HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-04 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda PacketUTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, December 04, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
6:00 PM
Utilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to
attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still
maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate
from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the
meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in
person. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o n
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, a n d s t r e a m e d t o M i d p e n M e d i a
Center https://midpenmedia.org.
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246)
Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes
after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to
UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the
City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject
line.
PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only
by email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the
Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong
cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not
accepted.
Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,
posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not
create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when
displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or
passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.
TIME ESTIMATES
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reason
intended to facilitate the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER 6:00pm – 6:05pm
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05pm – 6:10pm
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10pm – 6:25pm
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6:25pm – 6:30pm
1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on
November 6, 2024
UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30pm – 6:45pm
NEW BUSINESS (a 10 minute break may be imposed during this section)
2.Discussion of Utilities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) (DISCUSSION 6:45
PM – 7:00 PM) Staff: Karla Dailey and Dave Yuan
3.Discussion on the Time of Use Electric Rates (DISCUSSION 7:00 PM – 7:30 PM) Staff:
Micah Babbitt
4.Review and Discuss Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 Utilities Financial Forecast and Rate
Projections (ACTION 7:30 PM – 9:30 PM) Staff: Lisa Bilir
FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND REVIEW OF THE 12 MONTH ROLLING
CALENDAR: January 7, 2025
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTS
ADJOURNMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code
Section 54954.2(a)(3)).
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
12‐Month Rolling Calendar
Public Letter(s) to the UAC
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
1 Regular Meeting December 04, 2024
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are
available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, December 04, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMUtilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, a n d s t r e a m e d t o M i d p e n M e d i aCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246)Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toUAC@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the
meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,
to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may
be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best
manage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reason
intended to facilitate the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER 6:00pm – 6:05pm
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05pm – 6:10pm
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10pm – 6:25pm
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6:25pm – 6:30pm
1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on
November 6, 2024
UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30pm – 6:45pm
NEW BUSINESS (a 10 minute break may be imposed during this section)
2.Discussion of Utilities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) (DISCUSSION 6:45
PM – 7:00 PM) Staff: Karla Dailey and Dave Yuan
3.Discussion on the Time of Use Electric Rates (DISCUSSION 7:00 PM – 7:30 PM) Staff:
Micah Babbitt
4.Review and Discuss Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 Utilities Financial Forecast and Rate
Projections (ACTION 7:30 PM – 9:30 PM) Staff: Lisa Bilir
FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND REVIEW OF THE 12 MONTH ROLLING
CALENDAR: January 7, 2025
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTS
ADJOURNMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code
Section 54954.2(a)(3)).
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
12‐Month Rolling Calendar
Public Letter(s) to the UAC
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
2 Regular Meeting December 04, 2024
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are
available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, December 04, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMUtilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, a n d s t r e a m e d t o M i d p e n M e d i aCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246)Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toUAC@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reasonintended to facilitate the meeting.CALL TO ORDER 6:00pm – 6:05pmAGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05pm – 6:10pmThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10pm – 6:25pmMembers of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6:25pm – 6:30pm1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held onNovember 6, 2024UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30pm – 6:45pmNEW BUSINESS (a 10 minute break may be imposed during this section)2.Discussion of Utilities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) (DISCUSSION 6:45PM – 7:00 PM) Staff: Karla Dailey and Dave Yuan3.Discussion on the Time of Use Electric Rates (DISCUSSION 7:00 PM – 7:30 PM) Staff:Micah Babbitt4.Review and Discuss Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 Utilities Financial Forecast and RateProjections (ACTION 7:30 PM – 9:30 PM) Staff: Lisa BilirFUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND REVIEW OF THE 12 MONTH ROLLINGCALENDAR: January 7, 2025COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTS
ADJOURNMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code
Section 54954.2(a)(3)).
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
12‐Month Rolling Calendar
Public Letter(s) to the UAC
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service. 3 Regular Meeting December 04, 2024
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are
available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, December 04, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMUtilities Advisory Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option toattend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, a n d s t r e a m e d t o M i d p e n M e d i aCenter https://midpenmedia.org.VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96691297246)Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toUAC@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting to adapt to the participation of the public, or for any other reasonintended to facilitate the meeting.CALL TO ORDER 6:00pm – 6:05pmAGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 6:05pm – 6:10pmThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.PUBLIC COMMENT 6:10pm – 6:25pmMembers of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6:25pm – 6:30pm1.Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held onNovember 6, 2024UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 6:30pm – 6:45pmNEW BUSINESS (a 10 minute break may be imposed during this section)2.Discussion of Utilities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) (DISCUSSION 6:45PM – 7:00 PM) Staff: Karla Dailey and Dave Yuan3.Discussion on the Time of Use Electric Rates (DISCUSSION 7:00 PM – 7:30 PM) Staff:Micah Babbitt4.Review and Discuss Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 Utilities Financial Forecast and RateProjections (ACTION 7:30 PM – 9:30 PM) Staff: Lisa BilirFUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMMING MEETING AND REVIEW OF THE 12 MONTH ROLLINGCALENDAR: January 7, 2025COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTSADJOURNMENTSUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONThe materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. CodeSection 54954.2(a)(3)).
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
12‐Month Rolling Calendar
Public Letter(s) to the UAC
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to UAC@CityofPaloAlto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐
based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 ,
Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in
older browsers including Internet Explorer.
You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you
that it is your turn to speak.
When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they
are called to speak.
When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be
shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 966 9129 7246 Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public
programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with
disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary
aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at
(650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
4 Regular Meeting December 04, 2024
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are
available for public inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item No. 1. Page 1 of 1
5
9
9
2
Utilities Advisory Commission
Staff Report
From: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: December 4, 2024
Staff Report: 2411-3819
TITLE
Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on November 6,
2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the UAC consider the following motion:
Commissioner ______ moved to approve the draft minutes of the September 4, 2024 meeting
as submitted/amended.
Commissioner ______ seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 11-06-2024 DRAFT UAC Minutes
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Kaylee Burton
Item #1
Packet Pg. 5
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 25
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2024 REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Scharff called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 6:02 PM.
Present: Chair Scharff, Vice Chair Mauter, Commissioners Croft, Gupta, Metz, Phillips, and
Tucher (Arrived at 6:07 PM)
Absent: None
AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dave Warner, a private industry CFO, expressed concern that water rates were very high and
would substantially increase. Mr. Warner presented two slides. One slide was on the long-term
trend of water demand and projections, depicting a decrease in water demand. The second
slide demonstrated the price of water per acre-foot in various demand and supply scenarios,
concluding water rates would be too expensive in 2045 even in the best case scenarios.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
ITEM 1: ACTION: Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on
September 4, 2024
Chair Scharff invited comments on the September 4, 2024 UAC draft meeting minutes.
Commissioner Metz made a comment in the meeting that he felt was important and should be
included in the minutes near the bottom of Packet Page 12. Chair Scharff advised it was helpful
to provide written corrections if anyone wanted to change the minutes. After “load,”
Commissioner Metz wanted to add: He clarified that the current demand management
program is really energy conservation and not active demand management. He recommended
two actions: (1) Create a real active demand-side management program and (2) set a much
higher target than 2% to 4% for energy conservation.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 6
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 25
ACTION: Chair Scharff moved to approve the draft minutes of the September 4, 2024 meeting
as amended by Commissioner Metz.
Vice Chair Mauter seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0 with Chair Scharff, Vice Chair Mauter, Commissioners Croft, Metz,
Phillips, and Tucher voting yes. Commissioner Gupta abstained.
UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT
Utilities Chief Operating Officer Alan Kurotori delivered the Director's report.
Smart Energy Provider Award: CPAU was honored with the American Public Power
Association’s (APPA) Smart Energy Provider Award. This award recognized the City for
demonstrating leadership and being a smart energy provider in the City’s energy efficiency
programs, distributed energy programs, and environmental and sustainability initiatives. Staff
accepted the award at the APPA conference in October.
Changes to Gas Transportation Charges: The City utilizes PG&E’s transmission pipelines to
move gas into Palo Alto and passes those costs through to customers. PG&E raised rates for
those transportation services; therefore, City Council approved in October an increase in the
maximum pass-through limit from $0.25/therm to $0.30/therm. Staff anticipated PG&E would
continue to increase rates, at which time staff would return to Council to seek approval for
CPAU to pass those costs through to customers.
Limited-Time Commercial HVAC Incentives: The City was offering increased rebates for
commercial building owners who electrify their rooftop HVAC systems to $3500/ton (was
$650/ton) up to $120,000 for retrofits.
Emergency Replacement Heat Pump Water Heater Program: In September 2024, the City
initiated an emergency program for customers replacing a gas water heater with a heat pump
water heater. As of late October, 466 residents had either completed installations or signed
contracts to install a heat pump water heater through one of the City’s programs, including
three projects completed through the emergency replacement program.
Hourly Water Usage Now Available on the WaterSmart Web Portal: Hourly water data is now
available to CPAU’s customers on the WaterSmart portal. WaterSmart could provide
information about a customer’s water consumption, personalized efficiency recommendations,
and leak alert notifications. Customers were encouraged to log in to their CPAU account to
obtain information. About 20% of customers have logged in to the WaterSmart portal. Staff’s
goal for 2025 was to increase WaterSmart participation to 30% of customers.
EV Programs Update: CPAU successfully installed five new multifamily EV charging stations over
the past three months, including one at an affordable housing project at Alta Housing’s
Arastradero Park Apartments. Combined, these projects provided 133 Level 2 chargers and 48
Item #1
Packet Pg. 7
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 25
EV spaces in Palo Alto. To date, about 36 properties used the EV Rebate Program, resulting in
433 EV charging ports and 73 EV-ready spaces for 814 multifamily units. Multifamily,
nonprofits, and schools were encouraged to visit the City website for further information.
Public Power and Natural Gas Week: CPAU had awareness campaigns to businesses and
residents during the first week of October for Public Power Week and Natural Gas Power Week.
Recent and Upcoming Events: A slide was shown of events held in October. Upcoming public
events included Rain Garden on November 9 and Edible Water-Wise Garden on November 13.
The Facility Managers Meeting on November 14 would not be open to the public as its purpose
was to hear the interests and needs of business customers and facility managers, talk about
programs, and an outside tour to see the completed upgrades at the Hanover Electric
Substation brought online last month.
Chair Scharff inquired if staff followed up to see if the installed multifamily EV charging stations
were being used. Mr. Kurotori replied that staff could ask customers to share metrics and data,
and report utilization rates back to the UAC. Chair Scharff wanted to determine if people were
using the chargers and if it was a good use of resources. Mr. Kurotori had more data on the
City’s facilities and charger networks, and he offered to provide utilization rates as an
informational item.
Chargers recently installed at schools were for school staff and district use only, not open to the
public, as of Mr. Kurotori’s last visit to those sites. Chair Scharff recalled some people tried to
use the charger at the Paly track field on Churchill and were told no. Chair Scharff questioned
whether the chargers should be open to the public because they were installed with City funds.
Karla Dailey, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management, has worked with schools to
accommodate public access to chargers outside of school hours; however, some sites had
security around the schools.
Commissioner Croft voiced her support for installing chargers at schools and anywhere people
gather for public events. Commissioner Croft traveled to schools to attend events but missed an
event because she was searching for a charger.
Vice Chair Mauter asked if the City notified customers of leaks in case they were not actively
monitoring their bill or receiving WaterSmart leak detection alerts. Mr. Kurotori responded that
residents could sign up to receive a text if a leak was over 5 gallons/hour for a period of time.
In reply to Commissioner Gupta asking if the WaterSmart program was available to multifamily
properties, Mr. Kurotori stated that WaterSmart was only available to single-family residences.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 2: DISCUSSION: Discussion on the Upcoming Recruitment for the Utilities Director Position
Item #1
Packet Pg. 8
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 25
Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose addressed the UAC on behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada.
Human Resources Director Sandra Blanch and Assistant Director of Human Resources Nick
Raisch were present virtually.
Dean Batchelor announced his retirement. The City Manager’s office was working with the HR
Department on recruitment for Mr. Batchelor’s replacement. Stakeholder outreach to various
groups that interact with the position was being performed. A discussion had taken place with
the Finance Committee. Tonight, the UAC could provide feedback on the recruitment process
and characteristics of the ideal candidate.
Tina White, with Teri Black & Co. Recruiting, acknowledged it was an important recruitment for
the City of Palo Alto and the UAC. Using the input received from stakeholders, Ms. White will
develop a recruitment brochure to use as the primary marketing tool for this position. Social
media and other channels will also be used to communicate the opportunity. Stakeholder input
will be taken into consideration when Ms. White conducts outreach and speaks to potential
candidates as well as in developing interview questions. This recruitment process will have
multiple stages of interviews, beginning with a screening interview by the recruiting firm.
Two primary areas Ms. White wanted to focus on tonight were key challenges faced by the
Utilities Department from the UAC’s perspective and what the UAC would like to see in the next
Director of Utilities, such as skillset, technical skills, and leadership qualities.
Commissioner Phillips asked if this was an unusual position because it encompassed electricity,
gas, water, and wastewater. Commissioner Phillips felt it would be very difficult to find
someone who had meaningful experience in all four utilities and wondered if one of the utilities
would be prioritized above the others. Including fiber, Ms. White agreed that having five
utilities was unusual. Ms. White did not think she would find someone who had experience or
expertise in all five utilities. The UAC’s input would help determine what was more was
important, a candidate’s technical expertise in a certain utility or leadership attributes.
Commissioner Phillips inquired if splitting the job into more than one position was considered.
Mr. Raisch replied that, if needed, the Utilities Director or General Manager of Utilities and
Utilities Chief Operating Officer could counterbalance with different areas of strength. Ms. Nose
remarked that there was a great team behind the General Manager or Utilities Director
position, so background and knowhow in all five utilities was not needed. The nomenclature of
General Manager or Utilities Director had not been decided yet but the person would be the
leader and vision for the Utilities Department. The Chief Operating Officer and Assistant
Directors had specialized utility knowledge to ensure the Director had the necessary support.
Given the incredible importance of these functions to the City, Commissioner Phillips
encouraged staff to ensure the right structure was in place to provide support.
Because of issues with recruitment and retention of staff across all levels due to challenges with
compensation and the high cost of living, Vice Chair Mauter believed that the input on this
process from staff employed at the Utility was exceptionally important. Ms. Nose confirmed
Item #1
Packet Pg. 9
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 25
that staff was included in the stakeholder outreach. Ms. White held two virtual listening
sessions open to all employees, announced via email. Ms. White was working on an employee
survey that HR will administer and provide the data to Ms. White for her to include when
considering characteristics they were looking for in the candidates.
Commissioner Tucher is on a board that had a broader depth of utilities, including snow
removal. Commissioner Tucher thought it was helpful to have data on the breadth of portfolios
of utility districts of comparable size to Palo Alto. Commissioner Tucher did not believe there
should be a discussion on splitting up the position by utility.
Commissioner Croft wanted someone with interest and experience in developing and retaining
the workforce. Commissioner Croft thought it was important to create a place where
employees felt like they were growing and wanted to stay. Secondly, Commissioner Croft
wanted someone who believed in and would diligently work toward the City Council’s climate
goals to the extent they were relative to the Utility. Thirdly, Commissioner Croft wanted
someone to oversee the Utility’s finances and ensure transparency and clear communication on
the Utility’s revenues, expenses, and reserves. With money moving around, it was unclear how
much there was in the reserve accounts. When making utility payments, make it transparent
and easy for customers to understand where their money was going and what it was paying for.
Commissioner Metz agreed that having operational excellence and financial excellence were
critical but the number one quality was to be a visionary. Commissioner Metz recommended
strengthening the job description around visionary strategic planning. CPAU’s investment in
hydro dams decades before it was fashionable and having sewers and potable water at a very
early time were visionary actions. We are at a turning point in how electricity is delivered and
used. The City is in the midst of a $300 million grid modernization, so vision of how we execute
that is particularly important. If Commissioner Metz had to pick one area of expertise, it would
be deep knowledge in the electrical business. Commissioner Metz spoke of the importance of
having succession plans. Commissioner Metz opined that an engineering degree was needed to
make necessary decisions in the electric space.
Commissioner Gupta was excited about municipal fiber. It could be an attractive attribute for a
potential candidate to develop and help bring forth a new utility. Commissioner Gupta
suggested that the Purpose of Classification include the dark fiber telecommunication system,
perhaps adding the fiber-to-the-premises utility or the utility pilot. Commissioner Gupta
wondered if bullet points concerning the fiber utility could be added under Essential Duties and
Knowledge Skills and Abilities. Since it is a new utility, it would be helpful to have a Utilities
Director with experience or knowledge of that area.
Chair Scharff did not think possession of a valid California driver’s license was a necessity
because it excluded candidates from other states, so he recommended changing it to
possession of a driver’s license. Chair Scharff expected someone who had 15 or 20 years of
experience. Chair Scharff disagreed on requiring an engineering degree because he did not
think the major mattered. For equity, inclusion, and diversity, Chair Scharff did not want the
Item #1
Packet Pg. 10
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 25
requirements to be exclusionary. Chair Scharff was not sure he would include an education
requirement. Someone could have worked their way up through the ranks and if that person
had the skills and impressed people, Chair Scharff did care if that person did not have a
bachelor’s degree.
Chair Scharff agreed with Commissioner Croft’s point about moving forward the City’s climate
goals; however, the Utilities Director, needed to say what would or would not work, or what
had to be done to make it work but doing it in a cost-effective manner was important. The
Council does not run a utility. Council and staff may at times be aspirational and not focus on
what is practical, and someone needed to tell Council and staff. Chair Scharff was looking for a
Utilities Director who had leadership qualities and sound judgment in balancing different issues.
Vice Mayor Lauing mentioned a few things the Finance Committee discussed. From Vice Mayor
Lauing’s background in recruiting, this was referred to as finding a unicorn. First, this position
was critical, so you had to invest in getting the unicorn. The Finance Committee said to shoot
very high and come back if a higher salary was needed. We have to finance the right person.
Second, it was emphasized it had to be somebody who has done and wanted to do big projects.
We have massive challenges and a $300 million investment. Lastly, somebody who had a
demonstrative track record in recruiting targets. We cannot get anything done if we do not
have the people to do the jobs.
Commissioner Croft opined that the description of minimum qualifications was too short and
was not reflective of the senior person we need. Commissioner Croft thought 20 years of
experience was a good target.
Commissioner Gupta asked if the minimum qualifications acted as a gating function to exclude
candidates. Mr. Raisch explained that the minimum qualifications were meant to set a floor for
applicants; however, using the wording “and/or equivalent experience” allowed the recruiting
team to determine if someone was qualified. Commissioner Phillips had experience in recruiting
unicorns and it was necessary to cast a wide net. Requiring X years of experience and a certain
degree may exclude the perfect person.
Vice Chair Mauter wanted a better understanding of the process, timing, and any plans for an
Interim or Acting Utilities Director. Ms. White was working on the marketing brochure and will
finish it after receiving all stakeholder input. The recruitment can open when the marketing
brochure was done, with the goal to open the recruitment in November. Ms. White wanted
flexibility with the typical 30-day timeline because people are distracted during the holidays,
making potential candidates tougher to reach. Mr. Raisch remarked that during a five- to six-
week period, Ms. White’s team will post the marketing brochure on their site and our site as
well as do active sourcing, including letter writing and mailers to the people they have
identified within this field, including calling people who work as Utilities Directors. Once that
process closes, Ms. White’s team does the initial screening; looking at everyone’s qualifications,
experience, education, and training; and might select the top 20 to do 45- to 60-minute
interviews using a supplemental questionnaire based on feedback received from the UAC,
Item #1
Packet Pg. 11
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 25
Finance Committee, and employee surveys. Then, top candidates will be invited to panel
interviews, followed by final-round interviews with the City Manager’s Office.
Ms. Nose stated that executive recruitments typically take at least six months. Ms. Nose’s
understanding of the Finance Committee’s feedback was not to rush the process but to find the
right person. Mr. Batchelor’s last day with the City will be around the holidays. City Manager’s
Office staff and Utilities staff will ensure coverage of necessary duties during the absence of a
Utilities Director.
Commissioner Gupta queried if there would be a follow-up process with the UAC. Ms. Nose
offered to keep the UAC apprised of where they were in the recruitment process. Ms. Nose or
Mr. Shikada can provide updates at some of the UAC’s regularly scheduled meetings.
Commissioner Phillips wanted to see the brochure when it was available and would appreciate
it if the brochure could be distributed to the UAC.
ACTION: None
ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: Discussion with Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) CEO/General Manager, Nicole Sandkulla: BAWSCA Overview, Regional Water Use
and Efficiency, and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Supply Reliability
Investments
Nicole Sandkulla, BAWSCA Chief Executive Officer/General Manager, delivered a slide
presentation. BAWSCA was a special district formed in 2003 by the State Legislature to
represent the interests of 26 water suppliers in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
who rely on water supply from the San Francisco (Hetch Hetchy) regional water system to meet
their customers’ needs. The City of Palo Alto relies on the regional water system for 100
percent of it potable water supply. In FY 2022-2023, the City of Palo Alto purchased over 3
billion gallons of water from the regional water system. The BAWSCA Board of Directors was
comprised of an elected or appointed representative from each member agency. For Palo Alto,
Mayor Greer Stone was appointed to the BAWSCA Board in March 2023.
Starting with the headwaters of the Tuolumne River where 85 percent of the water supply
comes from, water is stored in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The water supply is conveyed by gravity
to the Bay Area. Along the way, the regional water system picks up supply from the East Bay
and Peninsula watersheds that amount to about 15 percent of the water supply delivered. The
regional water system included seven major reservoirs and three hydropower plants.
As a result of encouraging water-saving behavior, rebates, and policy changes such as plumbing
codes and state legislation, 32 percent less water is used today in the BAWSCA region
compared to FY 1986-87 despite a 34 percent population increase. BAWSCA initiated a project
to update the demand projections for the region to better inform the long-term planning
Item #1
Packet Pg. 12
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 8 of 25
efforts for BAWSCA agencies and San Francisco, including updated water management plans
and San Francisco’s alternative water supply (AWS) plan.
State law required San Francisco to fix its earthquake-vulnerable regional water system. The
resulting Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) contained 43 projects to ensure the
system would continue to provide water following an earthquake, meeting minimum day-water
use within 24 hours and normal water use within 30 days. BAWSCA provided oversight of WSIP,
which was scheduled to be completed in June 2032. The two remaining projects were a
regional groundwater conjunctive use project in northern San Mateo County and an Alameda
Creek recapture project. The WSIP cost of $4.788 billion was fully funded by ratepayers.
Recognizing the need to invest to ensure a reliable regional water system, SFPUC’s 10-year
capital plan (FY24-FY33) identified and prioritized capital improvements.
Public Comment:
1. Peter Drekmeier, Policy Director for the Tuolumne River Trust, presented slides. Two
years ago, BAWSCA perform their most recent demand study including a sensitivity
analysis. The 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water demand projections
were much higher than actual demand. Mr. Drekmeier thought that SFPUC basing their
AWS plan on UWMP demand projections was a huge mistake and very political, would
add $17 billion to the budget, and double rates in 20 years. Therefore, it had to be
determined how much AWS was needed. Mr. Drekmeier has worked on these issues for
17 years and offered to provide a workshop to the UAC.
2. BAWSCA’s goal was to provide reliable, high-quality water supply at a fair price. Dave
Warner thought Palo Alto paid the highest wholesale water price of any major water
agency in California.
