San Francisco administrative code section sixty-seven.

All right.

Second from Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arcee.

Commissioner Stacey.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item fifteen passes.

Item sixteen adjournment.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

This meeting is adjourned.