Commissioner Croft asked about the City’s contractual agreement with SFPUC, the contract
duration, ownership structure, and SFPUC’s long-term obligation to the City. Ms. Sandkulla
responded that the contract included guaranteed rights in perpetuity for supply assurance. The
contract was an allocation of costs, wholesale customers in comparison to San Francisco pay in
proportion to their water use. The contract provided assurance that the City would have a
share of water during droughts, with the goal of no more than 20 percent rationing system-
wide but the amount of rationing was not guaranteed. The contract states that San Francisco
must provide the City with water that met drinking water standards. It was a 25-year contract,
signed in 2009, expiring in 2034. There have been a couple of amendments since 2009 and the
City will see an amendment in the coming months for renegotiation of the drought allocation
among the wholesale customers. San Francisco built and operated the system. In the litigation
that Palo Alto and others brought forth, the assertion was that the Raker Federal Act gave San
Francisco the authority to build water facilities in a federal park, so wholesale customers argued
that they were granted authority along with San Francisco. A lawyer would need to provide any
further response to the question of ownership.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 13
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 25
Commissioner Tucher said that the City’s wholesale prices were the highest in California at
nearly $2500/acre-foot. Commissioner Tucher believed there had been almost a doubling in
price over 10 years. Commissioner Tucher asked about the public commenter’s question of fair
share versus fair price. Ms. Sandkulla stated that Mr. Warner’s comment was correct. BAWSCA,
because of the contract and pay proportional to use for a reliable supply of high-quality water
at a fair price, fair was focused on making sure you pay your fair share. There were WSIP and
capital investments in the last 20 years. About 11 years ago, the original Mountain Tunnel, one
of the major single tunnels to deliver water from Hetchy to the system, had deterioration issues
inside. It could not be taken out of service because it was a single conduit. Engineers said the
best alternative was a new tunnel in the Sierras, which would take a long time to build. A
technical advisory panel suggested repairing the existing tunnel. BAWSCA was a strong
advocate to an alternative that was in the financial best interests and for reliability. Ms.
Sandkulla did not know if $2500/acre-foot was the highest water rate in California because the
price was not subsidized. The City paid San Francisco the cost of the water. The price of water
that Santa Clara Valley Water District charges their wholesalers is offset by property tax within
the county for their State Water Project charges, as do most agencies relying upon the State
Water Project including Metropolitan Water District, but those charges were not reflected in
the cost of water.
Utilities Chief Operating Officer Alan Kurotori commented that the Water District’s projected
treated water and groundwater pumping charges would exceed San Francisco’s cost in the
future because of necessary changes and upgrades to their dams and systems. Commissioner
Tucher inquired if Palo Alto and BAWSCA did a financial review of SFPUC’s CapEx based on
affordability criteria and cost per acre-foot. Ms. Sandkulla stated that BAWSCA reviewed San
Francisco’s capital plan and provided input and comment throughout the development and
implementation process to ensure the resulting projects were the best projects to meet the
identified level of service goals and that San Francisco could meet its contractual and legal
obligations.
Commissioner Phillips stated his understanding was that San Francisco Water had two
customers, San Francisco and BAWSCA. Ms. Sandkulla answered no; BAWSCA did not have a
contract with San Francisco. San Francisco had 26 wholesale customers under the BAWSCA
umbrella under a single contract. San Francisco sold water to other suburban customers
throughout the service area that were holdovers from the past or because of location of the
pipelines. Commissioner Phillips wanted to understand the decision-making process and
BAWSCA’s potential leverage if the City of San Francisco was the ultimate decision maker. Ms.
Sandkulla replied that the SFPUC, a department of the City of San Francisco, had authority. The
contract states that for actions SFPUC took to meet their contractual obligations, there was not
an approval authority from the wholesale customers or BAWSCA. Within 184, SFPUC was within
their right to do whatever they needed to do to meet the obligation. BAWSCA’s goal was to
make sure it was the best choice possible. Ms. Sandkulla routinely speaks to the commission,
general manager, commissioners, elected officials, and others.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 14
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 25
Commissioner Phillips asked what was in BAWSCA or the contract to provide oversight if SFPUC
increased capacity beyond the 184. Ms. Sandkulla’s recollection was that it required a separate
agreement for that need and its cost allocation. There was language in the contract that
opened it up for further negotiation. San Francisco had not indicated they wanted to provide
anything more than 184.
Commissioner Croft noted in tonight’s annual report that Palo Alto’s prices were about 50
percent higher than Hayward which gets 100 percent of its water from Hetch Hetchy.
Commissioner Croft wanted to understand why Palo Alto was so high and what caused the
huge variability in costs to the end customer in comparison to other cities, given that the cities
were paying the same price under one contract. Senior Resource Planner Lisa Bilir explained
that Hayward and Redwood City get 100 percent of their water from SFPUC. The reason for the
difference for other agencies was because they either mixed their SFPUC water with another
source or had a different source of water. A benchmarking study performed in about 2020 and
presented to the UAC compared Palo Alto to many other Bay Area agencies that get 100
percent Hetch Hetchy water. The study demonstrated that most of those agencies were smaller
than Palo Alto and had higher rates. The only two that had lower rates were Hayward and
Redwood City; however, the gap between Palo Alto, Hayward, and Redwood City had been
narrowing over time. In 2009, Palo Alto’s rates were 60 percent higher than Hayward. Now,
Palo Alto’s rates were about 10 percent higher than the average of Redwood City and Hayward
at median usage level but 2 or 3 percent higher than other agencies at low and high usage
levels. The study found that operating costs was one reason for the difference. Another reason
that contributed to the higher rates was that Palo Alto had consistently good and appropriate
levels of capital investment in the water system.
Commissioner Croft asked if the higher rates in Palo Alto were mainly due to the costs of
maintaining the system within the city. Commissioner Croft believed it was more than a 10
percent difference because the annual median in Hayward was 85 and Palo Alto was 113. Ms.
Bilir replied that operating costs, capital costs, and rate design could be different across cities.
The median usage level was 8 or 9 CCF in Palo Alto. Every few years, a cost-of-service study
examined costs and revenues. Palo Alto charged its customers in accordance with the
recommendations of its cost-of-service study.
Chair Scharff wanted further explanation as to why Hayward had cheaper water if they paid the
same wholesale cost as Palo Alto. Chair Scharff inquired if Palo Alto was overinvesting or
incorrectly designing rates. Ms. Bilir responded that it was complex to compare cities in
different cost categories because cities get revenue from different sources or categorize their
departments differently. Palo Alto did two or three benchmarking efforts with outside
consultants and internal staff to perform comparisons across cities. Ms. Bilir clarified that rate
design also meant that Hayward could get additional revenue from nonresidential growth that
could influence some of their rates. In discussions with some of Hayward’s staff, Ms. Bilir
understood they had a new school and new parks.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 15
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 11 of 25
Chair Scharff inquired if Hayward was buying and selling more water than Palo Alto. Ms. Bilir
answered no; Hayward did not use a lot more water per person. Many of the costs were fixed.
Over time, the trend was that Hayward had different customer usage and growth than Palo Alto
on residential and nonresidential. Chair Scharff was looking at primarily residential rates. Ms.
Bilir said that staff was happy to look at it further but it was a very complex question that did
not have a simple answer. Chair Scharff told staff to come back or email the UAC because it was
worth spending the time to determine why other BAWSCA agencies were a lot cheaper than
Palo Alto. Mr. Kurotori remarked that staff could follow up with the City of Hayward. Staff could
reach out to Alex Ameri, the Director of Public Works for the City of Hayward and previous Palo
Alto UAC Commissioner. There were differences between Palo Alto and Hayward in compaction
of their areas. Hayward might have a lot more industrial and commercial use. Staff could follow
up and inform the UAC why Palo Alto was higher than Hayward if both were receiving water
from Hetch Hetchy. Director of Utilities Dean Batchelor stated that if staff could get the
information, it would be provided to the UAC next month for the discussion on preliminary
rates and comparisons for all the utilities.
Commissioner Phillips wondered if the benchmarks could include comparable communities that
were not BAWSCA members, such as Menlo Park and San Carlos. Ms. Sandkulla clarified that
Menlo Park and San Carlos were BAWSCA-served agencies. San Carlos and Menlo Park were
served by Cal Water. Menlo Park was also served by a private water district, O’Connor Tract.
Commissioner Tucher asked Mr. Drekmeier to elaborate further on his comment about SFPUC
consistently over-projecting or over-forecasting demand. Mr. Drekmeier explained that
projections from the 70s and 80s projected demand today would be 400 to 450 million gallons
per day (MGD), more than twice of actual demand. The regional service area (San Francisco and
BAWSCA) had been less than 200 MGD for the last 10 years. SFPUC created a Water First policy
after a six-year drought that favored water supply over hydro because they previously were
trying to generate as much hydro as possible to generate revenue but got into some trouble
during the drought. That is when SFPUC came up with the design drought that was also in the
AWS plan, which combined two of the worst droughts on record to create a mega drought.
Mr. Drekmeier asked a couple of SFPUC commissioners why there were two sets of demand
projections. The Water Enterprise demand projections were used in the UWMP and everything
was based on it, and the Finance Bureau does sales projections. Those SFPUC commissioners
asked for a report comparing the two projections to actuals. The resulting report found that
both departments over-projected but Finance was a lot closer to actuals. The Finance Bureau
projected water sales of 207 MGD in 2045, the Water Enterprise projected 244 MGD, a 37 MGD
difference. 92 MGD costs $17 billion, so a 37 MGD difference was more than a third less. The
report said that sales projections were as close to accurate as possible because otherwise there
was a deficit if you do not sell as much water as you projected. One SFPUC commissioner asked
SFPUC staff a year ago how it would impact rates if they did not sell as much water as they had
projected. That commissioner did not receive a response and was not get reappointed, so Mr.
Drekmeier hoped the UAC could ask the same question.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 16
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 12 of 25
It was a complex regional network, so Vice Chair Mauter thought it was important to highlight
BAWSCA’s role in providing technical expertise to a very diverse set of relatively small agencies
and regional coordination. Vice Chair Mauter emphasized that capital improvements to a
hundred-year-old system were essential and important to ensure we had a reliable water
supply. Vice Chair Mauter did not want to underinvest in maintenance of a system that was
critical to the economy of this region and our enjoyment of it.
Vice Chair Mauter wanted to hear more about demand projections. Vice Chair Mauter felt it
was important to incorporate climate uncertainty into the analysis. There could be potential
changes in the frequency, intensity, and duration of droughts across California. Vice Chair
Mauter noted that Palo Alto consistently overestimated water demand, as shown in this
quarter’s budget report that sales were a little under the projected amount. Water efficiency
improvement had been tremendously successful. The metric of gallons per day per person had
to take growth into account from urban infill versus maintaining the tree canopy. San Jose and
Santa Clara were intermittent purchases of water in the system, so Vice Chair Mauter
wondered if they should be included in the demand projections if there was not a supply
obligation. Vice Chair Mauter thought a policy decision needed to be made as a Utilities
Advisory Commission and as a region on how to fill the gap between supply and demand,
acknowledging there were technical and political issues. Vice Chair Mauter saw a need for
technical engineering guidance. Vice Chair Mauter believed there should be citizen, Council,
and UAC engagement because these questions were policy grounded, had huge affordability
implications, and strong implications about how we see growth happening in the region. Vice
Chair Mauter asked for Ms. Sandkulla’s advice to the UAC on how to effectively engage with her
predecessor and the SFPUC.
Ms. Sandkulla remarked that drought was driving the AWS numbers, not growth. Efficiencies
were beyond covering growth. Investments were for reliability. As we become more efficient, it
was more challenging when you needed to reduce 20 percent in a drought year. Vice Chair
Mauter queried if SFPUC’s definition of the design drought was correct. Ms. Sandkulla
responded that since BAWSCA’s formation they had been engaged on the design drought and
would continue to support the design drought as the appropriate metric for planning purposes
for this service area, given our reliability on a singular source of supply. Better, more informed
data was needed in order to revisit the design drought.
Vice Chair Mauter thought there had been a lot of progress in the science of making better
projections instead of combining two droughts to create a design drought. Distinct attributes as
well as frequency, intensity, and duration of droughts have different implications for the water
supply and structure needed in the future. Vice Chair Mauter thought that a more detailed
study out of BAWSCA clearly defining an appropriate design drought for our region for not just
today but potentially under future climate scenarios 50 years out would be an incredibly
valuable service from BAWSCA to its members. Ms. Sandkulla pointed out that BAWSCA did not
own and operate the system, so her preference was to have SFPUC do it. Vice Chair Mauter
believed that BAWSCA and SFPUC working together on a study was ideal but if it was not
possible, then it was imperative that BAWSCA take it on independently.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 17
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 13 of 25
Ms. Sandkulla remarked that San Jose and Santa Clara chose not to participate in the lawsuit
that Palo Alto and other cities brought forth that resulted in the 184 contract. Therefore, San
Jose and Santa Clara were not beneficiaries of the lawsuit settlement to have perpetual supply
assurance through 184. All individual contracts were the same, including San Jose and Santa
Clara. San Jose and Santa Clara have consistently purchased water from the system every year
since the 70s. The BAWSCA Board has continuously supported making San Jose and Santa Clara
permanent customers and was actively engaged in discussions about that with San Jose, Santa
Clara, and San Francisco.
In answer to Commissioner Tucher’s question if system meant the Hetch Hetchy system, Ms.
Sandkulla said yes. Commissioner Tucher asked if San Jose’s and Santa Clara’s contracts were
through BAWSCA or SFPUC. Ms. Sandkulla replied that San Jose and Santa Clara were signatory
to the water supply agreement, were members of BAWSCA, had seats on the board, and
contracted directly with SFPUC the same as everyone else. The only difference was that San
Jose and Santa Clara did not have perpetual supply assurance.
Vice Chair Mauter wanted to clarify if costs were driven by drought years, not by ample water
supply years. Ms. Sandkulla responded that future costs, not current costs, were driven by
drought years. Vice Chair Mauter thought that the region needed to make a policy decision on
how to address the fact that two entities did not have supply assurances. Ms. Sandkulla
remarked that it had been a struggle to find projects. Current conversations were around
determining if there was a project that could be part of San Jose and Santa Clara giving
permanent status and bringing in additional dry year supply that made it worthwhile for there
to be a regional benefit.
Santa Clara and San Jose do not have a perpetual right to water from the system. Santa Clara’s
and San Jose’s contract with San Francisco says they can get 4½ MGD every year, pay the same
rate as everybody else, and cannot be terminated without a 10 years’ notice. Chair Scharff
wondered if Santa Clara and San Jose were costing us money because of the cost of investment
for the design drought or if there were benefits resulting in a net positive because Santa Clara
and San Jose saved us money in good water years since they buy water we would not otherwise
sell. Ms. Sandkulla replied that there was a benefit to everyone when you sell water. Most of
the time, the system had sufficient water to sell to its customers and was limited to who they
could sell water. Selling up to 9 MGD to San Jose and Santa Clara was a benefit to the region as
a whole. Everyone benefited from having a secure water supply in the region. Businesses rely
on water supply.
Ms. Sandkulla advised the UAC to make sure the next CEO for BAWSCA comes to talk to the
UAC.
Ms. Dailey asked Ms. Sandkulla to provide an explanation on Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG)
and how or if it applied during drought. Ms. Sandkulla stated that collective wholesale
customers were allocated supply assurance through 184. What was available in a normal year
Item #1
Packet Pg. 18
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 14 of 25
was divided amongst the wholesale customers to calculate the ISG as a planning number to
know how much you were entitled to purchase from San Francisco. Agencies could purchase
more but did not have a right to it. Drought allocations were a separate formula based on
wholesale customers, including San Jose and Santa Clara, negotiating for 2½ years on how to
share available supplies during drought. The negotiations were concluding and the formula
would be available in the next couple months.
Chair Scharff asked if Hayward had unlimited supply. Ms. Sandkulla explained that everybody’s
contract had an end date except Hayward’s, so Hayward has asserted that their contract read
that San Francisco would supply water to meet your community’s needs. Hayward said that if
they grew above their allocation of supply assurance in the 184 contract, everyone else had to
cut back based on Hayward’s interpretation of their contract.
Ms. Dailey confirmed Commissioner Tucher’s understanding that Palo Alto consistently did not
use their allocated ISG.
Commissioner Phillips questioned if supply and demand were not connected in the analysis and
if demand changes were disconnected from the rates. With 50 percent debt service, rates
would increase. Commissioner Phillips was concerned that the impacts of costs on the long-
term use of water were being ignored. Ms. Sandkulla acknowledged that cost had an impact. A
major component of the demand model was econometric, taking into account the available
data. Until the last two years, data on droughts was very sparse. Costs increased because of
investments. Sensitivity analysis was being done on total demand and PUC purchases. A third of
the water supply was from water supplies less reliable than San Francisco. A more robust
analysis will come out, which would be more useful to inform decisions.
Independent of San Francisco, BAWSCA has done forecasts on behalf of the wholesale
customers since 2002. BAWSCA goes through an independent demand projection process with
each of the 26 agencies. BAWSCA provided the projections to San Francisco for their use.
Commissioner Tucher wanted to hear comment on SFPUC’s Finance and Enterprise projections.
Ms. Sandkulla asked Mr. Ritchie to respond. Vice Chair Mauter asked whether BAWSCA’s
projections were closer to the Enterprise or Finance projection. Ms. Sandkulla replied that the
Water Enterprise projection was informed by BAWSCA’s projection because the Enterprise
projection was for long-term water supply planning purposes. The Finance Department
projections were for year-over-year cash flow and rate-making purposes.
Ms. Sandkulla confirmed Commissioner Phillips’s understanding that the econometric model
explicitly used an elasticity of demand to calculate and adjust the forecast based on the rates
the people were paying. Commissioner Phillips queried if those elasticities were available. Ms.
Sandkulla stated that the demand projections and elasticities from the prior demand study as
well as the entire demand study were publicly available on BAWSCA’s website. Ms. Sandkulla
offered to provide the elasticities from the prior demand study to Commissioner Phillips
tomorrow. Ms. Sandkulla did not have the elasticities for the current study.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 19
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 15 of 25
Chair Scharff pointed out that we never ran out of water even though the region has had many
droughts since the 70s and a lot more water was used in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Ms. Sandkulla
felt it was more appropriate to allow SFPUC Assistant General Manager Steven Ritchie to
respond. Chair Scharff asked to hear Ms. Sandkulla’s comment and then Mr. Ritchie’s. Ms.
Sandkulla stated there had been a lot of singular one or two dry years but not many droughts
extended to three years. Massive droughts occurred in 76-77 and 87-92. Then, there were a
couple dry years but no droughts until the last 10-year period. We have grown into our
demand. People used a lot more on a per-person basis in the 70s but you could save a lot by
not flushing your toilet because a toilet used 7-9 gallons per flush. Your toilet today used less
than 1 gallon per flush, so we have less ability to conserve. Regulatory constraints made the San
Francisco system less reliable. The challenge was how to provide and manage the additional
water that the environment needed. New drought year supplies needed to be developed.
Commissioner Gupta inquired if the contract in 2009 specific to San Francisco’s obligation to
provide safe drinking water included perfluorinated substances or microplastics in our water
supply, and if BAWSCA or SFPUC was looking at that issue. Ms. Sandkulla answered that San
Francisco’s obligation was to provide water that meets drinking water standards. Mr. Ritchie
and his team were actively looking at perfluorinated substances and microplastics, so Ms.
Sandkulla would let Mr. Ritchie talk about it.
ACTION: None
UAC took a break at 8:30 PM and resumed at 8:42 PM.
ITEM 4: DISCUSSION: Discussion with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Assistant
General Manager of the Water Enterprise: Operations, Drought Planning, and Alternative
Water Supply Planning
SFPUC Assistant General Manager Steven Ritchie addressed the UAC. SFPUC delivered potable
water to the system. Most wholesale agencies delivered raw water, not potable water, so a
comparison of rates could be misleading. Valley Water’s rates may have surpassed SFPUC.
Because of the quality and purity of the water from Hetch Hetchy, the water is only disinfected
but did not need to be filtered. The water was delivered by gravity through the system across
the Central Valley and up the Peninsula to the Bay Area without any pumping. From a
sustainability perspective, this was one of the highest ranking water systems in the nation if not
the world. SFPUC had junior water rights on the Tuolumne River, meaning in wet years we had
plenty of water but had the right to very little water in dry years. The irrigation districts have
senior water rights. For reliability, SFPUC relied on stored water in their reservoirs. The source
water had been sampled for years and PFAS had never been seen in the system. Microplastics
may be the next water quality requirement.
Management decisions and planning were guided by Water First, experience, and risk
management. Water First meant that water supply was a top priority with hydropower
generation a secondary consideration. Experience was gained during the severe 1987-1992
Item #1
Packet Pg. 20
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 16 of 25
drought. We cannot operate to zero storage because there would be no cushion for the next
potential dry water year. For drought planning, analysis was done of a drought worse than
1987-1992 by adding two additional dry years. This year might be the beginning of a new
drought because October was extremely dry. A photo was shown of the upstream face of
O’Shaughnessy Dam with water available at the bottom level but the other outlets were dry.
All water agencies were obligated to create an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every
five years to demonstrate there was enough supply to accommodate anticipated growth over
the ensuing 25 years. For example, SFPUC communicated with the City of Palo Alto’s Planning
Department about their expectation for growth. When a Finance Department does demand
planning, they have to make sure they do not run out of money. SFPUC has to make sure they
do not run out of water.
The 2018 adopted Bay-Delta Plan was contested and SFPUC filed litigation. Unimpaired flow
paradigm and existing agreements may require up to 93 MGD of impact to regional water
system supplies. A Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program was an alternative being considered
by the State.
In the last couple droughts, the State curtailed SFPUC’s diversions in the system by certain
water right holders. SFPUC had been working with the State on this but it could potentially
impact SFPUC’s water rights.
Housing Elements called for many new housing units in every community served by SFPUC. The
population will continue to grow. Demand hardening would see if people could achieve 20
percent rationing in a drought.
Regarding climate change, SFPUC worked with UMass Amherst on a long-term vulnerability
study, the results of which showed shifts for more precipitation as rain than snow with changes
in runoff patterns.
The Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Plan for the regional water system was requested by
SFPUC and the BAWSCA Board of Directors. This was not an adopted plan nor was it a plan to
construct any particular project. The AWS Plan was meant as a planning document to give
information to decision makers regarding potential future water supply issues and actions to
augment the regional water system supplies to retain our current, appropriate risk
management approach.
Wholesale customers had a supply assurance of 184 MGD, if available and requested, divided
by Individual Supply Guarantees (ISG) among 23 customers, excluding San Jose and Santa Clara
as well as Hayward’s unique circumstance. San Francisco’s supply allocation was 81 MGD. San
Jose and Santa Clara had a combined supply of 9 MGD. Total regional water system demands
were 244 MGD based on the 2020 UWMP, comprised of numbers received from wholesale
customers collectively through BAWSCA plus work that SFPUC did with their econometric
modeling in San Francisco. Assuming implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, water
Item #1
Packet Pg. 21
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 17 of 25
availability would be 152 MGD but total regional water system existing and potential
obligations were 274 MGD, resulting in a shortfall of 122 MGD.
A map was shown of AWS projects throughout the service area: Daly City recycled water
expansion, PureWater Peninsula, South Bay purified water, Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion
(LVE), supply alternatives for LVE, conveyance alternatives for LVE, Alameda County Water
District and Union Sanitary District (ACWD-USD) purified water, and Calaveras Reservoir
expansion. The three projects with PureWater or purified water in their name were potentially
using recycled water for drinking water. According to the press, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir
expansion project may not happen for various reasons. SFPUC thought they would continue to
pursue the purified water projects because it was the surest future water supply. SFPUC will
hire a Purified Water Program Manager in San Francisco to ensure SFPUC was moving in the
right direction.
The regional groundwater storage and recovery project and the Alameda Creek recapture
project were part of the WSIP that SFPUC was working on with BAWSCA and the wholesale
customers. The San Francisco groundwater project had been instituted for years and SFPUC
could expand it. PureWaterSF would be a purified water project in San Francisco. There were
potential projects with Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts. SFPUC will develop additional
demand scenarios. SFPUC will explore the feasibility of a regional water system grant program
where money could be distributed to customers who had projects they wanted to pursue that
may not have been cost effective but might be beneficial to the region.
A total of about $12 million was spent for the AWS Program over the last four years, mostly in
planning purposes, and most went for the Los Vaqueros expansion project.
Earlier this year, SFPUC approved a 10-year capital improvement plan, including funding for
AWS planning. The FY25-34 CIP totals were $1.63 billion for regional water and $1.53 billion for
Hetch Hetchy water. Those funds were going for a lot of projects, the bulk of which were
replacements of old facilities, including the hundred-year-old Hetch Hetchy facilities and
various pipelines throughout the system. The AWS program represented about $260 million in
the 10-year plan. Almost $11 million was planned to be spent in FY24-25 through FY25-26 but a
lot of that was for the Los Vaqueros expansion, so SFPUC may change where that money goes.
This funding supported purified water projects.
Delivering SFPUC’s CIP takes sound financial planning, including smart infrastructure planning
and investment, low-cost debt funding, and conservative financial policies on reserves and debt
coverage. In November of 2023, the SFPUC adopted a ratepayer affordability policy.
Historically, 2 percent of median income was affordable under EPA guidelines. The median
income is high in San Francisco but it is a bimodal economy. SFPUC does numerous proactive
audits. Rate setting is compliant with Prop 2018 and the Water Supply Agreement. SFPUC
planned their finances to support their infrastructure needs without overly burdening their
constituents.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 22
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 18 of 25
FY 2025 projected wholesale rate: The wholesale revenue requirement was how much money it
cost to operate the system in any given year, most of it fixed costs. Fixed fees were meter fees
for various customers. There was a balancing account because sometimes funds were over or
under collected depending on actual demand because it was prorated across water
consumption. The wholesale revenue requirement minus fixed fees and plus or minus the
balancing account was divided by wholesale volumes, which was $5.55/unit. This represented a
6.5% rate increase. The factors driving the rate increase were growth in capital spending,
continued low water usage, and changes in the balancing account. A graph was shown of
historic and projected wholesale rates. There were no rate increases from 2019 through 2022.
Commissioner Gupta asked Mr. Ritchie to expand on the different components and reasons for
the rate increases from 2024 through 2029 shown on the graph of historic and projected
wholesale rates. Mr. Ritchie replied that a lot of it was due to changes in the capital
improvement program and increasing debt service. SFPUC had indicated when they started on
WSIP that water rates would triple; and wholesale and retail customers collectively agreed it
was worth it because the system was at too much risk of a failure.
Commissioner Tucher noted the chart started with 2018 but he recalled that rates were $1.50
or $2.00 prior to 2018. Mr. Ritchie agreed that rates were cheaper before but SFPUC had
planned expenditures to build $4.8 billion worth of improvements and associated debt service.
Public Comment:
1. Peter Drekmeier with the Tuolumne River Trust showed slides. In the fall of 2016, the
State Water Board came out with the Bay-Delta Plan. Within a month, the SFPUC and
BAWSCA had an editorial in the Chronicle saying that the Bay-Delta Plan could lead to 50
percent rationing, and the loss of 188,000 jobs and $49 billion. Mr. Drekmeier wondered
where those numbers came from. An update to the socioeconomic study was 2½ times
lower. During the drought that ended in 2016, jobs had increased 27 percent in the
service area and water demand decreased by 23 percent. If the worst recorded drought
were to repeat and the Bay-Delta Plan flows were in place, the SFPUC could manage the
drought without requiring any rationing or developing any alternative water supplies.
Water conservation and alternative water supplies could strengthen water resources
much further. SFPUC was planning for a design drought 72 percent more severe than
the worst drought on record.
In 2021, SFPUC released a Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) climate change
study, spent three-quarters of a million dollars, and SFPUC never cited it to support their
position; however, the Tuolumne River Trust cited it all the time. The LTVA did not
include a return period for the design drought, meaning the number of years it might be
expected to pass between severe droughts. The SFPUC did not say what the return
period was for the design drought. A 2020 document uncovered through a Public
Records Act request suggested a design drought return period of 25,000 years and 1.3
billion acre-feet would need to come out of storage. The design drought was
downgraded to once in 8000 years proportional to what SFPUC did in the final LTVA. A
Item #1
Packet Pg. 23
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 19 of 25
graph from the climate change study demonstrated 100 years of observed data and
1100 years of tree ring data. After 25,000 simulated model runs, the worst droughts do
not come close to the 1.3 billion acre-foot deficit in the design drought.
2. Dave Warner stated that Valley Water’s current wholesale rate for treated water was
$2344 per acre-foot after a recent 12 percent rate increase, compared to $2470 in Palo
Alto. Valley Water was working on a study on reliability balanced with affordability. It
was wonderful that CPAU was comparing their rates to Redwood City and Hayward,
trying to determine why their rates were different and learn how CPAU’s rates could be
better. Money needed to be spent on infrastructure to replace the penstocks but maybe
it could be spread over more time to make it more affordable. Mr. Warner believed that
there were a couple of things the SFPUC could do to help rates that could make a big
difference in what end customers have to pay.
In response to Commissioner Gupta asking if the graph of projected wholesale rates included
any of the potential AWS, Mr. Ritchie answered no.
Vice Chair Mauter asked if Mr. Ritchie felt confident in SFPUC’s scientific understanding of how
frequency, intensity, and duration of drought were likely to change under future climate
scenarios, and if the study done within SFPUC was complete. Mr. Ritchie explained that the
study was not intended to answer that question. The number of more than 24,000/year was
part of an original analysis done by the researchers; however, without direction from SFPUC,
the researchers concluded they did not have any data so it was too speculative to rely on in the
report. As part of the study, an expert elicitation was done with 10 climate experts for two or
three days of learning about the system and having discussions. When the climate experts were
asked if they thought SFPUC’s design drought was appropriate, too conservative, or not
conservative enough, 7 of the 10 answered appropriate or not conservative enough.
Vice Chair Mauter remarked that the impact of changes in frequency, intensity, and duration of
drought have very different financial implications. Vice Chair Mauter thought that an important
part of the AWS Plan was to clarify how those individual drought attributes were likely to
change going forward, and develop design droughts that were not just lengthening but were
changing in frequency or intensity. Mr. Ritchie stated that was one of the key points the
researchers made in the report that just came out. In an interview the researchers gave on this
report, they said it was not just precipitation but the demand of the atmosphere and the biota
had a big impact and those factors were now being incorporated much more. In response to
Vice Chair Mauter asking if there was a planned update of the definition of a design drought,
Mr. Ritchie answered no. At Hetch Hetchy, an analytical group of four or five people was
providing insights to the SFPUC. The analytical group was connected to all the research
networks on drought conditions, precipitation, atmospheric rivers, and other things. Mr. Ritchie
agreed with Vice Chair Mauter’s understanding that climate science in this area was changing
very quickly. Vice Chair Mauter thought that keeping updated and regularly revisiting it was
very important and in the best interest of all the SFPUC system. Mr. Ritchie remarked that
SFPUC did not have any control over that because it was done through the Water Research
Item #1
Packet Pg. 24
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 20 of 25
Foundation to UMass Amherst with SFPUC funding. Mr. Ritchie was happy to participate in
additional work that came from that study.
Vice Chair Mauter spoke about the difference in the Enterprise and Finance demand models.
Mr. Ritchie stated that the finance demand models were trying to get as close as they could to
actual demands to make sure the SFPUC does not run out of money. The UWMP model was
artificially inflated because it was based on what the Planning Department says would be the
buildout, and SFPUC was legally obligated to show they had the water to meet that demand.
Vice Chair Mauter commented that it was important to explicitly look at how new projects
affected rates and how it subsequently affected demand. Mr. Ritchie remarked that the SFPUC
received a comment letter from BAWSCA on behalf of the wholesale customers, which said that
they fully supported all the planning the SFPUC wanted to do but to not build anything until the
SFPUC came back to talk about it and made sure they were the right investments.
Vice Chair Mauter requested clarification on how it was decided what gets built and the role
that BAWSCA played in the decision making, and at what point individual projects come before
BAWSCA. Mr. Ritchie explained that SFPUC was obligated within San Francisco to do an annual
review of their capital improvement program. SFPUC did a thorough review every two years.
SFPUC was starting on their mid-cycle review. The Water Enterprise identified candidate
projects, which were then passed to the Infrastructure Division to develop cost estimates. The
information was put into an 11 x 17 spreadsheet for discussion on each line item. Usually in
October or November, SFPUC met with BAWSCA to discuss the coming year’s plan.
Vice Chair Mauter asked what advice Mr. Ritchie had for Palo Alto City Council, the UAC, and
CPAU on preparing our citizens for the potential blending with reused water and when should
the City start the education process. Mr. Ritchie replied it was never too soon to start. SFPUC
had been in discussion with BAWSCA and Valley Water about maybe doing something jointly
with Valley Water. The common agreement was that the Bay Area should have a consistent set
of messages on purified water. The messaging did not need to be project oriented. It was not a
topic in the industry until about a decade ago. Now, it was getting more discussion and people
were reading about it in the papers. When it is implemented, you need to have been working at
it for several years and continue working at it.
Vice Chair Mauter expressed her personal support for a regional cost sharing program. Finding
low marginal cost projects helped everybody in the region, and there was the potential to
reduce cost as a result of continued regional coordination.
Vice Chair Mauter inquired if there was elasticity in other demands along the Tuolumne River
and whether there had been any work to reach an agreement with the irrigation districts on
water allocations in drought years. Mr. Ritchie explained that there were political and
engineering considerations. In 2012, SFPUC thought they had a potential deal but there was a
large public outcry during the public hearings about sending water to the Bay Area. SFPUC had
been working closely with the General Manager and Chief Counsel but they were gone within
Item #1
Packet Pg. 25
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 21 of 25
six months. SFPUC was starting to have conversations with the irrigation districts to find
creative ways they might share benefits of projects. Vice Chair Mauter thought that as the
marginal water supply costs of some AWS sources became a ceiling on willingness to pay, it
may look beneficial to some of our partners at the irrigation districts. Mr. Ritchie said that
SFPUC offered the irrigation districts a hundred times what they were paying for water and yet
the deal died in 2012.
Commissioner Tucher’s primary concern was that Palo Alto not be rushed into heavy
investment in alternative water. Commissioner Tucher was open minded to questions of
recycling when the time comes but he was concerned about rushing into making investments
along the lines of the One Water discussion without open and transparent data and modeling,
and without understanding the assumptions.
Commissioner Tucher noted the wholesale rates that Palo Alto paid to the SFPUC were high and
CapEx for the SFPUC was high. Commissioner Tucher saw $1.6 billion in the presentation and he
wanted to clarify that was not all SFPUC water. Commissioner Tucher thought CapEx was in
excess of $10 billion over 10 years. Mr. Ritchie replied that CapEx was not in excess of $10
billion over 10 years. Mr. Ritchie was responsible for three capital improvement programs.
Hetchy water up in the Sierras was about $1.5 billion, the regional water in the Bay Area was
$1.6 billion, and $1.3 billion for local water in San Francisco; that was the Water Enterprise. The
$1.5 billion upcountry included power projects, so maybe about half was a water project but it
was carried out on behalf of the system that SFPUC was responsible for managing.
Commissioner Tucher attended a summertime BAWSCA meeting and learned that total SFPUC
CapEx over 10 years was almost $12 billion and had gone up significantly in a two-year period.
Mr. Ritchie stated that the total included the wastewater program. Commissioner Tucher
pointed out that CapEx presumably had implications on future wholesale and consumer rates.
Mr. Ritchie said it did in the sense that the split was roughly one-third and two-thirds for
wholesale water and wholesale water costs but about half of SFPUC’s budget came from San
Francisco for retail. San Francisco residents received a combined bill for water and wastewater.
Bigger wastewater increases in the future will lead to affordability issues. There could be a
constraint on what San Francisco was able to pay into improvements that benefit the whole
region. We have to get creative and look at alternative ways of financing. A regional financing
authority was created in the legislation but it had never been used. The legislation gave the
region the ability to issue debt.
Commissioner Tucher expressed his concern that Palo Alto would be affected by SFPUC’s large
and growing CapEx. Commissioner Tucher thought he read that CapEx jumped 30-something
percent from a couple years ago. The alternative water projects in the presentation were an
extra investment. Mr. Drekmeier explained that a large increase occurred after a zero percent
water increase in San Francisco, so it was restoring money that was deferred.
Commissioner Tucher asked if 152 MGD was the amount of water that SFPUC gets from the
Tuolumne. Mr. Ritchie answered no. After meeting the environmental obligations of 40 percent
Item #1
Packet Pg. 26
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 22 of 25
unimpaired flow under the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, 152 MGD was the available
supply from SFPUC’s sources for the regional water system to deliver.
Commissioner Tucher inquired about SFPUC’s entitlement of water from the river. There was
reference to junior water rights in the presentation. Mr. Drekmeier explained that the SFPUC
was entitled to 750,000 acre-feet from the Tuolumne in an average year, which was about 690
MGD. Demand had been less than 200 MGD for the last 10 years, which was 225,000 acre-feet
per year. The Bay-Delta Plan required an average of 93 million gallons left in the river. In the
70s, 80s, and before then, the SFPUC projected much higher demand, which was why they
invested a lot in storage. Hetch Hetchy was a quarter of SFPUC’s storage. SFPUC had a water
bank at Don Pedro. During extended droughts, on paper the SFPUC was giving up water from
their bank but could keep all the reservoirs full. At full storage, SFPUC had about 1.45 million
acre-feet, of which about 90,000 was dead pool, so SFPUC had about 1.35 million acre-feet.
SFPUC needed 225,000 acre-feet per year. During the drought when SFPUC declared a water
shortage emergency in November 2021, SFPUC had enough water in storage to last 4½ years.
At the height of that drought, SFPUC had enough water in storage to last four years. In 2017,
SFPUC had enough water to last 14 years.
Between 2012 and 2016, unimpaired, natural flow in the lower Tuolumne was an average of 12
percent; 88 percent of the water was held in storage or diverted. 2017 was a bigger water year
and the unimpaired flow was 79 percent. Going from 12 percent to 79 percent was not a good
way to manage a river. A salmon run supports a whole ecosystem. Had the Bay-Delta Plan been
in effect between 2012 and 2016, it would require 40 percent of the flow to come down the
river in the absence of dams and diversions between February and June. In 2017, it would have
been 44 percent. The Bay-Delta Plan was adopted in 2018 and had unanimous support from
Palo Alto.
Commissioner Tucher asked Mr. Warner to elaborate on his comment about affordability and
reliability. Mr. Warner’s understanding was that the SFPUC’s focus was on reliability. Mr.
Warner has not heard that the SFPUC was trying to balance reliability and affordability. Valley
Water was looking at very significant increases in their water rates but they did a study to see
what they could do to balance affordability and reliability. Mr. Warner wanted the SFPUC to say
it would be great to do this project for reliability, here is how it would affect our water rates,
and then decide if they should put off the project to help with water rate affordability.
Commissioner Tucher asked for Mr. Warner’s point of view on SFPUC’s rising CapEx, which had
an effect on our water rates. Mr. Warner thought there was a need to look more closely at
water rates. Some water districts, including Valley Water, get subsidized water from the State
Water Project and their property owners pay a State Water Project fee. Palo Altans also pay a
State Water Project fee on their property tax bill. There were many factors to consider, such as
how reliable the system was, how much it was out of repair, if you were building reserves, and
how much debt you have.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 27
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 23 of 25
At the Yosemite Visitor Center, Commissioner Croft recalled seeing tree rings from 900 AD
through now showing a 21-year drought in the Klamath River system, two 10-year droughts in
the Sacramento River system, and a 13-year drought in the San Joaquin River system.
Commissioner Croft supported investment to know the feasibility and necessary lead time for
drought scenarios. Commissioner Croft expressed her concern about a longer-duration drought
happening again.
Commissioner Gupta wanted further explanation on what SFPUC was doing now and potentially
in the future on microplastics. Commissioner Gupta’s concern was if purified water had the
same chemical composition quality as the water from Hetch Hetchy. Commissioner Gupta
heard that purified water would meet the federal maximums but Palo Alto’s water was
currently well below many federal maximums for contaminants. For example, the total
dissolved solids in in Palo Alto’s water were consistently below 100 but the federal maximum
was up to 500. Mr. Ritchie replied that purified water would undergo required treatment under
the regulations. The water would not have a noticeable taste difference nor would it be
chemically distinguishable. There was no standardized methodology for analyzing microplastics.
The State Water Resources Control Board will provide standardized methodology to evaluate
source waters in a pilot project in the next two to three years with 10 or 11 of the largest water
agencies in California, including SFPUC.
In response to Chair Scharff wanting to confirm that Mr. Ritchie said the main drivers for cost
increases were capital improvements and declining water sales, Mr. Ritchie answered yes, they
were the main drivers for rate increases. Mr. Ritchie explained that a household bill was a
better point of comparison instead of rates. The rates San Francisco and SFPUC’s wholesale
customers pay for water was a certain cost per unit but somebody in Los Angeles would use
twice as many units at maybe a lower rate but they were paying more on a monthly bill
because of the amount of water they used. Chair Scharff asked what the primary reason was for
SFPUC wanting to sell less water. Mr. Ritchie stated that SFPUC did not want to sell less water.
SFPUC wanted people to use water wisely to ensure water was available in future drier years.
Demand was low in wet years because there was no irrigation. Stretching water supplies as long
as possible was the purpose for conservation and using water wisely at all times. Mr. Ritchie did
not want to encourage more water use in wet years and have people cut back if there was a
drought the following year because people would get used to using more water and question
having to cut back.
Chair Scharff asked what the plan was to resolve the issue of continuously rising fixed costs
causing an affordability crisis because not everyone could afford to pay high water rates, which
may constrain SFPUC’s ability to put money toward new sources of water or large capital
improvement projects. Mr. Ritchie replied that the plan was that people relied and would
continue to rely on this water; as a result, capital assets have to be renewed, which costs
money. SFPUC’s message was that the rate itself was irrelevant, what people were paying on a
monthly basis was mostly relevant, and people would pay to have water supply reliability.
Alameda County Water District gets 40 percent of their supply from the State Water Project but
does not get any water from the State Water Project during a drought. Alameda County Water
Item #1
Packet Pg. 28
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 24 of 25
District asks SFPUC for increased water supply during droughts because they need to have
reliability of supply. They were not paying for the water; they were paying for the reliability and
purity of the supply was the message SFPUC needed to give more than anything else.
Chair Scharff stated that desalination plants could be built, it would cost a fortune, rates would
go ridiculously high but you could have a ton of water. It was a question of how much money
you wanted to spend, what were the rates going to be, and what the effect was on the people.
Spending a huge amount of money to make expensive water was a social negative. We cannot
continue to spend vast amounts on capital improvements. Chair Scharff asked when the
amount spent on capital improvements would stabilize so there would not be huge spikes in
rates. Chair Scharff wondered if SFPUC was on sustainable 20-year path if they continued to sell
less water, especially if the population did not increase.
Karla Dailey, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management, said there was State
legislation and regulation. There was the SBX. For the most part, everybody accomplished the
reduction by the year 2020. New legislation was making conservation a California way of life by
having to meet urban water use targets. Regarding selling more water in wet years, there were
other pressures to make sure that water was being used wisely in California.
Commissioner Phillips noted that when utility demand goes down, the price goes up. As long as
you were guaranteed growth, it was not a problem. When you start losing customers, the price
goes up for the remaining customers. The Utility’s obligation was to serve and provide
reliability. In return, a formula was used to ensure the Utility gets their money back.
Chair Scharff was concerned about the long-term plan. Chair Scharff said that legislature and
people’s thinking could be influenced. Things could usually be fixed if you plan early.
Commissioner Tucher queried what the projected wholesale price to SFPUC would be in one,
three, and five years, and if it was contractual. Ms. Dailey replied that CPAU relied on SFPUC’s
financial plan for the wholesale cost. Mr. Ritchie stated there was a graph that projected costs
one, three, and five years from now.
ACTION: None
ITEM 5: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Utilities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24)
ACTION: Vice Chair Mauter moved to have UAC Commissioners email their questions to Utilities
Administrator Assistant Kaylee Burton for staff response; and to allow for a 15-minute
conversation at the December UAC meeting for additional follow-up questions and provide
staff response available to the public.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 29
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 25 of 25
The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Scharff, Vice Chair Mauter, Commissioners Croft, Gupta,
Metz, Phillips, and Tucher voting yes.
At the Commission’s request, Utilities Chief Operating Officer Alan Kurotori set a one-week
deadline for commissioners to submit questions, staff had one week to return answers to the
Commission.
Commissioner Tucher requested further information on the Utilities Annual Report. Director of
Utilities Dean Batchelor explained that a report was given to the UAC every quarter. Discussion
took place with the fourth quarter report because the whole year was compiled. Utility KPIs
were reported along with comparisons. In response to commissioners’ questions about
reliability and the financials, staff included the information in the quarterly reports.
Commissioner Tucher was looking for cost information. Commissioner Tucher would like to see
a line for annual totals on the spreadsheets. Karla Dailey, Assistant Director of Utilities,
Resource Management, directed Commissioner Tucher to look at Figure 9 showing gas supply
cost actual versus budget on Page 14.
FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS ON December 4, 2024, AND REVIEW OF THE 12-
MONTH ROLLING CALENDAR
Commissioner Croft asked about an offer for a graduate student to talk to the UAC about her
project. Karla Dailey, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management, responded that the
student had worked on some of Palo Alto’s electric portfolio models but had since taken
another job. Commissioner Croft thought it would be interesting to hear about her project if
she was available. Ms. Dailey will follow up with the student to see if it was possible for her to
speak at a UAC meeting.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS and REPORTS from MEETINGS/EVENTS
Commissioner Phillips went on a tour of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and highly recommended
it. Commissioner Phillips found the tour useful to understand the complexity of the water
system.
Commissioner Tucher visited the Water Temple.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Mauter moved to adjourn.
Commissioner Scharff seconded the motion.
The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Scharff, Vice Chair Mauter, Commissioners Croft, Gupta,
Metz, Phillips, and Tucher voting yes.
Meeting adjourned at 10:33 PM.
Item #1
Packet Pg. 30
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 1 of 57
5
0
7
5
Utilities Advisory Commission
Staff Report
From: Dean Batchelor, Director Utilities
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: November 6, 2024
Staff Report: 2407-3230
TITLE
Discussion of Utilities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Utilities Advisory Commission review and comment as appropriate.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report for the Utilities Advisory Commission is an informational update on water, gas, electric, wastewater collection
and fiber utilities, efficiency programs, legislative/regulatory issues, utility-related capital improvement programs,
operations, reliability impact measures and a utility financial summary. This updated report has been prepared to keep
the Utilities Advisory Commission apprised of the major issues that are facing the water, gas, electric, wastewater
collection and fiber utilities. A separate quarterly report on the financial position is prepared consistent with when the
City closes its books.
Items of special interest in this report are summarized below:
Vacancies and Staffing – Appendix B
•The Utilities Department has 37 vacant positions out of 259 authorized positions or a 14% vacancy rate at the end
of June 2024 compared to 49 vacancies or 19% in June 2023.
•Progress has been made in filling vacant Electric Engineering and Operations positions year over year from 27
vacancies in June 2023 to 20 vacancies in June 2024, a decrease of 7 positions and vacancy percentage rate has
decreased from 30% to 22%. In FY24, Utilities has hired a new Electric Engineering Manager, one Principal
Engineer, and two journey level Linesperson.
•Due to HR staffing constraints, Utilities has designated three HR liaisons from Utilities Administration to assist HR
with some of the recruitments. Since then, the number of vacancies has decreased, and the recruitment timeline
has shortened. Due to the success of the HR-Utilities liaison program, the City has rolled out this program to other
departments to acquire new talent.
Electric Utility:
•Improved hydroelectric generation and revenue from Resource Adequacy sales are resulting in a projected net
supply cost of $70.8M for FY 2024, or a 23% decrease compared to budget. (Section 1.1.1)
•A number of construction projects are in progress or have been recently completed. (Section 1.2)
•A summary chart of quarterly electric outages is included in the report. (Section 1.4)
•FY 2024 electric sales volume were 4.3% higher than forecasted. (Section 1.5.1)
Gas Utility:
Item #2
Packet Pg. 31
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 2 of 57
5
0
7
5
•Gas prices have been relatively low and stable.
•Council approved a strategy to collect funds to mitigate the impact of a potential future short-term price spike.
(Section 2.1)
•One gas main replacement project is in progress, and one is in the design stage. (Section 2.2)
•Gas sales in FY 2024 were 8.1% lower than forecasted. (Section 2.5.1)
Water Utility:
•The State Board is completing CEQA review of the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement and moving forward with
implementation of the Adopted Phase I Bay Delta Plan.
•Work continues on the One Water Plan. (Section 3.1)
•The turnouts project was completed, and two main replacement projects are in progress. (Section 3.2)
•Water sales at the end of FY 2024 were about 2.0% lower than forecasted and water sales revenues were 4.6%
lower than budgeted. (Section 3.5.1)
Wastewater Utility:
•Funding from Valley Water in an amount of $11.8 million will be applied to Palo Alto’s share of approved RWQCP
projects, directly benefitting Palo Alto customers. (Section 4.1)
•A sewer system rehabilitation replacement project (SSR 31) on El Camino and Page Mill is complete. (Section 4.2)
•Actual wastewater sales revenues have been lower than expected due to low water usage in the commercial sector.
(Section 4.4.1)
Fiber Utility:
•Fiber construction start in the pilot areas is dependent on two critical milestones: the installation of the fiber hut
at Colorado power station and completion of pole-make ready work. Staff is finalizing the fiber hut design, working
with the vendors to provide designs for internal building and fire permit review. The hut is anticipated to be
installed by the end of Q1-2025. Electric pole-make ready work such as pole replacements and hanging messenger
wire is in progress and on track to be completed by Q1-2025. Fiber cable may be strung once electric pole-make
ready work is completed.
•The RFP for the operating support system and business support system (OSS/BSS) software is in progress. Existing
fiber construction and IT networking equipment contracts will be leveraged to build the pilot area. New RFPs will
be issued for the remaining area in Phase 1 next year.
•CPAU has filled the role of Outside Plant Manager to oversee planning, construction, and inspection of the FTTP
infrastructure and new fiber backbones. This position will oversee field technicians and coordinate construction,
installation, and repair activities while adhering to quality and customer service standards.
•In conjunction with the City’s wildfire mitigation plan to underground utility poles in the foothills, CPAU
establishing a dark fiber license agreement to provide customers in the foothills area dark fiber to enhance their
home broadband service.
Customer Programs (Section 6):
•In 2023, the City began offering lower pricing for heat pump water heater (HPWH) replacements through a full
service turnkey program as well as rebates offered for customers who use their own contractor. More than 400
HPWHs have been installed as a result of a wide range of marketing approaches for the program. (Section 6)
•In October 2024, the City launched the emergency water heater replacement pilot program. to help our customers
replace broken gas water heaters with clean and efficient heat pump water heaters within 48 hours.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 32
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 3 of 57
5
0
7
5
This pilot program is part of the Advanced HPWH Pilot Program in the S/CAP workplan to help meet the City’s
climate goals. So far the program has served two customers, and is expected to expand rapidly as marketing ramps
up.
•23% of all water customers have utilized the City’s new WaterSmart online water management tool, and
preliminary results from the efficiency study show that sending home water reports results in water-savings of
2.1%.
Communications:
•A digest of major outreach efforts is provided in Section 7, with topics including extreme energy prices and high
utilities bills, new EV chargers at Stanford Health Care, and water supply and conservation updates.
Legislative, Regulatory and Industry Activity:
•Major legislative, regulatory and Industry Activity items are summarized in Section 8.
Utilities at a Glance:
For additional context for the data included in this report, please see:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Utilities/Customer-Service/Utilities-at-a-Glance
Item #2
Packet Pg. 33
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 4 of 57
5
0
7
5
OVERVIEW
Utilities Annual Report
FY 2024
Fiscal Year 2023
Item #2
Packet Pg. 34
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 5 of 57
5
0
7
5
1 ELECTRIC UTILITY.....................................................................................................................................................................8
1.1 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AND TRANSMISSION ...........................................................................................................................................8
1.1.1 Forecasted Supply Costs.......................................................................................................................................................8
1.1.2 Hydroelectric Conditions......................................................................................................................................................9
1.1.3 REC Exchange Program........................................................................................................................................................9
1.1.4 Renewable Energy Procurement..........................................................................................................................................9
1.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STATUS ...............................................................................................................................................9
1.3 RATE AND BILL COMPARISONS .......................................................................................................................................................10
1.4 RELIABILITY ................................................................................................................................................................................11
1.5 FINANCIAL HEALTH ......................................................................................................................................................................11
1.5.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals.................................................................................................................................................12
1.5.2 Financial Position...............................................................................................................................................................12
2.1 GAS SUPPLY AND TRANSMISSION ....................................................................................................................................................13
2.1.1 Actual and Forecasted Supply Costs...................................................................................................................................14
2.1.2 Carbon Neutral Gas Program.............................................................................................................................................14
2.1.3 Gas Transmission Line Capacity Valuation.........................................................................................................................15
2.1.4 Gas Prepay Valuation.........................................................................................................................................................15
2.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STATUS .............................................................................................................................................16
2.3 RATE AND BILL COMPARISONS .......................................................................................................................................................16
2.4 RELIABILITY ................................................................................................................................................................................16
2.5 FINANCIAL HEALTH ......................................................................................................................................................................17
2.5.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals.................................................................................................................................................17
2.5.2 Financial Position...............................................................................................................................................................18
3.1 WATER SUPPLY AND TRANSMISSION ...............................................................................................................................................19
3.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STATUS .............................................................................................................................................21
3.3 RATE AND BILL COMPARISONS .......................................................................................................................................................22
3.4 RELIABILITY ................................................................................................................................................................................22
3.5 FINANCIAL HEALTH ......................................................................................................................................................................22
3.5.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals.................................................................................................................................................22
3.5.2 Financial Position...............................................................................................................................................................23
4.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT UPDATES AND CAPITAL PLANNING STATUS ..................................................................................................24
4.1.1 Treatment Cost Trends.......................................................................................................................................................24
4.1.2 Regional Water Quality Control Plant Capital Planning Status..........................................................................................25
4.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STATUS ................................................................................................................27
4.3 RATE AND BILL COMPARISONS .......................................................................................................................................................27
4.4 FINANCIAL HEALTH ......................................................................................................................................................................27
4.4.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals.................................................................................................................................................27
4.4.2 Financial Position...............................................................................................................................................................28
5.1 FIBER UTILITY STRATEGIC PLANNING ...............................................................................................................................................29
5.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN STATUS .............................................................................................................................................29
5.3 RELIABILITY ................................................................................................................................................................................30
5.4 FINANCIAL HEALTH ......................................................................................................................................................................30
Item #2
Packet Pg. 35
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 6 of 57
5
0
7
5
5.4.1 Fiber Sales..........................................................................................................................................................................30
5.4.2 Financial Position...............................................................................................................................................................30
6 CUSTOMER PROGRAMS (EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY)..................................................................................................31
6.1 CUSTOMER PROGRAMS UPDATES ...................................................................................................................................................31
6.1.1 Energy and Water Efficiency..............................................................................................................................................31
6.1.2 Building Electrification .......................................................................................................................................................35
6.2 INNOVATION AND PILOT PROGRAMS ...............................................................................................................................................39
6.2.1 Academic Collaborations....................................................................................................................................................40
6.2.2 Completed Projects ............................................................................................................................................................40
7 COMMUNICATIONS...............................................................................................................................................................41
8 LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY AND INDUSTRY ACTIVITY............................................................................................................43
8.1 STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY ..........................................................................................................................................................43
8.2 STATE REGULATORY ACTIVITY ........................................................................................................................................................44
8.2.1 California Air Resources Board (CARB)...............................................................................................................................44
8.2.2 California Energy Commission (CEC) ..................................................................................................................................45
8.2.3 California Public Utilities Commission................................................................................................................................45
8.2.4 State Water Board..............................................................................................................................................................45
9 APPENDIX A: ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM..........................................................................................................47
9.1 OVERVIEW OF HEDGING PROGRAMS ...............................................................................................................................................47
9.2 OVERVIEW OF ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.......................................................................................................................47
9.3 FORWARD DEALS.........................................................................................................................................................................47
9.4 ELECTRIC MARKET EXPOSURE ........................................................................................................................................................48
9.5 TRANSACTION COMPLIANCE ..........................................................................................................................................................48
10 APPENDIX B: STAFFING AND VACANCIES...............................................................................................................................49
11 APPENDIX C: UTILITIES CUSTOMER PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................................................50
11.1 CUSTOMER PROGRAMS OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................50
11.1.1 Energy and Water Efficiency..........................................................................................................................................50
11.1.2 Building Electrification...................................................................................................................................................51
11.1.3 Electric Vehicles .............................................................................................................................................................51
11.1.4 Funding Sources for Emissions Reductions ....................................................................................................................53
12 APPENDIX D: WATER UTILITY ANNUAL INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT REPORT................................54
Item #2
Packet Pg. 36
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 7 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figures
FIGURE 1: FY 2024 FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLY COST FORECAST VS. ACTUALS ..............................................................................................................8
FIGURE 2: HYDRO GENERATION: FY 2024 - FY 2026 ACTUALS & PROJECTIONS (GWH).............................................................................................9
FIGURE 3: RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILL COMPARISON (EFFECTIVE 7/1/2024, $/MO.) ................................................................................11
FIGURE 4: ELECTRIC OUTAGE RELIABILITY, FY 2019 TO FY 2022..........................................................................................................................11
FIGURE 5: ELECTRIC OUTAGE RELIABILITY, FY 2023 TO FY 2024..........................................................................................................................11
FIGURE 6: ELECTRIC SALES VOLUME (KWH), UP TO FY 2024-Q4..........................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 7: ELECTRIC SALES REVENUE ($), UP TO FY 2024-Q4 ..............................................................................................................................12
FIGURE 8: PALO ALTO GAS COMMODITY RATES .................................................................................................................................................13
FIGURE 9: GAS SUPPLY COSTS ($), ACTUAL VS BUDGET, UP TO FY2024-Q4...........................................................................................................14
FIGURE 10: OFFSET PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION ...................................................................................................................................................14
FIGURE 11: OFFSET PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................................................................................15
FIGURE 12: RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS BILL COMPARISON ($/MONTH).................................................................................................................16
FIGURE 13: GAS SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, FY 2023 TO FY 2024..........................................................................................................................17
FIGURE 14: GAS SALES VOLUME (THERMS), UP TO FY2024-Q4...........................................................................................................................17
FIGURE 15: GAS SALES REVENUE ($), UP TO FY 2024-Q4...................................................................................................................................18
FIGURE 16: REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM STORAGE ...............................................................................................................................................20
FIGURE 17: SFPUC WATER DELIVERIES ............................................................................................................................................................21
FIGURE 18: RESIDENTIAL WATER BILL COMPARISON ($/MONTH)..........................................................................................................................22
FIGURE 19: WATER SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, FY 2023 TO FY 2024.....................................................................................................................22
FIGURE 20: WATER SALES VOLUME (CCF), UP TO FY 2024-Q4...........................................................................................................................23
FIGURE 21: WATER SALES REVENUE ($), UP TO FY 2024-Q4...............................................................................................................................23
FIGURE 22: PALO ALTO’S SHARE OF ESTIMATED WASTEWATER TREATMENT EXPENSES (PROJECTION AND PLANNED CIP)................................................25
FIGURE 23: CURRENT RWQCP CAPITAL WORK IN-PROGRESS (BASED ON MARCH 2024 PARTNERS MEETING)..............................................................26
FIGURE 24: RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER BILL COMPARISON ($/MONTH).................................................................................................................27
FIGURE 25: WASTEWATER SALES REVENUE ($), UP TO FY 2024-Q4.....................................................................................................................28
FIGURE 26: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ENERGY SAVINGS – COMPLETED FY 2024 IN YELLOW ..............................................................................33
FIGURE 27: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ENERGY SAVINGS – AWAITING ASSESSMENTS OR INSTALL ..........................................................................34
FIGURE 29: STATUS TO DATE OF ALL APPLICATIONS TO THE PROGRAM FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ..........................................................................40
FIGURE 27: GAS DEALS ..................................................................................................................................................................................47
FIGURE 28: ELECTRIC ENERGY DEALS ................................................................................................................................................................48
FIGURE 29: ELECTRIC RESOURCE ADEQUACY DEALS.............................................................................................................................................48
FIGURE 30: ELECTRIC LOAD RESOURCE BALANCE, FY 2024 - 2026.......................................................................................................................48
FIGURE 31: UTILITIES VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENTS BY DIVISION, AS OF YEAR-END FY 2024..................................................................................49
FIGURE 32: POTENTIAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION FUNDING SOURCES .......................................................................................................................53
Item #2
Packet Pg. 37
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 8 of 57
5
0
7
5
1 Electric Utility
The City’s electric utility serves all residential and non-residential electric demands in Palo Alto at a lower cost than PG&E
in surrounding communities. Its electric supply portfolio is 100% carbon neutral. The City maintains and operates an
electric distribution system but does not operate any transmission lines or any generating capacity on its own. Instead,
the City belongs to Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) which operates its Calaveras hydroelectric generating plant
and provides power scheduling services for its other generating resources. This carbon free power is supplied through
power purchase agreements with various generation operators.
1.1 Electricity Supply and Transmission
Below is an update on electricity supply and transmission services.
1.1.1 Forecasted Supply Costs
With hydroelectric generation conditions improving significantly and market prices coming down over the past year, the
electric net supply cost for FY 2024 is currently projected to be $70.8M, which represents a 23% decrease from the
Adopted Budget level of $91.7M. The cost decrease is primarily driven by the aforementioned improvement in hydro
generation projections, as well as greater than projected revenues from resource adequacy (RA) capacity sales. For FY
2025, electric net supply cost is projected to increase slightly to $77.7M.
Figure 1: FY 2024 Financial Plan Supply Cost Forecast vs. Actuals
Item #2
Packet Pg. 38
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 9 of 57
5
0
7
5
1.1.2 Hydroelectric Conditions
The City receives power from two hydroelectric projects, the Calaveras project and the Western Base Resource contract
for federal hydropower from the Central Valley Project.1 The watershed for Western hydropower is primarily in the
northern end of California, while the watershed for the Calaveras project is in the Central Sierras.
Following the extremely wet water year of 2022 to 2023, reservoir levels across the state began this water year at above
average levels. With the majority of the rainy months behind us, water year 2023 to 2024 was roughly average from a
precipitation and snowpack perspective, which has resulted in reservoir levels being above average for this time of year.
As of August 26, precipitation in central and northern California is about 10-15% below average for that time of year.
Snowpack levels are as expected for this time. As a result of these relatively favorable conditions, hydro generation levels
are projected to be slightly above average this year and next year, with total output of about 113% of the long-term
average level for FY 2024 through FY 2026.
Figure 2: Hydro Generation: FY 2024 - FY 2026 Actuals & Projections (GWh)
Under the Renewable Energy Credits (REC) Exchange Program, which was approved by Council in August 2020 (Staff
Report #115562), staff has contracted to sell 230 GWh worth of in-state RECs (for $16.5M) and purchased 155 GWh worth
of out-of-state RECs (for $0.7M) in FY 2024, resulting in a net revenue of $15.7M. The price spread between in-state versus
out-of-state RECs has widened significantly since the start of 2023, due to the strong demand for in-state products.
As noted in the previous quarterly report, NCPA recently issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for new renewable energy
and storage projects to meet NCPA members’ procurement needs which yielded a total of 29 proposals – nine for
standalone solar projects, nine for standalone battery energy storage systems (BESS), and 11 for solar-plus-storage
projects. Utilities staff has evaluated all of these proposals (for total value to the City and ability to meet the City’s
procurement needs) and provided feedback to NCPA on which proposals to pursue further, and NCPA staff has recently
reached out to the proposers of the shortlisted projects to discuss commencing contract negotiations.
1.2 Capital Improvement Plan Status
The following capital projects are currently in progress or have been recently completed:
1 The Calaveras project is a hydropower project located in Calaveras County that is maintained and operated by the Northern California Power Agency
on behalf of the City and other project participants. The City is also one of several public entities with contracts with the Western Area Power
Administration for “Base Resource” electricity, which is the hydroelectric power available from the federal government’s Central Valley Project
(operated by the Bureau of Reclamation) after accounting for power used for Central Valley Project operations and power delivered to certain
“preference” customers.
2 Staff Report #11556: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-
archive/2020/id-11556.pdf
F F F
C 1 1 1
W 3 2 2
T 5 4 4
%1 1 1
L 4 4 4
Item #2
Packet Pg. 39
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 10 of 57
5
0
7
5
EL-17001 (East Meadow Circles 4/12kV Conversion)
•This project is scheduled to be completed in several phases. Phase 1 is completed. Phase 2 engineering design is
in progress and to be completed by December 2024. Phase 2 construction will be completed June 2025.
•This project is in the design phase and scheduled to be completed in Dec 2024. Construction will be completed by
summer 2025.
•This engineering design for this project is currently in progress and is expected to be completed in Dec 2024.
Construction will be completed by summer 2025.
•This project funds the purchase and replacement of both 60kV and 12kV substation circuit breakers that are
reaching the end of their useful life expectancy. In this past quarter, Council approved the purchase request for
the sixteen 12KV circuit breakers. A purchase order has been issued and the breakers are scheduled to be received
in late August 2024. The installation of the breakers will be completed in FY 2025. The project to purchase the
seven 60KV breakers was approved by City Council on May 20, 2024. The engineering design and installation of
the above breakers will occur in FY 2025.
•This project will rebuild the approximately 11 miles of overhead line in Foothills Park, as necessary to mitigate the
possibility of wildfire due to overhead electric lines. Staff has completed 7,000 feet of substructure work and
design which will eliminate the corresponding 26 poles. Substructure for Phase 1 was completed in Spring 2022
and the substructure for Phase 2 was completed in June 2023. Phase 3 substructure installation is currently in
progress and Phase 4 construction is in progress.
•The project scope includes on-going maintenance/technical support of the existing GIS system and
implementation of the new GIS platform, ESRI.
•Engineering design and construction is in progress. 39 (56%) poles out of the 69 targeted for replacement have
been replaced in the Grid Modernization Pilot area, with the remaining 30 poles slated for replacement before
year end 2024. Additionally, 184 (14%) of the 1,290 homes in the Pilot area are ready for electrification, with
another 334 homes inline to be connected to the upgraded infrastructure by the end of August, and the remaining
772 homes to be connected by year end 2024.
1.3 Rate and Bill Comparisons
3 as two wildfire and energy resource
recovery charges expired in June 2024. Santa Clara typically only changes their rates in January and has not adjusted rates
since their 10% increase in January 2024. Figure 3 shows an updated bill comparison based on these updated rates. Staff
estimates that based on these rates the average monthly bill (a full year’s worth of bills divided by 12) for the median
3 PG&E Decreased Residential Rate https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/electric-rate-advisory-0724.pdf
Item #2
Packet Pg. 40
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 11 of 57
5
0
7
5
residential customer is approximately half of what it would be in PG&E territory and about 24% above what it would be
in Silicon Valley Power (City of Santa Clara) territory.
Figure 3: Residential Monthly Electric Bill Comparison (Effective 7/1/2024, $/mo.)
1.4 Reliability
Figure 4: Electric Outage Reliability, FY 2019 to FY 2022
Outage Reliability FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
4
5
6
Figure 5: Electric Outage Reliability, FY 2023 to FY 2024
FY 2023
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual
4
5
6
FY 2024Outage Reliability Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual
4
5
6
*Note: Annual data only reflects Q2-Q4 2024 results. Q1 data is currently not available.
1.5 Financial Health
4 System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) - Measure of the total duration of an interruption for the average customer during a given time
frame. SAIDI = (Sum of Customer Minutes Interrupted) / (Total Customers Served)
5 System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) - the average number of times a customer will experience an interruption during a given time
frame. SAIFI = (Total Customers Interrupted) / (Total Customers Served)
6 Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI) - the average time to restore service. CAIDI = (Sum of Customer Minutes Interrupted) / (Total
Customers Interrupted)
U P P S
3 6 1 4
(7 1 6
(9 1 7
6 1 2 1
1 2 5 2
Item #2
Packet Pg. 41
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 12 of 57
5
0
7
5
1.5.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals
Since the beginning of FY 2024, actual electric sales volumes exceeded forecasts by 4.3%. The increase in sales volume is
attributable to new data center load, in addition to increasing sales to other medium commercial customers recovering
from the pandemic.
Figure 6: Electric Sales Volume (kWh), up to FY 2024-Q4
Figure 7: Electric Sales Revenue ($), up to FY 2024-Q4
The Electric Operations Reserves ended Q4 FY 2024 at $32.3 million, below the target of $45 million, but above the
minimum guideline of $32 million. At the end of FY 2024, $17 million of funds were transferred into the hydro stabilization
reserve, which will enhance the utility's ability to manage supply cost volatility in the future and prevent drastic rate
changes as experienced after the Covid-19 pandemic and the drought from 2020-2022.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 42
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 13 of 57
5
0
7
5
2 Gas Utility
The City’s gas utility serves all residential and non-residential gas demand in Palo Alto. The City maintains and operates a
system of low-pressure gas lines for delivering gas but does not operate any transmission lines. Costs for the gas utility
are split approximately two thirds for the operation, maintenance, and capital improvement and one third for the cost of
the gas commodity, PG&E gas transmission, compliance with the State’s Cap and Trade Program and the City’s Carbon
Neutral Gas Program.
2.1 Gas Supply and Transmission
After experiencing a notable price spike during winter 2022-2023, natural gas prices have seen a significant decline,
returning to more typical ranges. This shift can be attributed to several factors, including milder temperatures and above
average gas storage levels nationwide. The combination of these factors has put downward pressure on natural gas prices,
and we do not expect an extreme price spike to occur in the near future. The chart below shows Palo Alto’s gas commodity
rates from July 2021 to June 2024.
Figure 8: Palo Alto Gas Commodity Rates
Long Term Gas Hedging Policy
At its August 19, 2024 meeting, Council adopted a new gas hedging policy effective November 2024 as an alternative to
the capped-price premium which was adopted by Council last year and ends at the end of October 2024. This new policy
includes a 5.5 cents per therm adder in the gas commodity charge for a period of 3 years, aiming to accumulate about
$4.5M in a reserve to mitigate potential short-term price spikes, such as the one experienced in January 2023. This policy
Item #2
Packet Pg. 43
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 14 of 57
5
0
7
5
also includes lowering the maximum gas commodity charge from $4 per therm to $3 per therm after 3 years after the
reserve is built up. Based on Council’s adoption of the new policy, the 5.5 cents per therm adder will be included in the
Commodity Charge beginning November 2024.
2.1.1 Actual and Forecasted Supply Costs
Figure 9: Gas Supply Costs ($), Actual vs Budget, up to FY2024-Q4
2.1.2 Carbon Neutral Gas Program
7 maintaining the Carbon Neutral Natural Gas Plan to achieve carbon
neutrality for the gas supply portfolio using high-quality carbon offsets with a cost cap of $19 per ton CO2e.
Figure 9: Offset Portfolio Composition
7 Resolution #9930 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/resolutions-1909-to-present/2020/reso-9930.pdf
Item #2
Packet Pg. 44
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 15 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 10: Offset Project Descriptions
2.1.3 Gas Transmission Line Capacity Valuation
Palo Alto contracts for capacity on the Redwood pipeline, the path from the California-Oregon border to PG&E’s mid-
pressure transmission system, at a cost lower than the market value. During the summer months, Palo Alto does not need
all of the capacity to serve demand. The excess capacity is monetized by purchasing gas at the California-Oregon border
and selling an equal amount of gas at the terminus of the pipeline. The variable cost of transporting the gas is much less
than the gas price difference between the two points. In FY 2024, the net benefit to the Gas Utility was $440K, or a
reduction of about 4.3% of the total gas commodity costs.
2.1.4 Gas Prepay Valuation
On September 15, 2014, Council adopted Resolution #94518, authorizing the City’s participation in a natural gas purchase
from Municipal Gas Acquisition and Supply Corporation (MuniGas) for the City’s entire retail gas load for a period of at
8 Resolution #9451 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/resolutions/reso-9451.pdf
P P D
G L G
G U
G
h
S M
P
M
T
B U B
P U
T
p
p
t
b
R O
T
p
U
T
r
s
M M
T
R
a
w
V
C
F U
T
i
m
P
h
C
R
A L
R
m
f
a
a
B
C U
T
r
C
f
H
S U
L
f
s
S
v
Item #2
Packet Pg. 45
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 16 of 57
5
0
7
5
least 10 years. The MuniGas transaction includes a mechanism for municipal utilities to utilize their tax-exempt status to
achieve a discount on the market price of gas. The program reduced gas commodity costs by about $805K in FY 2024.
2.2 Capital Improvement Plan Status
GS-14003 – GMR 24B (Gas Main Replacement 24B)
•The GMR 24B project construction has started. Gas pipelines on University from Webster to Hwy 101 and
surrounding streets, as well as Geng Rd and Town & Country Village, are scheduled to be replaced. Construction
is completed on University from Chaucer Street to Woodland Avenue, Geng Rd area, and Town & Country Village.
Construction is anticipated to be completed in March 2025. The project was not selected to receive a federal grant
award, although the project was “Highly Recommended” and funding was provided to other “Highly
Recommended” projects. The funding source will be the remaining available budget under GS-14003.
GS-15000 – GMR 25 (Gas Main Replacement 25)
•The GMR 25 design drawings are being finalized and will include the replacement of pipes on Ross Road from
Colorado Avenue to East Meadow Drive and surrounding streets, as well as North and Southampton Drive and
surrounding streets, and Walter Hays Drive and surrounding streets. The project is expected to replace
approximately 26,000 linear feet of gas mains as full federal funding was approved. Construction is anticipated to
begin in FY26 due to federal grant funding requirements.
2.3 Rate and Bill Comparisons
Figure 11: Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month)
Season Usage (Therms)Palo Alto PG&E Zone X*% Difference
*PG&E’s bill estimates include an $85 annual Climate Credit
2.4 Reliability
Item #2
Packet Pg. 46
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 17 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 12: Gas Service Interruptions, FY 2023 to FY 2024
FY 2023 FY 2024
Gas Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Breaks 9 4 3 7 5 1 5 6
Total Minutes 643 330 240 1560 540 120 570 270
Customers Affected 20 5 7 60 51 1 41 14
2.5 Financial Health
Below is a summary of the financial position for the gas utility.
2.5.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals
Actual gas sales volumes in FY 2024 were about 8.1% lower than forecasted, while actual sales revenues were about 12.9%
lower than budgeted in the FY 2024 Financial Plan. After reaching historic highs in 2023, natural gas benchmark prices
sharply declined this year, nearing historic lows. This decline was driven by increased natural gas production, reduced
consumption, and higher inventory levels. Additionally, the unusually mild winter across much of the U.S., which saw the
warmest winter on record according to NOAA, further contributed to the downward pressure on prices.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 47
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 18 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 14: Gas Sales Revenue ($), up to FY 2024-Q4
2.5.2 Financial Position
The FY 2024 ending Operations Reserve balance for the Gas Utility was $4.2 million, which is below the minimum threshold
of $10 million. According to the proposed FY 2025 Financial Plan, the Operations Reserve balance fell below the minimum
guideline at the end of FY 2024 due to one-time expense items deferred from FY 2023 to FY 2024, such as carbon offset
purchases and Cap and Trade revenue transfers, as well as the impact on reserves from the unprecedented gas price spike
in FY 2023. In June 2024, Council approved the FY 2025 Gas Utility Financial Plan9 that included a 12.5% increase in gas
rates to gradually restore reserves to within guideline levels and cover rising costs. Sales revenues in FY 2024 were lower
by approximately 12.9% or $7.5 million from last year's projections, attributed to sales volume reductions of 8.1% lower
than last year’s projection as well as lower commodity prices.
9 Staff Report 2404-2842, Attachment C, Exhibit 1: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-
manager-reports-cmrs/attachments/2024-rates/gas-financial-plan-fy25.pdf
Item #2
Packet Pg. 48
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 19 of 57
5
0
7
5
3 Water Utility
The Water Utility serves water to virtually all Palo Alto residential and non-residential customers. All potable water in the
City is from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Hetch Hetchy Water System. This system delivers high
quality water from the Sierra Nevada and uses no pumping to deliver water to the City. Palo Alto uses a small amount of
recycled water for irrigation of the Municipal Golf Course and a few other sites near the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. The City also maintains a system of reservoirs and wells that enable Palo Alto to serve water during an interruption
of the Hetch Hetchy system. Costs for the Water Utility are split approximately half for the operation, maintenance and
periodic replacement of Palo Alto’s water system and half for the costs of the water purchased.
3.1 Water Supply and Transmission
On November 10, 2022, Governor Newsom’s senior Water-Policy Officials, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC), and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding for
proposed Voluntary Agreements to provide greater water flows and increased habitat for the Tuolumne River. The State
Board has initiated its evaluation of the proposed Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement as an amendment to the adopted
Bay Delta Plan. The State Board is completing CEQA review of the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement. The SWRCB’s
schedule indicates development of the draft Supplemental Scientific Basis Report for the Tuolumne River Voluntary
Agreement in Fall 2024 and response to comments on the draft Scientific Basis Report, including peer review comments,
by late 2024.
Concurrently, the State Board is moving forward with implementation of the Adopted Phase I Bay Delta Plan including
preparing the draft Environmental Impact Report and regulation to implement the updates the State Board adopted in
2018. The Court in the State Board Cases on the litigation on the Adopted Phase I Plan ruled in the State Water Board’s
favor on all 116 claims by the 12 petitioners.
In August 2018, Palo Alto’s City Council voted to support the SWRCB’s Bay-Delta Plan to have 40 percent of natural water
in the Central Valley to enter the Delta from February to June and associated Southern Delta salinity objectives; and send
a letter expressing this policy position to the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), California State
Water Resources Control Board, SFPUC, and other stakeholders.
In order to plan for future reductions to existing water supply from climate change and regulatory uncertainties, the SFPUC
undertook the Alternative Water Supply Plan. This plan is a roadmap to guide water supply planning to help address
projected supply shortfalls through 2045. The SFPUC Commission approved the plan in February 2024 and expects to
update the plan in Fiscal Year 2027.
BAWSCA is a special district created by legislative action (AB 2058) in 2002 to protect the water supply and conservation
interests of wholesale water customers, including Palo Alto. BAWSCA’s goal is to ensure a reliable supply of high-quality
water at a fair price. BAWSCA’s Board approved the contracting and funding to initiate the development of BAWSCA’s
Item #2
Packet Pg. 49
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 20 of 57
5
0
7
5
Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy 2050. This planning document will enable BAWSCA to identify the highest
priority water supply management activities to achieve its goal.
Figure 15: Regional Water System Storage
Item #2
Packet Pg. 50
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 21 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 16: SFPUC Water Deliveries
Palo Alto staff is continuing to focus on education and outreach and providing resources to eliminate water waste and
achieve efficient water use. Palo Alto continued work on the WaterSmart Customer Portal and Residential Home Water
Report Program and also continued to work with Waterfluence software to target water efficiency for large landscape
customers. Staff continues to promote water conservation rebate programs and resources through online outreach, bill
inserts, and newsletters.
Palo Alto continued its work on the One Water Plan with the goal of Council adoption of a One Water supply plan which
will identify alternatives for meeting the community’s water needs in the future. In June 2022 the City Council approved
a contract for this work with Carollo Engineers, Inc. In September and December 2022, staff conducted stakeholder
engagement meetings with community members and City staff focusing on One Water community needs and priorities
and water supply and conservation options and draft evaluation criteria. The UAC received a status update in February
2023 (Staff Report #1497410) and initial results in June 2024 (Staff Report #2404-296811). Staff plans to return to the UAC
and go to City Council at the beginning of 2025 to provide the final One Water Plan. The One Water Plan will be adaptable
and staff can use the One Water excel-based tool to evaluate and prioritize water supply and conservation portfolios now
and as future uncertainties are resolved.
3.2 Capital Improvement Plan Status
The following capital projects are currently in progress:
WS-07000 – California Avenue and Page Mill Road Turnouts
•The California Avenue and Page Mill Turnouts project was completed in June 2024. The project upgraded the
California Avenue Turnout and added seismic restraints to the pressure reducing valve at Page Mill Road Turnout.
10 Staff Report #14974 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=61414
11 Staff Report #2404-2968 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=61720
Item #2
Packet Pg. 51
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 22 of 57
5
0
7
5
WS-15002 – WMR 29 (Water Main Replacement 29)
•The WMR 29 project will replace approximately 8,000 linear feet of water main on Park Boulevard from Mariposa
Avenue to Lambert Avenue, on College Avenue from Park Boulevard to El Camino Real, and on Birch Street from
College Avenue to Sherman Avenue. The project started in November 2023 and was substantially completed in
August 2024.
•The WMR 30 project is currently in the design phase and will replace approximately 7,000 linear feet of water main
on Towle Way, on Stanford Avenue and Lambert Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard, and on Christine
Drive. The anticipated project construction start date is in August 2025.
3.3 Rate and Bill Comparisons
The figure below shows the water bills for single-family residential customers compared to what they would be under
surrounding communities’ rate schedules as of August 2024. CPAU is among the highest monthly bills of the group. Palo
Alto’s water bills at 9 CCF per month are 25% higher than the comparison group average.
Figure 17: Residential Water Bill Comparison ($/month)
4 $58.26 $51.78 $64.16 $52.06 $35.60 $45.17
(Winter median) 7 $88.21 $68.13 $86.27 $68.13 $62.30 $69.59
(Annual median) 9 $113.47 $88.72 $112.31 $88.72 $80.10 $85.87
(Summer median) 14 $176.62 $140.21 $180.22 $140.21 $124.60 $135.87
25 $315.55 $263.76 $340.49 $287.41 $222.50 $245.87
* Indicates city received 100% of water supply from Hetch Hetchy
3.4 Reliability
The City of Palo Alto tracks all water service interruptions. A summary chart of these interruptions can be found below.
Water service interruptions are usually due to repairs of broken or damaged water services and mains.
Figure 18: Water Service Interruptions, FY 2023 to FY 2024
Number of Breaks 10 12 6 2 8 9 8 6
Combined Minutes 1007 1050 690 100 1086 880 1230 475
Customers Affected 46 249 63 19 147 96 164 75
3.5 Financial Health
Below is a summary of the financial position for the water utility.
3.5.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals
Actual water sales volumes in FY 2024 were about 2.0% lower than forecasted, and actual water sales revenues were
about 4.6% lower than budgeted in the FY 2024 Financial Plan, which aligns with the anticipated recovery in water usage
following periods of drought.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 52
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 23 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 19: Water Sales Volume (CCF), up to FY 2024-Q4
3.5.2 Financial Position
At the end of FY 2023, the Water Operations Reserve stood at $7.9 million, which is within the guideline range but below
the target of $10.8 million. In June 2024, Council approved the FY 2025 Water Utility Financial Plan,12 which includes a
transfer of up to $2.07 million from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve in FY 2024, as well as a 9.5%
rate increase to pay for rising costs and offset decreased sales revenues. Based on the proposed FY 2025 Financial Plan,
the Operations Reserve is projected to end FY 2024 at $9.2 million. The FY 2025 Financial Plan forecasts additional water
rate increases will be needed over the next five years to maintain the Operations Reserve within the guideline range. Final
FY 2024 reserve balances will be available in Fall 2024.
12 Staff Report 2404-2842, Attachment B, Exhibit 1: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-
manager-reports-cmrs/attachments/2024-rates/water-financial-plan-fy25.pdf
Item #2
Packet Pg. 53
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 24 of 57
5
0
7
5
4 Wastewater Utility
The Wastewater Utility includes the system of sewer pipes that collect and transport wastewater to the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) operated by the City of Palo Alto under a partnership agreement with several surrounding
communities, as well as Palo Alto’s share of the cost of operating the RWQCP. The RWQCP provides treatment and disposal
of wastewater for Palo Alto. Costs for the Wastewater Utility are split approximately half for the operation, maintenance
and periodic replacement of Palo Alto’s sewer collection system and half for the costs of wastewater treatment at the
RWQCP.
4.1 Wastewater Treatment Updates and Capital Planning Status
The RWQCP is operated by Palo Alto’s Public Works Department and provides wastewater treatment to Palo Alto,
Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos, East Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills. The Palo Alto Wastewater Collection Utility pays its
share (approximately 32% projected in FY 2025) of the costs for wastewater treatment and disposal. Capital costs for
wastewater treatment are a major driver for cost increases for the Wastewater Treatment Utility and by extension for the
Wastewater Collection Utility. The RWQCP is facing the need for major upgrades in coming years, due to aging equipment
and changing environmental regulations. Rehabilitation and replacement of plant equipment that has been in use for over
40 years is necessary to ensure the City can continue to conduct wastewater treatment operations safely and in
compliance with regulatory requirements for the discharge of treated wastewater 24 hours a day.
4.1.1 Treatment Cost Trends
RWQCP staff project treatment costs paid for by Palo Alto’s Wastewater utility to increase by approximately 5.6% annually
on average from FY 2025 through FY 2034. A key driver of the increases are capital projects, parts, materials and debt. The
treatment capital expenses, including debt service costs, are increasing at an average of about 10% per year from FY 2025
through FY 2034 to keep up with ongoing replacement of aging equipment and complete major upgrades. Larger increases
to capital expenses are expected to begin in FY 2029 in the form of new debt service for major projects to implement the
Plant’s capital program. The figure below shows Palo Alto’s share of each component of estimated treatment costs. Major
upcoming capital projects and estimated years for debt service or other capital cost payments to begin are reflected in
the “Planned Debt Service” bar in the figure below and include:
•Joint Interceptor Sewer Rehabilitation (FY 2024)
•Building Purchase (FY 2025)
•Primary Sedimentation Tank Rehabilitation and Equipment Room Electrical Upgrade (FY 2025)
•Outfall Line Construction (FY 2027)
•Headworks Facility (FY 2029)
•Secondary Treatment Upgrades (FY 2030)
Item #2
Packet Pg. 54
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 25 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 21: Palo Alto’s Share of Estimated Wastewater Treatment Expenses (Projection and Planned CIP)
The figure above shows the ongoing annual CIP reinvestment (“Recurring/Minor CIP” and “Existing Debt Service”), one
pay-as-you-go project, the Joint Intercepting Sewer in FY 2025, and treatment operations costs. Operations costs make
up the majority of the treatment costs but are not growing as quickly as the planned debt service. Additional factors not
yet included in the budget estimate could increase costs further such as debt expense for cash flow issues associated with
slow State Revolving Fund loan reimbursement, and property expenses for an acquired property. Factors that are
contributing to cost increases for treatment operations are rising salary and benefits costs, sludge hauling services unit
price increases, commodity increases to operate the facility, and Palo Alto’s cost share increased in FY 23 from 32% to
35% based on updated data. RWQCP is updating the Long Range Facilities Plan which includes cost of service analysis and
capital project cost allocation methodology.
In June, the Council approved a Cost-Sharing Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Guiding Principle 5
grant program funding for future projects at the RWQCP.13 This grant program awards funds to communities like Palo Alto
where property taxpayers pay State Water Project property taxes but receive on average 85% of their water supply from
sources other than Valley Water managed supplies. Guiding Principle 5 awards grants to each community for certain
purposes including wastewater treatment environmental upgrades. In FY 2025, staff will incorporate the estimated grant
funding of $11.8 million into the treatment costs expected for Palo Alto. This funding will be applied to Palo Alto’s share
of approved RWQCP projects which will directly benefit Palo Alto customers. Four of the upcoming projects are eligible
for Guiding Principal 5 program funding:
•Outfall Line Construction
•Headworks Facility Replacement
•12kV Electrical Power Distribution Loop Improvements
•Joint Intercepting Sewer Rehabilitation
4.1.2 Regional Water Quality Control Plant Capital Planning Status
The Long-Range Facilities Plan, completed in 2012, guides the capital plans for the RWQCP. The RWQCP is currently
soliciting consultant proposals to begin an update to the Long-Range Facilities Plan in 2024. The findings from the Long-
13 Staff Report 2404-2877, June 3, 2024 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82864
Item #2
Packet Pg. 55
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 26 of 57
5
0
7
5
Range Facilities Plan update will direct additional/future CIP. The RWQCP’s current capital work in-progress includes an
estimated $418 – $515 million in projects. The following table summarizes these ongoing projects and provides their status
and costs.
Figure 22: Current RWQCP Capital Work In-Progress (based on March 2024 Partners Meeting)
Project Status Planned Expense
(million $)
Potential Expense
(million $)
Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Rehabilitation and Equipment Room
Electrical Upgrade
12kV Electrical Loop Upgrades
New Outfall Pipeline
Secondary Treatment Upgrades
Advanced Water Purification System
Headworks Facility Replacement
Joint Interceptor Sewer Rehabilitation
Staff Buildings
Long Range Facility Plan Update
Valley Water Purified Drinking Water
Regional Plant at Former Los Altos
Treatment Plant
Item #2
Packet Pg. 56
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 27 of 57
5
0
7
5
Reclamation’s WaterSMART program, which allocates Title XVI Program funding under the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, and the City of Mountain View will pay for the remainder of the capital cost.
4.2 Collection System Capital Improvement Plan Status
WC-19001 - SSR 31 (Sanitary Sewer Replacement 31)
•The SSR 31 project was completed in May 2024, earlier than anticipated, to allow Caltrans to start their street
improvement/paving project on El Camino Real within Palo Alto. SSR 31 replaced approximately 11,000 linear feet
of wastewater main, sewer laterals, and manholes on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road.
WC-15002 – Sewer Master Plan Study
•The Master Plan Study will evaluate the City’s existing wastewater collection system, flows, and flow patterns to
determine the adequacy of the system’s hydraulic capacity to meet current and anticipated future wastewater flow
demands. The project kicked off in December 2023 and is anticipated to be completed in March 2025.
WC-20000 - SSR 32 (Sanitary Sewer Replacement 32)
•The WMR 32 project is currently in the design phase and will replace sewer mains, laterals, and manholes on
Middlefield Road and Webster Street between Seale and Oregon Ave. The anticipated project construction start
date is in FY’26.
4.3 Rate and Bill Comparisons
Figure 23: Residential Wastewater Bill Comparison ($/month)
Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Los Altos Santa Clara Hayward
4.4 Financial Health
4.4.1 Sales Forecasts vs. Actuals
Item #2
Packet Pg. 57
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 28 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 24: Wastewater Sales Revenue ($), up to FY 2024-Q4
4.4.2 Financial Position
The Wastewater Collection Operations Reserve dropped below guideline range and below zero to negative $0.7 million at
the end of FY 2023. There were several reasons for this including costs higher than forecasted and revenues lower than
forecasted. Additionally, Palo Alto began Sanitary Sewer Replacement project 31 with an increased budget and earlier
start date in FY 2023 instead of FY 2024. Completing this sewer replacement earlier than previously anticipated was
necessary in order to coordinate with Caltrans to limit or avoid digging into newly-paved street on El Camino Real. In June
2024, Council approved the FY 2025 Wastewater Collection Financial Plan14 that included a 15% rate increase in FY 2025
and a short-term loan up to $3 million from the Fiber Optics Fund Reserve for FY 2024 to cover the potential shortfall of
cash in the Wastewater Collection Utility. The Wastewater Collection utility will repay any such loan in FY 2026 (or sooner)
at a rate equal to the City’s portfolio rate plus 0.25%. Staff estimates with the proposed revenues and expense estimates
the Wastewater Collection Utility will be able to cover rising costs, restore the Operations Reserve to within the guideline
range by the end of FY 2026, and accelerate the rate of main replacement by FY 2028. Final FY 2024 reserve balances will
not be available until Fall 2024.
14 Staff Report 2404-2842, Attachment A, Exhibit 1: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-
minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/attachments/2024-rates/wastewater-financial-plan-fy25.pdf
Item #2
Packet Pg. 58
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 29 of 57
5
0
7
5
5 Fiber Utility
The City offers a "Dark" fiber service providing a fiber connection from Palo Alto businesses to the downtown Internet
Exchange. At the exchange, businesses select an internet service provider (ISP) for bandwidth and connection speed.
5.1 Fiber Utility Strategic Planning
Below are highlights and status updates of the Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) Project:
•Staff is reviewing the final design of the fiber hut and backup generator. The fiber hut is a pre-cast concrete building
(11’ x 20’) which will house the networking equipment including electrical system, cable entry, HVAC, lighting, fire
suppression system, alarms, and racks. After the design is finalized, it will take approximately 90-120 days for
construction and delivery.
•Electric pole-make ready work such as pole replacements and hanging messenger wire is in progress and on track to
be completed by Q1-2025. Fiber cable may be strung and lashed after electric pole-make ready work is completed.
•City is evaluating the RFP responses for the operating support system and business support system (OSS/BSS)
software. OSS supports infrastructure and network management by monitoring operations and provisioning service.
BSS supports customer-facing activities such as billing, scheduling, and customer experience.
•CPAU has filled the role of Outside Plant Manager to oversee planning, construction, and inspection of the FTTP
infrastructure and new fiber backbones. This position will oversee field technicians and coordinate design changes,
construction, and installation.
5.2 Capital Improvement Plan Status
The following capital projects are currently in progress:
•FO-16000 – Fiber Optic System Rebuild
o The new fiber backbone will be built in segments in alignment with the phased FTTP. CPAU does not have
resources to construct an entire new fiber backbone along with FTTP. In addition to aligning with FTTP,
CPAU will install new aerial ducts or substructure (conduit and boxes) and fiber backbone cables to
increase capacity in areas that are at or near capacity to meet customer connection requests.
•FO-24000 – Fiber-to-the-Premises
o The pilot area has been identified, which is bounded by Embarcadero Road, Louis Road, Colorado Avenue,
Greer Road and West Bayshore Road, to determine the best approach at integrating FTTP and grid
modernization. Some criteria that will be used to analyze alignment include impact costs, reductions to
community disruptions, internal staffing, and project timelines. Construction of the FTTP pilot is scheduled
to be completed by March 2025.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 59
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 30 of 57
5
0
7
5
5.3 Reliability
There were no unplanned fiber outages or events to report in Q4 of FY 2024.
Below is a summary of the financial position for the fiber utility.
5.4.1 Fiber Sales
Actual dark fiber licensing sales in FY 2024 were $3.8M and $0.2M or 5% above the revenue forecast. Fiber expenses
were $4.7M and $0.3M or 6% below forecast due to vacancy savings. The Fiber Fund added four new positions in FY 2024
to support FTTP. CPAU recently filled the Outside Plant Manager role and is recruiting for the Product Services and
Marketing Manager. The Assistant Director for Fiber and Senior Network Architect positions are currently on hold as staff
and consultants are collectively performing the work that staff in those roles would perform at this time. As the pilot
progresses, the City will reassess whether these positions will need to be filled in FY 2025 or FY 2026.
5.4.2 Financial Position
The ending FY 2024 Fiber Optic Utility Rate Stabilization Reserve is $8 million and an additional $25.5 million of CIP
commitments and reappropriations. In addition, the Fiber Fund loaned the Wastewater Collection Fund $3 million in FY
2024. The Wastewater Collection utility will repay the short-term loan in FY 2026 (or sooner) at a rate equal to the City’s
portfolio rate plus 0.25%.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 60
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 31 of 57
5
0
7
5
6 Customer Programs (Efficiency and Sustainability)
The City’s Utilities Department maintains a number of programs to help customers save money, use energy and water
efficiently, and reduce carbon emissions. These programs are funded through a variety of funding sources, some of which
are summarized below.
6.1 Customer Programs Updates
Below is a summary of the City’s energy and water efficiency programs, as well as programs to encourage building
electrification and adoption of electric vehicles. Summary descriptions of Utilities Customer Program are provided in
Appendix D.
6.1.1 Energy and Water Efficiency
Water Efficiency Workshops
The City, in partnership with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), offers landscape education
classes throughout the year to introduce residents to the concepts of water-efficient and sustainable landscaping.
Workshop topics include rain gardens, how to water trees, steps to take to convert lawns into drought-tolerant
landscapes, and available rebates. Workshops are held in the Spring and Fall every year. During FY 2024, the City held 7
water efficiency workshops on turf conversion, native plants, and laundry graywater systems.
Please visit the BAWSCA website for a complete list of available classes and events at:
https://bawsca.org/conserve/programs/classes. All past Landscape Class Videos are available online at:
https://bawsca.org/conserve/landscaping/videos/. For updates on future events and workshops, please visit
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/workshops
Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
The Home Efficiency Genie program continues to provide residents with professional advice and information to improve
their home’s efficiency and comfort and lower their energy and water usage and evaluate the need for electric panel
upgrade to accommodate future electrification projects. In addition to phone and email-based advising service, the Home
Efficiency Genie program also offers both in-home and virtual efficiency assessments of energy equipment and the
building envelope (attic, windows, walls), and evaluation of the electric panel to plan for future electrification upgrades.
During FY 2024, the Genie performed 44 comprehensive in-home assessments, and performed 6 virtual assessments.
CPAU’s Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP) for income-qualified customers continues to reach our most
vulnerable population offering energy and water efficiency improvements at no cost to the customer. In FY 2024, 30
customers participated in the REAP program. Additionally, 7 REAP customers received a heat pump water heater at no
cost, and 27 additional REAP customers completed a site assessment and are awaiting a HPWH installation.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 61
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 32 of 57
5
0
7
5
Water Conservation Programs for Residents and Businesses
CPAU partners with Valley Water to offer a robust portfolio of water conservation programs and rebates15 for residents
and businesses. On June 25, 2023, the City entered into a new cost-sharing agreement with Valley Water which includes
$1.4M over 7 years to help the City deploy Advanced Water Metering Infrastructure and home water conservation reports.
FY 2024 rebate data is not yet available; the City receives program results once a year from Valley Water in October.
The WaterSmart customer portal, an online water management tool, launched in November 2022. Through this program,
home water reports are sent to around 11,000 single-family customers on a monthly basis. A control group of around
4,000 single-family customers currently do not get the reports. The average open rate of home water report emails is 74%.
As of August 6, 2024, 24% of all single-family customers have accessed the portal which provides information about their
water consumption and personalized water conservation recommendations. Preliminary results from the efficiency study
show that sending home water reports results in water-savings of 2.1%. To date, the City has saved 13.2 MG through the
WaterSmart program. As water supply conditions have improved, CPAU is focusing outreach on water conservation being
a way of life and reducing water waste and continues to encourage participation in rebates and resources.
For the eighth year, the City of Palo Alto is an outreach partner for Bay Area SunShares, a solar and battery storage group-
buy program administered by Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Palo Alto’s participation as an outreach partner
helps CPAU customers receive information and discounted prices from two prescreened contractors – SolarUnion and
Solar Technologies. As of January 15th 2024, the program is closed for registration. The Bay Area SunShares program will
launch for the next cycle in the Fall of 2024, and CPAU is participating in the evaluation committee for the first time and
will participate as an outreach partner for the ninth time.
As of June 30, 2024, Veolia Sustainable Buildings West Inc., (formally Enovity Inc.) has 22 managed projects for the prior
12-month rolling period (July 2023 – June 2024). During this period, 3 projects were completed. Total savings were
526,055 kWh and 64,000 therms. Additionally, 10 projects are currently in the installation phase. When completed, these
projects are forecasted to realize savings of 887,710 kWh and 36,407 therms. There are nine projects currently in the
assessment stage, expected to identify potential energy conservation measures and generate additional savings. Since
August 2021, the CIEEP program has saved 2,256,891 kWh deriving from completed 14 projects. Staff expects this program
to continue generating energy efficiency and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Account Representatives continue to proactively engage customers through email correspondence, phone calls, site
visits, tabling events, and face-to-face meetings. In fiscal year 2024, the Utility Program Services (UPS) Commercial team
hosted two Facility Manager Meetings, with a combination of webinars and in-person meetings. Both events garnered
significant interest with 39 attendees for the November 2023 online webinar and 28 in-person attendees for the April
2024 event. The meetings served as a professional platform to promote CPAU’s commercial energy efficiency programs,
while educating the audiences on a variety of topics, including utility rates, water conservation legislation, AMI meters,
dark fiber services, and electrification case studies. These informational meetings served as a connector to industry leaders
and promotion of the City’s commercial resources, business rebates, and pilot incentive programs.
In addition, the Commercial Team facilitated customer outreach by tabling at sites like VMware, Hewlett Packard, SAP,
and Stanford Research Park. These opportunities provide a platform for staff to engage with sustainability advocates and
showcase the City’s energy efficiency and electrification programs. They also encourage additional interaction with
15 Rebates https://valleywater.dropletportal.com/overview/
Item #2
Packet Pg. 62
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 33 of 57
5
0
7
5
customers, which aids in the development of potential partnerships. Staff continues to employ account support strategies
to enable corporate sustainability initiatives.
Figure 25: Energy Efficiency Program Energy Savings – Completed FY 2024 in Yellow
Item #2
Packet Pg. 63
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 34 of 57
5
0
7
5
Figure 27: Energy Efficiency Program Energy Savings – Awaiting Assessments or Install
Business Energy Advisor
This last year was the most successful since the inception of the Business Energy Advisor (BEA) program for small to
medium sized businesses, which was launched in June 2022. Over the last 12 months, 49 site assessments have been
completed. Staff have tried a variety of new outreach and marketing strategies to drive participation, which have proven
to be successful. From January through May 2024, staff ran a limited-time boosted incentive campaign and increased
efficiency rebates by 20% for customers who complete projects by the end of August 2024. Spurred by this initiative, we
more than doubled the number of completed site assessments (36) in the first half of 2024, compared to the 13
assessments completed in the second half of 2023. The number of installations also increased significantly from years
past. Outlined in Figure 28 are the efficiency projects that have been completed through this program and the total rebate
amounts we have paid customers.
Customer Project Type Rebate Amount kWh Savings
Unitarian Universalist
Church of Palo Alto
LED Lighting $568.78 10,342
MidPen Community Media
Center
LED Lighting $65 2,085
The Sobrato Foundation LED Lighting $43.20 654
Unitarian Universalist
Church of Palo Alto
LED Lighting $481.01 9,714
Unitarian Universalist
Church of Palo Alto
Fridge/Freezer
Replacement
$281 355
Calmar Laser LED Lighting $319.29 15,983
Dinah’s Garden Hotel HVAC Replacement $26,154 26,418
United Methodist Church LED Lighting 249.43 9,028
Total N/A $28,161.71 74,579
Item #2
Packet Pg. 64
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 35 of 57
5
0
7
5
Staff has continued aggressive marketing efforts including bill inserts, direct emails, e-newsletters, call campaigns, flyers,
and in-person outreach. Over the past year, the BEA team has consistently engaged in in-person outreach, visiting
businesses a minimum of one-day per week. Their dedication and effort have resulted in visiting almost 300 businesses
between January through June 2024. Additionally, the team experimented with social media ads through Meta platforms,
which resulted in 1,118 clicks on our program webpage. However, we concluded that most customers learned of our
programs through other channels rather than social media ads. Moving forward, we will continue to prioritize outreach
efforts, especially through in-person visits, webinars, direct email and call campaigns.
6.1.2 Building Electrification
Full-Service Heat Pump Water Heater Program
we selected and signed a contract with Larratt Bros Plumbing to meet our goal to restore hot water within 48 hours. In
cases where it might take longer than 48 hours to install a heat pump water heater, the contractor will provide a loaner
Item #2
Packet Pg. 65
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 36 of 57
5
0
7
5
gas water heater as a temporary solution. Because most households wait until their water heater fails to replace it, this
pilot program will fill a major gap in our current service. We expect to launch this program in Q1 FY 2025.
th for an electrification expert to support home electrification providing
assistance to customers constructing new homes, and potentially also supporting customers who opt to full electrify their
homes. The expert will also provide assistance to HPWH Program customers that have been disqualified from the program
due to challenging site constraints. In addition to expert guidance, this pilot program will create Home Electrification Plan
templates that can benefit homeowners beyond the initial pilot. We are currently in contract negotiations with a vendor
selected through the RFP process. The pilot is slated to begin before the end of the year.
Business Electrification Technical Assistance Program (BE TAP)
Item #2
Packet Pg. 66
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 37 of 57
5
0
7
5
There are many reasons we are seeing longer-than-usual project timelines to complete commercial electrification
installations. Some challenges include customers receiving unexpectedly high bids, challenging City permitting
requirements, and insufficient rebate incentives to cover higher than expected project costs. Over the next year staff will
work to address these concerns with a limited-time boosted incentive campaign for the replacement of rooftop gas packs
to heat pump HVAC systems. The intent will be to collect detailed information from each participating customer to help
staff better understand the costs and barriers to transitioning from gas equipment. Staff is also looking into potential
financing options for commercial customers.
Electric Vehicle Programs
EV Technical Assistance Program (EVTAP)
Item #2
Packet Pg. 67
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 38 of 57
5
0
7
5
To date, CLEAResult has prepared and presented Charging Evaluation Reports (“CER”) to a total of 101 sites. Fifteen of
these sites have already completed EV charging installations (5 multifamily properties, 2 mixed-use properties, 2
nonprofits, 2 faith-based organizations, and 4 schools) totaling 113 charging ports, and an additional 34 sites remain active
(bidding, vendor selection, permitting, and installation phases). In order to support existing EVTAP customers to complete
their projects, CPAU extended its contract with CLEAResult with the goal of having a total of 30 sites operational by the
end of April 2027. Based on the current project pipeline, CPAU estimates that at least 6 EVTAP sites will complete installed
by the end of 2024, leading to the installation of an additional 104 charging ports.
EV Charger Rebate Program
California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP)
During FY24, a total of $1.63M (out of $2M) was reserved by 10 site owners
through CALeVIP, five of which were completed, resulting in an additional 72 Level 2 EV charging ports in Palo Alto.
Program is scheduled to have all funds-reserved projects completed by April 2025 with program close out and remaining
funds returned in September 2025.
EV Awareness and Outreach
16, EVucation17 and Cool the Earth18 to offer 25 EV
educational events, such as in-person workshop classes, EV expos, webinars, and limited-time EV and eBike Discount
Campaigns. The webinars, workshops and EV expos attracted approximately 2,750 attendees and participants of the EV
Discount Campaigns were able to purchase and save up to $15,500 on a new EV or PHEV and pay below market price on
used EVs through the Pre-owned EV Discount Campaign. .
Qmerit
Utilizing NCPA’s Support Services Program and LCFS funding, CPAU is
contracted with D+R International to provide reliable installers through the Qmerit19 platform. During FY24, 98 project
estimate requests were submitted, of which 11 projects were completed. CPAU anticipates an increase in program interest
16 Acterra https://acterra.org/
17 EVucation https://www.evucation.com/
18 Cool the Earth https://cooltheearth.org/
19 Qmerit: https://qmerit.com/utility/cityofpaloalto/
Item #2
Packet Pg. 68
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 39 of 57
5
0
7
5
and participation with growing EV adoption and will increase outreach efforts of this program for interested EV owners of
single-family homes.
City-Owned EV Chargers
Electric Service Connection Fee Incentive
Currently staff are working with the Kingsley Park HOA to complete their EV charger installation, which
involves a transformer upgrade. This will be the first site to receive an upgrade, and it is anticipated that the chargers will
come online in early fall 2024. While this project has taken a few years to complete, it represents a milestone for CPAU
and has created opportunities for Utilities Engineering, Underground Services, and Urban Forestry to partner together to
design a joint schematic for the EV chargers and improve customer service for the applicant. CPAU estimates that an
additional 12-15 sites in the current EV project pipeline will require new transformers and could benefit from the Electric
Service Connection Fee Incentive.
6.2 Innovation and Pilot Programs
Item #2
Packet Pg. 69
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 40 of 57
5
0
7
5
6.2.1 Academic Collaborations
CPAU staff is working with Lihan Huang, a Stanford Graduate Fellow for the summer to do a complete rebuild of the
electric front office models to capture hourly generation, revenue, and cost. Lihan did a phenomenal job working with the
needs of the group and handling a tremendous amount of data. She may be able to present her work at a UAC meeting in
the fall.
Staff is also collaborating with staff at the hydroelectric project WAPA for estimating and forecasting hourly marginal
carbon emissions in the ISO, which may be useful in future in-house analysis as well.
In FY 2024 CPAU received two applications but declined both since they either did not fit with Utilities priorities at this
time or the parameters of the PET program. Some related ideas are being explored as potentially funded pilot projects.
Figure 26: Status to date of all applications to the Program for Emerging Technologies
Deadline Total Received Under Review Declined/Closed Active Completed
FY 2013 13 0 11 0 2
FY 2014 15 0 11 0 4
FY 2015 15 0 11 0 4
FY 2016 14 0 9 0 5
FY 2017 10 0 7 0 3
FY 2018 10 0 9 0 1
FY 2019 9 0 5 0 4
FY 2020 8 0 3 0 5
FY 2021 2 0 1 0 1
FY 2022 8 0 8 0 0
FY 2023 3 0 3 0 0
FY 2024 2 0 2 0 0
TOTAL 109 0 80 0 29
Item #2
Packet Pg. 70
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 41 of 57
5
0
7
5
7 Communications
This section summarizes communications highlights, updates on major campaigns and noteworthy events. Copies of ads
bill inserts, and brochures are available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/UTLbillinsert
Smart Energy Provider Award: In July 2024, CPAU was awarded the Smart Energy Provider (SEP) designation from the
American Public Power Association (APPA). The SEP designation recognizes public power utilities for demonstrating
leading practices in four key disciplines: smart energy program structure; energy efficiency and distributed energy
programs; environmental and sustainability initiatives; and the customer experience. CPAU will be honored and presented
with the award the at APPA annual Customer Connections conference in October 2024.
System Operational Achievement Recognition (SOAR) Award: In April 2024, CPAU won an award from the American
Public Gas Association (APGA) for excellence in operating our city’s natural gas utility. APGA presented CPAU with the
prestigious System Operational Achievement Recognition (SOAR) award, which was highlighted at the APGA annual
conference in July 2024. Out of approximately 750 APGA members, CPAU was selected for SOAR level Silver by its peers
on the APGA Operations and Safety Committee. The selection was based on demonstrated excellence in the four areas of
system integrity, system improvement, employee safety, and workforce development.
Residential Electric and Water Customer Satisfaction Surveys: In fall 2023, CPAU participated as a member of the
California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) in customer satisfaction surveys for residential electric and water utility
customers. CMUA’s contractor, GreatBlue Research, completed a statewide survey of municipal and investor-owned
utilities customers as a method of benchmarking trends of customer satisfaction and program awareness across the state.
CPAU opted to also participate in an “oversample” survey of Palo Alto residents so we can gain greater insight into some
specific areas of interest for Palo Alto residents. CPAU received significantly higher ratings than municipal and investor-
owned utilities in northern California and the State of California for providing consistent and reliable service to customers,
being committed to green, renewable, or carbon free energy, and restoring power in a reasonable amount of time after
an outage. When asked how frequently the City of Palo Alto Utilities meets their expectations, over four-fifths of
customers reported their expectations are met "all" or "most of the time,” ranking higher than other utilities in the State.
Staff presented the key study findings and considerations to the UAC in February 2024 and provided an informational
report to City Council in May 2024.
Customer Notifications for Enhanced Outage Communication: CPAU’s new power Outage Management System now
provides mobile text messaging and phone call notifications to customers about power outages and d status updates. The
online power outage map now also shows neighborhood boundaries of where outages occur. We encourage utility
customers to log into their MyCPAU account20 or contact Customer Service directly to ensure we have current contact
information on file to effectively communicate in the event of an unplanned or planned utilities service disruption. Find
information on outages and notifications at www.cityofpaloalto.org/outages
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project: CPAU continued its deployment of Advanced Metering Infrastructure
(AMI) throughout 2023 and into 2024 and reached the 50 percent installation milestone in July 2024. Full deployment of
AMI for residential customers is estimated to be complete by the end of 2024. Commercial AMI meters are also being
installed in phases for testing assurance and data validation. CPAU is communicating directly with customers who will
20 MyCPAU Account https://mycpau.cityofpaloalto.org/portal/
Item #2
Packet Pg. 71
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 42 of 57
5
0
7
5
receive the meters to share resources and help with any questions or concerns, and developed a video about AMI to
provide an overview of the benefits to customers and the utility. www.cityofpaloalto.org/ami
Program and Event Support: CPAU communications staff provide ongoing annual, monthly, and daily support for outreach
to residential and non-residential customers about programs for regular operations, maintenance, and capital
improvement projects, sustainability, energy and water efficiency, solar, electric vehicles and eBikes, beneficial
electrification, events and workshops, and more. Comprehensive communication campaigns include website, utility bill
inserts, email newsletters, social media, videos print and digital advertisements, community outreach events, media
relations and public correspondence.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 72
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 43 of 57
5
0
7
5
8 Legislative, Regulatory and Industry Activity
8.1 State Legislative Activity
During FY 2024, many relevant bills were introduced or chaptered by the California Legislature. Despite the August 31st
deadline to pass bills being only a few weeks away at the time of this writing, a number of impactful bills are going through
the legislative process and are listed below. CPAU worked with several outside groups, including the Northern California
Power Agency (NCPA) and the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA), to actively support or oppose bills.
Chaptered Bills
•AB 541 (Wood) | California Safe Drinking Water Act: wildfire aftermath: benzene testing. Requires public water
systems that have experienced wildfire events to test for benzene and take specified actions if it is detected.
•AB 755 (Papan) | Water: public entity: water usage demand analysis. Requires a city or urban water supplier to
conduct a water usage demand analysis, prior to or as part of a cost-of-service-analysis, that identifies the costs
of water service for the highest users and the average annual volume of water delivered to high water users. This
information must be made publicly available in the cost-of-service analysis.
•AB 1373 (Garcia) | Energy. Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to assess a capacity payment on each
local publicly owned utility that failed to meet its minimum planning reserve margin for each month that resources
procured through the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve Program (ESSRRP) are used.
•AB 1572 (Friedman) | Potable water: nonfunctional turf. Prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate
nonfunctional turf located on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties. Requires public water systems
to revise their ordinances and inform their customers by January 1, 2027.
•AB 1594 (Garcia) | Medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles: public agency utilities. Provides to public
agency utilities exemptions to the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to ensure continued reliable service.
•SB 659 (Ashby) | California Water Supply Solutions Act of 2023. Requires future updates of the California Water
Plan to provide actionable recommendations to increase groundwater recharge in both the near and long term.
•SB 745 (Cortese) | The Drought-Resistance Buildings Act. Requires the Department of General Services to research
and propose updates to the California Building Standards Code to reduce potable water usage and consider water
reuse standards in new buildings.
•SB 867 (Allen) | Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024.
Puts a $10 billion water, wildfire, resilience, biodiversity, agriculture, and clean air bond on the ballot for the
November 5, 2024 election.
Active Bills
•AB 990 (Grayson) | Water quality: waste discharge requirements: infill housing projects. Requires the San
Francisco Bay regional water board to update the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco
Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in
consultation with the Association of Bay Area Governments.
•AB 1834 (Garcia) | Resource adequacy: Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve Program. Requires the CEC
to consider mitigating factors when determining capacity payments.
•AB 2037 (Papan) | Weights and measures: electric vehicle chargers. Authorizes county sealers to test and verify
as correct any electric vehicle charger operated by a public agency or local publicly owned electric utility. Exempts
electric vehicle chargers that are tested every six months to specified requirements.
•AB 2427 (McCarty) | Electric vehicle charging stations: permitting: curbside charging. Requires local agencies to
develop a comprehensive permitting checklist for electric vehicle charging stations within the public right-of-way.
The City of Palo Alto would have to comply by January 1, 2029.
•AB 2557 (Ortega) | Local agencies: contracts for special services and temporary help: performance reports.
Requires local agencies to post online contracts for special services and temporary help and also requires the
board of supervisors to give reasonable written notice to the affected employee representative before beginning
the procurement process for the contract.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 73
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 44 of 57
5
0
7
5
• AB 2561 (McKinnor) | Local public employees: vacant positions. Requires public agencies with high vacancy rates
of 15% for more than 180 days to meet with the appropriate union, at the request of the union, to come up with
strategies to fill the vacancies.
•AB 2729 (Patterson) | Development projects: permits and other entitlements: fees and charges. Would limit the
utility service fees authorized to be collected at the time of application for utility service to capacity charge
connections.
•SB 366 (Caballero) | The California Water Plan: long-term supply targets. A CMUA-sponsored bill that revises the
California Water Plan to establish a stakeholder advisory committee to coordinate with various California water
agencies in the development of a long-term water supply plan.
•SB 1210 (Skinner) | New housing construction: electrical, gas, sewer, and water service: service connection
information. Requires a utility to post online the estimate fee schedule and timeframes for completion for typical
service connections for new housing constructions.
•SB 1251 (Stern) | Mosquito abatement inspections. Requires an electrical utility to enter a vector control
agreement with a vector control district, upon their request, to allow access to electrical vaults for mosquito
abatement.
•SB 1255 (Durazo) | Public water systems: needs analysis: water rate assistance program. Requires water suppliers
to provide water rate assistance to eligible users and provide an opportunity to other users to voluntary contribute
to the rate assistance program.
8.2 State Regulatory Activity
Much of the relevant state regulatory activity in FY24 has focused on accelerating emissions reductions or improved
emissions reporting. Both the Cap and Trade and Low Carbon Fuel Standard programs are undergoing major overhauls to
hit mandated emissions reduction targets while the Power Content Label program will be moving to hourly, rather than
annual, reporting. Landmark water conservation regulation was also established in the Conservation as a California Way
of Life framework. CPAU has been actively involved in these proceedings, and others, and has weighed-in when prudent.
8.2.1 California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Cap and Trade
As a result of SB 32 and AB 1279 setting stricter emission-reduction targets of 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2045, both relative
to 1990 emission levels, CARB initiated rulemaking to accelerate emissions reduction under Cap and Trade. One proposed,
and likely, method to achieve Cap and Trade goals is to significantly reduce free allowances given to gas utilities, including
CPAU. Additionally, more stringent RPS requirements and updated electricity consumption forecasts will reduce CPAU’s
electric utility free allowances. Depending on how allowance market prices are impacted by the changes, CPAU’s auction
revenue, the proceeds of which go towards emission-reducing programs like the Heat Pump Water Heater program, may
be impacted. CPAU has worked with the Gas Utility Group (GUG) to provide comments regarding CARB’s proposed
methodology for updating the gas allowance allocation. CPAU will continue to closely follow Cap and Trade developments.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Similar to Cap and Trade, CARB is in the midst of rulemaking to update the LCFS to accelerate emissions reduction to meet
state goals. The key updates for CPAU are the proposed reductions in the carbon intensity benchmarks and the addition
of an automatic acceleration mechanism, which will trigger additional benchmark reductions if too many credits are
generated. While these changes will reduce the number of credits generated by CPAU, they should also increase the credit
price, which has dropped significantly in recent years. Thus, the financial impact of these changes is unknown. Proceeds
from the credit sales go towards improving EV infrastructure and is CPAU’s the main source funding for EV programs.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 74
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 45 of 57
5
0
7
5
8.2.2 California Energy Commission (CEC)
SB 1158-related updates to the Power Source Disclosure program
In May 2024, the CEC provided express terms that lay out significant updates to the Power Source Disclosure (PSD)
program. These changes include factoring in transmission and distribution losses by displaying loss-adjusted load and
reporting of hourly data. Reporting hourly data will be an administrative burden but is not required until June 1, 2028.
Regulatory language is not final and CPAU staff will continue to participate in rulemaking.
AB 1373 and Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve Program (ESSRRP) capacity payments
In May 2024, the CEC held a workshop to discuss how capacity payments would be assessed on publicly owned utilities
(POUs) in the case resources are procured by the ESSRRP to cover electricity shortages in extreme events. POUs would
only have to pay if they are found to be capacity deficient in the month that resources are procured. Several questions
about how payments will be calculated so CPAU staff will follow and engage in all developments.
General Order (GO) 174 update
In July 2024, the CPUC adopted changes to GO 174, which establishes and regulates the Substation Inspection Program.
These changes expanded the scope of the order to include transmission-level substations, which were previously excluded
because they are subject to robust audits from various agencies. CPAU’s transmission-level substations will be subject to
audits and inspections by the CPUC’s Safety Enforcement Division.
Conservation as a California Way of Life
In July 2024, the State Water Board finalized regulations that established permanent water efficiency goals that become
stricter over time, known as Conservation as a California Way of Life. Applying to urban water retailers, the regulation
combines statutory mandates from AB 1668, SB 606, and SB 1157, which require calculation of an urban water retailer’s
water use objective based on residential indoor use, water loss, residential outdoor use, and commercial, industrial, and
institutional (CII) landscapes as well as factoring in population, climate, and agricultural activity. CPAU staff are working to
ensure effective compliance with the regulation.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 75
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 46 of 57
5
0
7
5
Appendices
Item #2
Packet Pg. 76
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 47 of 57
5
0
7
5
9 Appendix A: Energy Risk Management Program
This appendix provides a quarterly update on the City’s Energy Risk Management Program.
9.1 Overview of Hedging Programs
The City’s Utilities Department maintains a hedging program for its Electric and Gas Utilities. In the Gas Utility the program
protects against short-term (intra-month) price spikes caused by weather or major incidents on the Western gas system.
However, the City does not hedge its gas supply more than one month in advance, choosing instead to protect the Gas
Utility’s financial position by passing gas supply costs through to customers via a charge that varies monthly based on gas
market prices. As a result, the Gas Utility’s only market exposure is the amount by which gas demand deviates from
forecasts within the month. This exposure is relatively small and can be managed using Gas Utility Operating Reserves. A
risk assessment is performed each year as part of the Gas Utility financial planning process to ensure adequate reserves
to cover all risks. The most recent Gas Utility Financial Plan was adopted June 21, 2021 (Staff Report #1224021).
The City has entered into long-term contracts for its Electric Utility to ensure that the City has carbon free electricity
supplies equal to 100% of Palo Alto’s annual electric demand. However, the output from these generating sources does
not match Palo Alto’s electric load. In the summer, the City has a surplus of carbon free energy and it has a deficit in the
winter. This exposes the City to market risk, and staff maintains a hedging program to protect against this risk. In addition,
hydroelectric generators make up approximately half the City’s energy supply. During dry years these resources do not
generate as much energy, creating an additional market exposure that must be hedged. Unlike the gas hedging program,
which is operated by City staff, the electric hedging program is operated by the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA),
a joint powers agency the City formed in partnership with several other California publicly owned electric utilities, with
oversight by City staff.
9.2 Overview of Energy Risk Management Program
The hedging programs described above are conducted in accordance with the City’s Energy Risk Management Program,
which includes a set of Program Policies adopted by the City Council, Guidelines adopted by the City’s Utilities Risk
Oversight Coordinating Committee (UROCC), and Procedures approved by the Utilities Director. In addition, for the electric
hedging program, NCPA maintains its own Risk Management Program. The City is able to provide policy level oversight of
this program through its seat on the NCPA Risk Oversight Committee, which is held by the City’s Risk Manager.
Per the Energy Risk Management Policies, the City Council must receive quarterly reports on the City’s forward contract
purchases, market exposure, credit exposure, counterparty credit ratings, transaction compliance, and other relevant
data.
9.3 Forward Deals
Palo Alto executed the following Electric and Gas transaction in Q4 of FY 2024.
Figure 27: Gas Deals
Delivery Month Deal Type Total Energy
(MMBtu)
Price ($/MMBtu)
May’24-Oct’24 Purchase 856,100 Malin Bidweek + Adder
May’24-Oct’24 Purchase 243,484 2.30
21 Staff Report #12240 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-
archive/2021/06-21-21-id-12240.pdf
Item #2
Packet Pg. 77
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 48 of 57
5
0
7
5
May’24-Oct’24 Sale 243,484 3.15
Figure 288: Electric Energy Deals
Delivery Month Deal Type Total Energy
(MWh)
Price ($/MWh)
Jun’24-Jul’24 Sale 32,640 37.85
Aug’24 Sale 4,320 67.25
Oct’24 Purchase 7,800 53.00
Nov’24-Jan’25 Purchase 55,225 83.95
Figure 299: Electric Resource Adequacy Deals
Delivery Month Deal Type Avg RA
(MW-mo)
Price ($/kW-mo)
Aug’24 Sale 9.5 14.00
Aug’24 Sale 13 41.00
9.4 Electric Market Exposure
The chart below shows the City’s electric supply market exposure and committed purchases and sales to cover exposed
positions. Additional purchases and sales will be executed for FY 2025 and FY 2026 in the coming months.
Figure 30: Electric Load Resource Balance, FY 2024 - 2026
9.5 Transaction Compliance
There are no transaction exceptions or violations to report.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 78
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 49 of 57
5
0
7
5
10 Appendix B: Staffing and Vacancies
As of year-end FY 2024, the Utilities Department has 37 vacant positions out of 259 authorized positions or a 14% vacancy
rate. Below is a breakdown of the vacancies by division. Utilities has designated three HR liaisons from Utilities
Administration to assist HR with some of the recruitments. With the three HR liaisons, CPAU will be able to post positions,
schedule interviews, and make job offers at a faster pace after they are fully trained. CPAU have been attending
engineering career fairs at Sacramento State University, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and San Jose State University. Since the
inception of the HR liaison program, Utilities has made steady progress in reducing the number of vacancies from 49 in
Q4 2023 or a 24% decrease.
Figure 31: Utilities Vacancies and Recruitments by Division, as of Year-End FY 2024
A
D
A
F
V
F
A
R V
A 2 1 1 5
C 1 2 3 0 1
F 2 6 6 3 1
R 2 0 0 0
E 6 1 1 2
E 2 4 4 1
W 7 5 5 7
W 2 2 2 8
T 2 3 2 1
1
2
Item #2
Packet Pg. 79
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 50 of 57
5
0
7
5
11 Appendix C: Utilities Customer Program Descriptions
The City’s Utilities Department maintains a number of programs to help customers save money, use energy and water
efficiently, and reduce carbon emissions. These programs are funded through a variety of funding sources, some of which
are summarized below.
11.1 Customer Programs Overview
Below is a summary of the City’s energy and water efficiency programs, as well as programs to encourage building
electrification and adoption of electric vehicles.
11.1.1 Energy and Water Efficiency
Residential Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation Programs
The Home Efficiency Genie program provides residents with professional advice and information to improve their home’s
efficiency and comfort, lower their energy and water usage and get guidance on home electrification options. Even with
the Genie returning to in-home comprehensive and diagnostic assessments in the fall of 2021, the virtual option developed
during COVID continues to be a service that residents are interested in. Both the in-home and virtual versions continue to
help residents evaluate their homes for home electrification upgrades based on their existing electric panel and provide
actionable next steps.
CPAU’s Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP) for income-qualified customers continues to reach our most
vulnerable population offering energy and water efficiency improvements at no cost to the customer. Residents who are
newly qualified for CPAU’s Rate Assistance Program (RAP) are notified each month of their eligibility for free upgrades
including building envelope improvements, lighting upgrades, replacement of gas water heater with heat pump water
heater, replacement of gas furnace with air source heat pumps, and high-efficiency toilets. These upgrades are installed
by CPAU’s vendor Synergy.
For our multifamily (MF) property owners, CPAU continues to offer the Multi Family Plus (MF+) program which offers free
energy efficiency upgrades installed by our vendor Synergy. These upgrades include lighting upgrades to LEDs and whole
building envelope upgrades. Recently a new measure for high-efficiency toilets (HETs) was added.
CPAU partners with Valley Water to offer a robust portfolio of water conservation programs and rebates22 ranging from
landscape conversion and irrigation controller to rainwater capture projects for residents and businesses.
The WaterSmart customer portal, an online water management tool, provides customers with information about water
consumption and personalized water conservation recommendations. Through WaterSmart home water reports are sent
to single-family customers on a monthly basis.
Commercial Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation Programs
The Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (CIEEP) offers free energy audits to businesses. These audits help
businesses identify areas where they can save energy, such as improving lighting, controls, occupancy sensors,
refrigeration systems, HVAC systems, and other equipment. Furthermore, CIEEP’s can help provide technical assistance to
businesses to help them implement energy efficiency measures. This can include suggestions that help customers develop
energy efficiency plans, provide information on energy-efficient technologies, and connecting businesses with contractors.
The Business Customer Rebate (BCR) remains the primary program for customers to apply for rebates for energy efficiency
and electrification projects installed at customers sites. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) offers rebates to commercial,
22 Rebates https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/waystosave
Item #2
Packet Pg. 80
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 51 of 57
5
0
7
5
industrial, and public sector customers to upgrade their equipment to energy-efficient products. In May 2022, BCR was
expanded to offer electrification rebates to incentivize customers to retrofit gas space heating, water heating and cooking
equipment with efficient electric alternatives.
11.1.2 Building Electrification
Full-Service Heat Pump Water Heater Program
Business Electrification Technical Assistance Program (BE TAP)
11.1.3 Electric Vehicles
Summary of All EV Programs for Multi-family (MF) Properties and Workplaces
•Mission: The EV team’s mission is to facilitate the installation of EV chargers to support increased EV adoption with a
priority on MF properties. To reach 80 by 30 S/CAP goals, it is imperative that there is enough charging infrastructure
for residents, commuters and visitors. For residents, the priority is to close the MF EV access gap, as only 15% of EVs
in Palo Alto are registered at MF buildings, while MF makes up 42% of households.
•Goal of EV Programs: Expand EV charging accessibility to 10% of MF households (about 1,100 homes) by 2025.
•Why: Based on data from the 2022 American Community Survey, CPAU estimates that 35% of Palo Alto’s 28,000
households earn below 400% FPL and therefore require the support of equity programs to help transition off of fossil
fuel vehicles. There are approximately 28,000 households in Palo Alto, approximately 11,000 of which are in
multifamily properties. Most middle-income and low to moderate-income residents in Palo Alto live in MF housing.
EVs provide significant lifetime household savings, and yet those who most need those savings have the hardest time
gaining EV charging access due to the challenges associated with installing chargers at MF properties. Private industry
Item #2
Packet Pg. 81
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 52 of 57
5
0
7
5
is not adequately serving this market, whereas the City is well-positioned to support this hard to reach and slower to
move customer segment, making meaningful use of available City funding sources for EV promotion.
•Target Customer Segment: MF property owners, Homeowners Associations (HOAs), nonprofits, owners of small
medium businesses and buildings, as well large C&I customers.
•What CPAU can provide:
o Trusted, neutral advisory services (rather than vendor sales services) with a direct connection to internal City
staff to facilitate problems.
o Technical assistance (site evaluation, including electrical capacity, business case development, project design,
obtaining bids, preparing permit packages)
o Incentives (both for charging equipment and distribution upgrades)
•Strategy: Facilitate development of Level 1 and Level 2 chargers, as well as “make-ready” EV infrastructure, in multi-
family buildings. Size electrical infrastructure to enable the building owner to add more EV charging ports in the future.
Encourage sites to consider either the installation of Level 1 or low-power Level 2 chargers when appropriate as a grid-
friendly strategy to increase EV charging options for as many EVs as possible, reducing the need for costly electric
service upgrades as well as preserving electric service capacity for future building electrification efforts.
EV Technical Assistance Program (EVTAP)
•Goal: Facilitate the installation of 180-360 ports @ 60-90 sites (By 2027)
•Offer technical assistance for the installation of EV chargers at Non-Profit and MF properties, involving a series of site
visits, technical evaluations, engineering reviews, and design proposals, culminating in the landlord receiving
contractor bids, followed by assistance submitting a building permit, applying for incentives and project management
of the installation. Completed projects have taken up to 2 years to reach completion.
EV Charger Rebate Program
•Goal: Incentivize the installation of EV chargers at Non-Profits and Multifamily properties. CPAU currently offers up to
$8,000 per Level 2 port / $4,000 per Level 1 port for up to 10 ports ($80,000 maximum incentive).
California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP)
•Goal: Facilitate and incentivize the installation of EV chargers at commercial sites.
EV Awareness and Outreach
•Goal: Raise awareness, answer questions and encourage residents to consider transitioning to electrified modes of
transportation, including electric cars, e-Bikes and other modes of clean transportation.
Qmerit
Goal: Assist residential customers in receiving receive free online estimates from local, vetted contractors for EV
charger installations.
City-Owned EV Chargers
•Goal: Install EV Charging Infrastructure for the public as well as City fleet vehicles.
Electrical Service Connection Fee Incentive Program
•Goal: Provide discounts to defray the cost of utility distribution system upgrades triggered by EV
applications―costs that would otherwise be borne by the customers. Offers up to $100K for MF & non-profits
Item #2
Packet Pg. 82
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 53 of 57
5
0
7
5
($10K per EV charging port) and up to $10K for Single Family Homes for any in front of the meter customer costs
related to transformer upgrades.
11.1.4 Funding Sources for Emissions Reductions
Energy efficiency and water efficiency programs have traditionally been funded by electric, gas, and water rate revenues.
To fund emissions reduction programs, the City has developed multiple alternative funding sources:
•Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Program: The City participates in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) LCFS
program, receiving credits for the provision of low-carbon fuels (such as clean electricity and compressed natural
gas) and must use the revenues from the sale of these credits for programs and other efforts promoting low-
carbon vehicle adoption.
•Cap and Trade Program: The City’s electric and gas utilities are required to participate in the State’s cap and trade
program, but these utilities receive some of the revenue from the auction of allowances for the program. The
revenue must be used for emissions-reducing activities.
•Public Benefits Funds: Locally owned municipal utilities must collect a surcharge from their electric utility
customers under section 385 of the Public Utilities Code (there is a similar requirement for gas utilities) to be used
on cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation, low-income programs, renewable energy, and research and
development.
The amount of revenue currently held in reserve for each revenue source and the projections for future revenue are
shown below.
Figure 302: Potential Emissions Reduction Funding Sources
Projected Revenues
Funding Source
FY 2023 Year-End
Reserves FY2024 FY2025 FY2026
Low Carbon Fuel Standard $6,712 $1,100 $1,120 $1,232
Gas Cap & Trade 6,731 3,163 3,327 $3,612
Public Benefits 5,673 4,779 4,655 4,584
Electric REC Exchange Revenue
(Electric Cap & Trade)
2,231 1,700 1,200 1,100
TOTAL 21,346 10,742 10,302 10,528
Expenditures for each revenue source are as follows:
•LCFS revenues have been used primarily to facilitate the installation of EV chargers in multi-family buildings and
are expected to be used that way in the future unless the City’s priorities shift. Some has been used for general
promotion of EVs.
•Cap and Trade revenues have been used to purchase renewable energy and for the Advanced Heat Pump Water
Heater pilot. More use of these revenues for electrification programs is expected in the future, though no specific
approvals have been sought yet.
Public Benefit funds are used for energy efficiency (including low-income programs) and building electrification.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 83
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 54 of 57
5
0
7
5
12 Appendix D: Water Utility Annual Infrastructure Maintenance and
Replacement Report
Water Utility Overview – Calendar Year 2023
Executive Summary
•The City continues to meet water quality standards and regulatory
requirements
•Water Main Replacement program continues as planned
•Construction of Water Main Replacement Project #28 was
completed
•Construction of Water Main Replacement Project #29 began in
November 2023
•Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program on-going as
planned
Infrastructure Overview
Key infrastructure replacement efforts in the next five years include:
●Regular mains, services, hydrants, and valve replacement
●Repair and seismic retrofit of Dahl and Park Reservoirs
System Operations and Maintenance
There are 17.2 Total FTE’s working on Water System O&M.
●Water Quality (2.3 FTE):
o *Monitoring: Weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual water quality sampling
o *System Flushing: Regular seasonal flushing of dead end mains in the system to prevent sediment build-up and
disinfection
o Backflow Prevention (BFP) Program: Prevents water from flowing from private water services back into the
How do we achieve those goals?
Perform routine monitoring and
inspections and respond with timely
repairs
Replace or repair assets as they
approach the end of their useful life
Perform hydraulic modeling analysis and
test system performance
Train and implement new techniques,
tools, and procedures to increase
productivity
Water Utility Goals
What are our goals and objectives?
Protect drinking water quality
Minimize system failures
Prevent property damage caused by main
breaks
Protect the health and safety of staff
and the community
Maintain adequate storage for fire flow
and unexpected disruption of water
supply
Meet or exceed Industry Best
Management Practices for maximizing
asset life and minimizing maintenance cost
Meet or exceed regulatory
requirements
Item #2
Packet Pg. 84
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 55 of 57
5
0
7
5
public water system and protects the public water system from contamination
●*System Monitoring (1 FTE): Remote system controls and device of pumps, tanks, and valving. Control of water
flow and distribution throughout the water network
●System Inspections (1.3 FTE): Periodic field inspections of pump stations and other key system components
●Planned Maintenance (6.4 FTE): Test and maintain distribution system equipment required for operations such as
station mechanical equipment, valves, and meters, and non- emergency repair and replacement of degraded or
damaged assets (e.g. hydrants, valves, mains, and services).
●*Unplanned Maintenance (2.4 FTE): Emergency response and infrastructure repairs and replacements requiring
immediate attention.
●New Construction (3.8 FTE): Installation of new water services, valves, and meters for construction projects.
*Priority programs critical to daily operation Maintenance Status:
●Critical maintenance programs running smoothly
●BFP inspection program meets state requirements, needs evaluations as growth continues.
●AMI program being implemented in the field
Table 1: Status of Drinking Water System Operation and Maintenance Programs
System Operation
or Maintenance
Program
Status
Green = good
Yellow = room
for improvement
Comments
Water quality
monitoring
City has a regular testing program to meet all regulatory requirements.
This includes tests of disinfection effectiveness, water quality, and water
physical characteristics.
System flushing Flushing is performed to prevent stagnation of water in rarely used
outlets like hydrants and blowoff valves. This flushing is done on a
regular seasonal schedule. City is maintaining flushing maintenance
practices.
Backflow
prevention
Backflow Prevention Devices (BFDs) protect water quality by preventing
water in a customer’s system from flowing back into the City system.
The City owns about 400 BFDs which are tested annually. Private BFD
owners are required to test annually and submit results to the City. The
City then reports this data to the State Water Resources Board. The City
continues to work with customers to improve compliance and reporting
rates have increased this year. This program continues to grow as more
water services require backflow prevention, and the City has approved
two new positions starting in FY25 to support this program.
System monitoring The City maintains 24-hour SCADA system monitoring. Sufficient staff
have the experience, training, and certifications required to handle this
function and ensure uninterrupted oversight in the event of an
emergency.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 85
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 56 of 57
5
0
7
5
Valve Exercise Valves are being operated on a multi-year cycle and broken valves are
repaired as they are discovered. Currently, valve exercising
records are marked and maintained on physical utility grid map
sheets, and records are submitted and digitally recorded in the office
when all valves on a particular grid have been exercised. WGW
Operations is working to improve ESRI interfaces to facilitate digital
collection of data in the field. This will allow for real- time data and
remove the current lags that can occur in data entry.
Meter
Maintenance
Multiple one-time sampling projects have shown that most meters are
in good shape. There are many meters due for replacement, and the
mass replacement of older, small water meters with new advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI) is in preparation. Meter exchanges for
AMI began in 2023. Meter testing was performed by a third-party
contractor.
Unplanned
Maintenance
There are no backlogs of leaks or assets in need of repair. The City
maintains an emergency on-call program to respond to and control
water leaks or other system emergencies at any hour of the day or night.
Table 2: Condition of Drinking Water System Assets
Asset Class Quantity Maintenance Asset Condition
Water Receiving
Stations
(Turnouts)
5 Meter testing (every 2 years)
Annual Maintenance (calibrate
pressure transducer and
analog gauges, exercise
isolation valves and PRV’s,
clean out cover)
Most receiving stations currently require only
minor and routine maintenance and are in
good condition overall. Some minor
improvement projects may be required in the
next few years. California Ave turnout is
scheduled for pipe replacement and
rehabilitation in CY24. Page Mill Turnout valve
restraint work completed in CY23, which has
allowed the completion of some annual
maintenance items that have been deferred
for two years, due to safety concerns.
Booster Stations
/ Pressure
Reducing Stations
7 / 6 Annual maintenance
(calibrate upstream /
downstream pressure
transducer, analog gauges,
check pressure switches,
exercise isolation valves and
PRV’s, cleaning).
Mayfield and El Camino PS have
VFD’s which are maintained by
Tesco.
Weekly monitoring
Most booster stations and pressure reduction
stations require only minor and routine
maintenance and are in good condition
overall. Minor improvement projects may be
required in the next few years.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 86
Staff Report: 2407-3230 – Page 57 of 57
5
0
7
5
Reservoirs 7 Annual maintenance (climb
tank, take physical reading of
water level, check altitude
valve, check screens, calibrate
tank pressure transducer,
analog gauges)
Dahl and Park Reservoirs are scheduled for
repair and seismic retrofit in CY 2027-2028.
Water quality monitoring
Emergency Wells 8 Annual maintenance,
inspection, and testing of wells
by Tesco, third party
contractor. Routine inspection
and water quality monitoring
and monthly maintenance of
systems performed by staff.
City wells were rehabilitated in 2013, but some
maintenance is needed. Services for a pump
rebuild at El Camino Park Well was solicited in
CY2023.
Water Valves ~6,500
valves
Operate every valve at least
once every five years (1200
valves per year), repair /
replace as needed
Operate 120 critical valves in
foothills annually
Valves are replaced on failure, or proactively
when water mains in the area are replaced.
Water Mains and
Services
~230
miles of
main,
~20,000
services
Repair leaks as identified
Monitor water quality
Water Main Replacement program continues
as planned, prioritizing leaky pipes and
seismically vulnerable pipes. Asbestos-Cement
Pipe testing program is underway to help
update replacement program as needed.
Water Meters ~20,000
small
meters,
380 large
meters
Sample test small meters, test
/ repair large meters annually
Replacement of oldest small water meters
continues, informed by small meter testing.
Large meter testing began in CY2023. Which
helped estimate meter accuracy. AMI meter
upgrade project is currently under way in 2022
to replace many older small water meters.
Fire Hydrants ~2000
public
hydrants
Maintenance Hydrants are replaced upon failure.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Commissioner Questions
APPROVED By:
Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities
Staff: Tim Denterlein, Resource Planner
Item #2
Packet Pg. 87
Commissioner Questions and Comments – Annual Report
Fiber
Question: FO-24000. Fiber-to-the-Premises. Provide more details about the point of the
pilot – what are we testing for? What are the success criteria?
Response: The FTTP pilot serves as a testbed to assess aspects of the fiber-optic network,
including technical performance, customer satisfaction, operational efficiency, community
disruption and cost-effectiveness. The success criteria ensure that the network can meet
expectations in terms of speed, reliability, scalability, and financial feasibility, setting the
foundation for a larger-scale deployment. Some key metrics is subscription/take rate, amount
per passing, internet speed, churn rate, and cost/efficiency savings with grid mod alignment.
Question: Support System and OSS/BSS Software RFP:
Vendor details and existing contracts.
Timeline for reviewing new RFPs for remaining areas.
Response:
• RFP for OSS/BSS closed on October 23, 2024
• Staff is reviewing the 7proposals
• Contract award will be in Jan/Feb 2025
Question: Outside Plant Manager: Role and responsibilities.
Response:
• Oversee all aspects of outside plant construction (aerial, underground, mainline,
distribution, drops.)
• Oversee planning, construction, and inspection of fiber infrastructure.
• Manage and supervise Field Service Technicians and contractors.
• Prepare long-term plans, forecasts, and budgets.
Question: These questions pertain to Palo Alto's new FTTP utility and the fiber hut final design
efforts referenced on page 30 of the 2024 Q4 Annual Report. It would be useful to have a
session to speak to other issues involved in our FTTP pilot, for example, marketing, customer
service, construction to homes, billing, etc.
Response: CPAU will schedule a FTTP discussion with the UAC in January 2025; staff will provide
an update on construction timeline, marketing campaign, pricing and offerings and staffing.
Question: Please provide a detailed explanation of the decision to prioritize hiring an outside
plant manager over a network architect. What factors influenced this choice, and how will the
absence of a dedicated network architect impact the overall planning and execution of the fiber
Item #2
Packet Pg. 88
Commissioner Questions and Comments – Annual Report
pilot? How does Staff envision the coordination between the outside plant manager and the
team responsible for network architecture in the interim?
Response: This decision better aligned staffing resources with the timing of major project
milestones as design and construction precedes network deployment. Additionally, the City’s
CIO Darren Numoto is also the interim Assistant Director of Fiber on this project and has been
closely consulting on staffing plans. Darren advised if we had to prioritize, then network
deployment may be temporarily covered between ITD (IT dept) and ITD vendor/partner, ePlus
until the business reaches a certain volume of subscribers.
The outside plant manager will be responsible of overseeing fiber infrastructure planning,
construction, and inspection. They would coordinate with network deployment activities which
includes, but is not necessarily limited to: design, build and maintenance of the inside plant
network; optical line terminals, routers, switches, firewalls; domain name service, radius;
American Registry of Internet Numbers, IP addresses; Carrier Grade Network Address
Translations.
Question: What is the fiber optic system rebuild? FO-16000 Fiber backbone expansion/rebuild.
Response: The original intent of the fiber optic system rebuild project was to rebuild portions of
the fiber network to improve capacity, which will facilitate licensing of dark fiber to companies
that provide telecommunication services to residents and businesses in Palo Alto. The project
will install new aerial duct or substructures (conduit and boxes) and additional fiber backbone
cables to increase capacity for sections of the network that are at or near capacity to meet
customer requests for service connections. Since Council approved the fiber expansion plan in
December 2022, FO-16000 has been repurposed to build a new fiber backbone. The new
backbone will provide additional capacity as we increase the fiber count from 144 to 432. The
new backbone will connect new City facilities and support dark fiber, FTTP, and future growth.
Question: Can you explain in more detail what is meant by this statement on page 30 of the
Annual Report: "CPAU does not have resources to construct an entire new fiber backbone along
with FTTP."
Response: CPAU does not have the internal or external resources to work simultaneously on
grid modernization, FTTP, and the new fiber backbone. Activities include engineering design,
construction management, inspections, and procurement of materials and construction
services. For the pilot, CPAU is prioritizing grid mod and FTTP to identify synergies such as
shared construction and costs and minimization of community disruption.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 89
Commissioner Questions and Comments – Annual Report
Electric
Question: Section 1.4. Figures are presented with no commentary. In terms of outages,
2023 and 2024 are much worse than the previous two years (FY20 and FY21). A sentence or
two of context would be useful – is this a trend or a blip?
Response: The increase in the number of power outages for FY24 was a blip, related in part to a
change to our OMS system, and the program used to track outages. We experienced some
difficulty reconciling the two databases resulting in inaccurate impact measure results
Question: Why did electrical interruptions increase substantially in FY23 and FY24?
Response: The increase was due to an unusual weather condition. After many dry seasons we
were hit with multiple storms (atmospheric river) which included very strong winds that swept
through the bay area during that time.
Question: Regarding the mismatch in timing between CPAU’s carbon free electricity generation
and CPAU’s load, what is CPAU’s plan/actions re the possibility that the state might at some
future time extend SB 1158 beyond reporting to insist that these match 24x7?
Response: It is fairly unlikely that 24x7 hourly matching requirement would be implemented, as
this would increase costs for all by discouraging overall optimization of resource across the
California ISO and soon the Expanded Day Ahead Market across the Western US. The whole
market is designed to allow diversification and sharing of resources.
CPAU's current portfolio could be operated to match ~95% of our electricity usage in a year, but
that would mean we use our valuable hydro resources to cover very low value hours in the
middle of the day, which will increase electricity energy supply costs by approximately 20% or
roughly $15M for year 2026. This would also cause the highest emission peaker plants to run
more in the morning and evening peaks because we are keeping our carbon-free*
hydroelectricity for ourselves.
*large hydroelectricity is considered carbon-free by the State of California.
Question: I’m curious which renewable energy procurement projects we recommended NCPA
to pursue - any with BESS?
The highest value projects have been disaggregated solar and storage - Solar in a load pocket
with high value and batteries in lower load areas with big swings between midday and evening
prices. This yields the best return on investment by charging during the day and discharging at
night.
Response: The primary reason that solar and storage projects were often paired together was
to make the storage portion of the project eligible for the federal Investment Tax Credit. But
since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, standalone storage is now eligible to receive the
Item #2
Packet Pg. 90
Commissioner Questions and Comments – Annual Report
ITC too. Today, disaggregated solar and storage projects are more valuable due to the
locational factors noted above, as well as the fact that when a battery is charged directly from a
paired solar project, you lose a portion of the solar RECs associated with the battery's energy
losses.
Water
Question: Water Infrastructure: What materials are being used to replace water mains?
Response: The City typically uses high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe to replace both water
mains and for new water services. On occasion, the City may use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe
where different chemical permeability is desired or steel/ductile iron pipe for mains with high
water pressure.
Question: One Water Plan: Recommendation for a follow-up session with UAC before council
review.
Response: Yes, the item is scheduled for the January UAC meeting.
Question: Tier Two Plan Updates: Current negotiation details. (Packet page 135; pg 20 of the
document)
Response: Negotiations are nearly complete. This item will be discussed in February.
Question: Pg 22. Figure 17. Include benchmarks against some local agencies that are not
BAWSCA members – Menlo Park or San Carlos. BAWSCA members have the same wholesale
cost of water – but customers are also likely to make comparisons against non-BAWSCA
members.
Response: Menlo Park is a BAWSCA member. San Carlos and parts of Menlo Park are served
by CalWater, BAWSCA member. Staff will consider comparing to additional agencies.
Question: WaterSmart Email and Portal: Inclusion of cost information, neighbor
comparisons, and potential savings through reduction. (Packet page 148) Regarding the
WaterSmart email and portal, does it provide information on the cost of water usage,
comparisons with neighborhood averages, and insights on how reductions in usage could
translate to monthly savings? (Packet page 148). If not, what steps can we take to provide
this information to our customers?
Response: Inclusion of cost information: Staff is working on adding bill total data to the
portal.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 91
Commissioner Questions and Comments – Annual Report
Neighbor comparisons: In the report & portal customers are compared to other Palo Alto
households with similar yard size and occupants. This is shown as the customer’s water score.
Potential savings through reduction: The portal and the reports show both the estimated
gallons and dollar amounts saved by customers taking various water-saving actions.
Question: BAWSCA Long-term Reliable Water Supply Strategy 2025: Pg 20. First paragraph.
When will the planning document from BAWSCA be available?
Response: The estimated project completion date is early 2027
Wastewater
Question: Headworks Replacement: Explanation for the discrepancy in estimates and (PP. 142)
What’s the cause of the giant cost increase in the wastewater headworks from $55M to
$120M+? The headworks replacement has a potential expense of $120-150M estimated versus
$55.3M planned. (Packet page 142). What are the specific reasons for this discrepancy?
Response: The headworks project involves replacement or rehabilitation of the parts of the
facility that pump raw sewage to the main treatment works. Headworks is currently in pre-
design, and the plant will get a better cost estimate when design begins. Based upon other
headworks projects in the Bay Area, we expect the cost to be well over $100 million. Once there
is a better idea of the cost, the treatment plant will need to work on a funding plan analysis and
work with the plant partners. The plant will consider a variety of funding options potentially
partial funding through WIFIA (Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act), partial State
Revolving Fund loan, and possibly some bond financing. Palo Alto’s share will be partially offset
by funding from Valley Water through an agreement regarding the State Water Project tax.
Question: Future Expense Increases: Table of projected expense increases and implications for
rates, especially toward 2034. According to the chart on Packet page 141 (report page 26), we
are going to see a rise in estimated expenses as we head into 2034. Can we see a table of what
these expected rises will mean for rates?
Response: The wastewater utility has been planning for the increase in treatment costs for
several years. However, costs are coming in higher than projected every year. Last year, the rate
increase projections were 9% each year in FY 2026 and FY 2027, then 8% in FY 2028 and 7% in
FY 2029. Staff will be returning with preliminary rate projections for FY 2026 on December 4th.
Gas
Question: 2.4. Reliability. “…caused by excavation by outside parties…”. I didn’t quite get this
– who is an “outside party”. Is it a contractor or other excavator? Is the implication that
outside parties are less careful than local parties?
Item #2
Packet Pg. 92
Commissioner Questions and Comments – Annual Report
Response: An “Outside Party” would be all Non-City Contractors or Residents who damage the City's
infrastructure during excavation. The primary cause of this damage is these parties failing to contact USA
North 811, as California Law requires, to mark all city-owned infrastructure properly before excavation
begins. City of Palo Alto personnel and contractors abide by this requirement, resulting in fewer
damages.
Customer Programs
Question: For Bay Area sun shares program, how many households have participated in this
program? This section has no metrics
Response: Below is a chart showing the number of completed SunShares installations for Palo
Alto through 2022 and participants with outstanding installations for 2022 and 2023. Data is
not yet available for projects completed in 2023.
2017 2018 2019 2023
8 29 23 30 29 7
Outstanding Projects 23 27
Item #2
Packet Pg. 93
Commissioner Questions and Comments – Annual Report
Question: For the chart page 35 in project status what are DI report and IV report? I am curious
what the various project status classifications are to understand sales pipeline.
Response: DI report is referring to a detailed investigation report, which estimates expected
costs, energy savings, etc. before a project is completed.
IV report is referring to an installation verification report where the installation is confirmed, the
completed project savings are measured, and the final project costs are included.
Item #2
Packet Pg. 94
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1
Utilities Advisory Commission
Staff Report
From: Dean Batchelor, Director Utilities
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: December 4, 2024
Staff Report: 2407-3231
TITLE
Discussion on the Time of Use Electric Rates
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is providing the Utilities Advisory Commission an update on the time of use electric rates.
This is a presentation only and no action is requested.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Presentation
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities
Staff: Micah Babbitt, Senior Resource Planner
Item #3
Packet Pg. 95
December 4, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org
Time of Use
Electric Rates
Presenter: Micah Babbitt,
Senior Resource Planner
Item #3
Packet Pg. 96
2
Overview
1.What are time of use electric rates and its history
in Palo Alto
2.Work in progress to enable time of use rates
3.Roll Out Plan
4.Existing TOU rates and Residential Rate Design
5.Communication, Customer Service, and Industry
Best Practices
Item #3
Packet Pg. 97
3
What are Time of Use Rates?
Pricing structure for electricity that varies depending
on the time of day
•Energy is cheaper during off-peak times (like late at night) when
demand is lower, and more expensive during peak times (like
early evening) when demand is higher
•May encourage people to use electricity during cheaper times
•Can help reduce demand on electrical grid during peak times and
lead to lower energy bills if customers shift usage to off-peak
hours
Item #3
Packet Pg. 98
4
Time of Use (TOU) Electric Rates History in Palo Alto
•Residential Customers - E1
•Smart Grid/TOU Rate Pilot from 2013 through 2018
•Limited to 150 meters
•Multifamily and Small Business Customers - E2
•No TOU Rates
•Medium/Large Commercial Customers - E4
•Available 20+ years/requires special meters
•0 customers enrolled
•Very Large Commercial (Industrial) Customers - E7
•Available 20+ years/requires special meters
•1 customer enrolled
Item #3
Packet Pg. 99
5
Smart Grid Pilot/TOU Pilot 2013 – 2017 Lessons Learned
•Gained practical experience in AMI technology
options, vendors, residential TOU and billing,
customer feedback
•Customers like being able to see and access data
•Small shift of usage into off peak hours observed
for some customers
Item #3
Packet Pg. 100
6
Components Needed for Full TOU Deployment
1.Advanced Metering Infrastructure installed
2.MyCPAU and Billing System upgrades complete
3.Design and Council adoption of new Time of
Use Rates in accordance with Rate Design Policy
Guidelines
Item #3
Packet Pg. 101
7
Meter Install Target Completion
•Residential 90% by December 2024
•Remaining 10% obstructed or
problem meters by December 2025
•Commercial by May 2025
•Pending 4000 meters to be
delivered in March 2025
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project
Item #3
Packet Pg. 102
8
Phase I (Target Completion December 2024)
•Enhance MyCPAU to import hourly usage data
•Enable “early adoption” Time of Use customers in all rate classes to
access detailed usage data
Phase II (Target Completion June 2025)
•Enhance MyCPAU to support Time of Use for all non-solar customers
•Enhance MyCPAU to support customers with solar energy systems (Net
Energy Metered)
MyCPAU and Billing System Project Status
Item #3
Packet Pg. 103
9
FY 2025
•Large commercial customer rates (E4 and E7) updated with new time periods, include a peak
demand charge, and a customer charge
FY 2026
•Residential customers (E1) able to opt in to TOU rates (May exclude NEM solar customers)
•Draft Rate Schedules included in Financial Plan to UAC in March 2025
FY 2027
•TOU implemented for all Residential (E1) customers
•Multifamily and Small/Medium Business (E2) customers able to opt in to TOU rates
Preliminary Time of Use Electric Rates Plan
Item #3
Packet Pg. 104
10
DRAFT E1 (Residential) Time of Use Periods
Peak (4 pm -9 pm every day) 10.3%
Off Peak (9pm - 4 PM every day) 33.2%
Peak (4 pm -9 pm every day) 11.9%
Off Peak (9pm - 4 PM every day) 44.6%
•Draft TOU periods similar to proposed time periods for non-residential
•Residential schedule simplified to include only peak and off-peak periods
Item #3
Packet Pg. 105
11
Initial Outreach and Customer Service Plan
•Website updates
•Explanation of opt-in for “Early Adopters”
•Longer-term plan
•Web-accessible opt-in form
•Resources for additional information re TOU
•Bill inserts
•Resources to call center
•Stakeholder engagement
•FY 2026 Financial Plan review
•Simple bill comparison for various residential customer
usage profiles
Item #3
Packet Pg. 106
12
Industry Best Practices & Lessons Learned
•Fort Collins: Rate equity within residential class
•SMUD: Helped achieve carbon reduction
•Allows Customers to manage flexible loads as
needed
Item #3
Packet Pg. 107
Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1
Utilities Advisory Commission
Staff Report
From: Alan Kurotori, Utilities Chief Operating Officer
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: December 4, 2024
Report #: 2411-3825
TITLE
Review and Discuss Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026 Utilities Financial Forecast and Rate Projections
This report will be a late packet report published on November 27, 2024
Item #4
Packet Pg. 108
Item No. 4. Page 1 of 7
5
0
8
5
Utilities Advisory Commission
Staff Report
From: Dean Batchelor, Director Utilities
Lead Department: Utilities
Meeting Date: December 4, 2024
Staff Report: 2407-3235
TITLE
Discussion and Update on the Fiscal Year 2026 Preliminary Utilities Financial Forecast and Rate
Projections
RECOMMENDATION
This item is for discussion, and no action is requested. These preliminary calculations reflect an
initial estimate for review and feedback by the Finance Committee and Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) on key assumptions for the Electric, Gas, Water and Wastewater Collection
Utilities to inform recommended FY 2026 financial forecasts and proposed rate changes for
each utility.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto Utilities provides electricity, water, wastewater, natural gas, and fiber optics. The
City’s Public Works Department also provides refuse collection and processing for recycling, compost
and garbage, wastewater treatment and stormwater management services. Customers benefit from the
continued safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable, and cost-effective operations of each of these
utilities. FY 2026 preliminary calculations model necessary rate increases to support upkeep,
infrastructure replacements, and replenishment of reserves to allow the City to continue to provide high
quality utility services to the community.
Preliminary forecasts reflect a need for an overall 9% or $36.40 monthly rate increase in FY 2026 for the
median residential utility bill, encompassing six services (electric, gas, refuse, sewer, stormwater, water).
Table 1 shows the preliminary five-year rate projections necessary to restore reserves to within
guideline ranges within the five-year planning period, maintain operations given inflationary cost
increases, and enable ongoing capital work necessary to provide safe, reliable, and environmentally
sustainable utilities while balancing affordability. The City of Palo Alto Utilities is engaged in some
infrastructure projects including modernizing the electric grid, improving resiliency, replacing water
mains and reservoirs to continue to provide pristine drinking water to residents and businesses and pay
toward the rebuild of the wastewater treatment plant that provides a critical service to the community
24 hours a day, 365 days per year.
Item #4
Packet Pg. 109
Item No. 4. Page 2 of 7
5
0
8
5
BACKGROUND
Annually, the Utilities Department prepares recommended rates forecasts and financial plans for the
UAC and Finance Committee review and ultimately City Council adoption in June. Rate adjustments are
recommended to maintain each utility’s financial health. Recognizing staffing transitions, initial
estimates, and feedback from the rate review process, staff has prepared a preliminary forecast for
review and early feedback to better inform the official recommended forecasts expected in Spring 2025
for implementation in July 2025. The rate changes shown in this report are preliminary estimates; actual
rate changes will be based on updated financial data and the cost-of-service methodologies and studies
for each utility, and may differ by customer class and for individual customers depending on consumption
patterns. A cost-of-service study for the Gas Utility is expected to be completed in early 2025 and will be
factored into proposals for FY 2026. Cost of service studies for the Electric, Wastewater and Water Utilities
were completed in 2024, 2021 and 2019 respectively.
Over the past few years, utility reserve funds were drawn down due to a variety of factors. The Electric
and Gas Utilities were impacted by the energy price spikes in the winter of 2022 – 2023. The Water
Utility was impacted by reductions in water use during the drought in 2021 – 2023 and the subsequent
recovering period as well as cool and wet weather patterns which persisted locally in 2023. The
Wastewater Collection Utility experienced increased wastewater treatment costs due to a higher flow
share compared to the prior year forecast and other operating cost increases. For all Utilities throughout
the pandemic, the City of Palo Alto kept rate increases at minimal levels in order to alleviate the burden
of utility cost hikes on residents and businesses already grappling with the pandemic's economic effects.
A series of rate adjustments are necessary to restore reserves to within guidelines ranges with the 5-
year planning period.
ANALYSIS
Staff seeks input from the UAC prior to finalizing the Utilities Financial Forecasts and developing
recommendations for rate changes that would be effective July 1, 2025. The proposed rate adjustment
recommendations, along with each utility’s Financial Forecasts, are currently scheduled to be presented
to theUAC in Spring 2025. Staff’s preliminary system average rate adjustment recommendations are:
Table 1: Preliminary Projected Residential Rate Changes
1. FY 2025 incorporates results of cost-of-service analysis
Item #4
Packet Pg. 110
Item No. 4. Page 3 of 7
5
0
8
5
2. Gas rate in FY 2026 based on General Fund transfer of 18% of gross revenues in FY 2024; changes shown with
commodity rates held constant; actual gas commodity rates vary monthly
3. Stormwater fees increase by CPI index annually per approved 2017 ballot measure (2.6% in FY 2025)
4.Based on projected FY 2025 monthly residential bill of $402
Electric
The preliminary electric forecast maintains the same annual 5% rate increase presented in last year’s FY
2025 financial plan. Net electric supply purchase costs are anticipated to be in line with the FY 2025
Financial Plan; revenues from surplus system Resource Adequacy and Renewable Energy Certificates
further reduce supply costs. On the expense side, transmission costs continue to rise, and capital
spending and distribution system maintenance spending is rising due to grid modernization, fiber-
related investments and an upgrade to the Hanover Substation which will benefit all electric rate payers.
Staff expects some of these costs to be offset with debt service through a bond issuance in FY 2026.
On balance, the net effect of these various one-time costs and revenues is expected to be positive,
enabling the utility to refill reserves to target levels; the Hydroelectric Rate Stabilization Reserve was
repaid in FY 2024 and had a balance of $17.4 million at the end of FY 2024. Replenishing this reserve
reduces the risk that, in the event of a significant degradation in hydro conditions, the City will need to
use the Hydro Rate Adjuster to recover higher supply costs. In FY 2025, the forecasts anticipate the
Electric Special Projects Reserve will also be repaid $7.5 million, bringing the balance from $22.6 million
to $30.1 million. This will fully repay the monies borrowed for the supply fund to cover higher costs
during the pandemic, the drought, and high winter energy prices during 2022-2023.
In the longer term (FY 2027 through FY 2030), projected increases in electric costs related to stricter
resource adequacy requirements, increasing transmission costs, and capital investment and operational
cost increases are expected to result in system average rate increases of 5% per year. Due to the
positive net ending position in FY 2024 and CIP reappropriation, the electric utility is able to defer debt
financing for grid modernization until FY 2026 and use existing balances for pay-go costs until financing
is needed.
The current year (FY 2025) financial plan for the Electric Utility (approved June 17, 2024) is available at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-
reports-cmrs/attachments/2024-rates/electric-utility-financial-plan-fy25.pdf
Gas
Gas fund expenses are typically one-third supply-related and two-thirds distribution system-related.
Supply costs are market driven, change monthly according to market conditions, and are passed through
to customers. Distribution costs include distribution operations and maintenance, capital investment,
and the general fund transfer.
During the pandemic, the City kept overall gas utility rate increases at 2% to 3% annually and utilized
reserve funding to cover costs. In the winter of 2022-23, surging gas prices depleted the gas utility
reserves, which covered the gap between actual gas costs and the Council-approved maximum gas
commodity charge. Reserves need to be replenished over time to ensure funds are available for safety
Item #4
Packet Pg. 111
Item No. 4. Page 4 of 7
5
0
8
5
and reliability needs, while managing ongoing cost inflation. In the FY 2025 financial plan, a gas rate
increase of 5% was forecasted for FY 2026. However, due to FY 2024 year-end financials which resulted
in lower sales revenues and higher operations and overhead costs, staff preliminary forecasts a 6%
overall rate increase for the Gas Utility effective July 1, 2025.
Water
1
1 Finance Committee April 23, 2024, Action Minutes
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15050&compileOutputType=1
Item #4
Packet Pg. 112
Item No. 4. Page 5 of 7
5
0
8
5
At the end of FY 2024, the operations reserve was approximately $2 million below projected levels with
a balance of $7.1 million, which is below the minimum guideline level of $8.4 million. While revenues
were $2.3 million higher than forecasted (sales revenue, capacity and connection fees), operating and
capital expenses were $4.4 million higher than forecasted. Many of the cost increases are ongoing and
the utility will need to continue to pay them annually. The rate stabilization reserve at the end of FY
2024 has $4 million remaining and the financial forecast plans to use all of that remaining funding to
cover costs in FY 2025 and 2026.
Wastewater Collection
Item #4
Packet Pg. 113
Item No. 4. Page 6 of 7
5
0
8
5
recent recorded costs and rates of cost increase. Relative to last year’s financial forecast, this increased
the total operating costs by $6.2 million or 14% over the five-year forecast. Over the five-year forecast,
treatment costs are approximately $14.2 million higher due to additional minor CIP expenses and
Section 115 Pension Trust expenses inadvertently excluded from the RWQCP’s forecast. To address
these challenges, the Wastewater Collection Utility preliminary forecast assumes deferral of the next
sewer main replacement budget to FY 2028 and reflects investments in minimally necessary projects to
allow the Wastewater Collection fund to recover and mitigate an even higher rate increase. This
assumption would defer the more aggressive replacement cycle adopted in the FY 2024 financial plan to
increase replacement from 1 miles to 2.5 miles of pipe annually starting in FY 2026.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff is presenting the preliminary rate information to the Finance Committee on December 3,
2024. Staff will summarize the Finance Committee feedback during the UAC meeting. An excerpt of
the minutes from the Finance Committee’s December 3, 2024 meeting will be located at the City’s
Agenda’s and Minutes website.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Presentation
Item #4
Packet Pg. 114
Item No. 4. Page 7 of 7
5
0
8
5
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities
Staff: Lisa Bilir, Senior Resource Planner
Item #4
Packet Pg. 115
Item #4
Packet Pg. 116
Item #4
Packet Pg. 117
Item #4
Packet Pg. 118
Item #4
Packet Pg. 119
Item #4
Packet Pg. 120
Item #4
Packet Pg. 121
Item #4
Packet Pg. 122
Item #4
Packet Pg. 123
Item #4
Packet Pg. 124
Item #4
Packet Pg. 125
Item #4
Packet Pg. 126
Item #4
Packet Pg. 127
Item #4
Packet Pg. 128
Item #4
Packet Pg. 129
Item #4
Packet Pg. 130
Item #4
Packet Pg. 131
Item #4
Packet Pg. 132
Item #4
Packet Pg. 133
Item #4
Packet Pg. 134
Item #4
Packet Pg. 135
Item #4
Packet Pg. 136
Item #4
Packet Pg. 137
Item #4
Packet Pg. 138
Item #4
Packet Pg. 139
Item #4
Packet Pg. 140
Item #4
Packet Pg. 141
Item #4
Packet Pg. 142
Item #4
Packet Pg. 143
Item #4
Packet Pg. 144