Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-06 Utilities Advisory Commission Summary MinutesUtilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 1 of 11 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING FINAL MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called to order at 7:05 p.m. the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Present: Commissioners Cook, Foster, Hall, Keller, Melton, and Waldfogel and Alternate Council Liaison Nancy Shepherd Absent: Council Liaison Greg Scharff ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the May 2, 2012 UAC meeting were approved as presented. AGENDA REVIEW None. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEETING/EVENTS None. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 1. Hydro Update: The rainy season is over, the snow pack is melted and runoff is about 75% of average. The reservoir storage is currently above average, but heading toward average as releases are made for river conditions requirements. Forecasted generation is about average from the Western Resource and below average for Calaveras. 2. Demand-Side Management Update: a. Water Programs: Through March, residential water conservation programs have made up about 40% of the total water savings achieved, while commercial programs accounted for approximately 60% of the savings. Program water savings through March are up 22% from the previous fiscal year’s totals. Participation levels are still lower than expected, considering how aggressive we have been with our outreach compared to previous years. However, this uptick in savings is a good sign that we will be much closer to our water efficiency goals at the end of this fiscal year than last year. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 2 of 11 b. Portfolio Manager: (1) AB 1103: This legislation required nonresidential building owners before sale, lease or and financing of the building to benchmark the building’s energy use using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Portfolio Manager system and to disclose the building’s energy usage to potential buyers, lessees and lenders. The utility serving the building must release the most recent 12 months of energy use data for the entire building to an owner’s U.S. EPA’s Portfolio Manager Account. 3. Communications Update: a. Mayor’s Green Leader Business Awards Program---CPAU is encouraging customers to learn to use EPA’s Portfolio Manager system and qualify for the Mayor’s new recognition program. To that end we are offering a free Portfolio Manager training class next Thursday, June 14th to all Palo Alto businesses. b. Educational Giveaways---at your places you will find a variety of items we’ve recently produced for customers but are not in Utilities bills. The Utilities at a Glance brochure is an update of earlier versions. In April we encouraged young people to express their “green sentiments” and the Youth Art Catalog showcases the drawings we received. The Safety Tips Notepads will be distributed at workshops and other events as well as being included in our new customer welcome packets. The Emergency Brochure and “Scratch & Sniff” card were produced to assist the Palo Alto Neighborhoods groups in their Emergency Preparedness training, but we will use them for other events as well. 4. CLEAN Program: The Palo Alto CLEAN program’s second application period opened on May 1 and closed on May 31 without receiving any applications. The June application period is now open and will close on June 30, and the program’s first year limit of 4 MW of capacity is still available. While there may still be some property owners evaluating potential projects, the owners we have talked to have decided to either stop investigating projects for the time being, or to investigate installing solar for their own use under the PV Partners program. Staff has already begun outreach to property owners and developers to identify potential obstacles to program uptake, and will use the information to inform its recommendation for the structure of future program years. 5. Residential and Small Commercial Customer Engagement and Smart Meter Pilot: In accordance with the smart grid work plan, staff is in the process of developing a 200 home engagement pilot using smart meters and related smart devices. An RFP was issued in May with proposals due June 12th. We expect to roll out the 3-year pilot program in March 2013. In addition to proposals to provide equipment, staff is also expecting to receive proposals to deploy some innovative customer engagement tools being developed by local entrepreneurs. Staff has also approached SMUD and Stanford’s ARPA-e funded Behavioral Research team to explore potential collaboration opportunities to maximize the value of this pilot. 6. Pilot Demand Response Program: CPAU conducted a test demand response event on Thursday, May 31. Two of the seven customers participated in the test. CPAU was able to work out a few glitches in our internal systems, and the customers were able to test their building management system plans for demand response. CPAU will likely hold one or two additional test days during June for the other five participating customers. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 3 of 11 7. The July 4th UAC meeting is canceled due to the 4th of July holiday. A special UAC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: ACTION: Request for Feedback Concerning the Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network Public Comment Bob Harrington (Citizen Advisor to the Mayor on Broadband) liked some things in the staff report but stated there are some fundamental flaws that he described in a note to the UAC. Mr. Harrington urged the Commissioners to allow more time for consideration before dropping fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) and going on to a wireless municipal network. Herb Borock commented that staff is on a path for the beginning of a wireless Smart Grid system, but their bias seems to be to help existing businesses to be profitable rather than serving the residents. A Smart Grid could be a user of an active fiber system. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Commissioner Waldfogel noted there was not a clear answer from the City Attorney about what to do with the $12.7 million fiber fund reserve and asked staff if there was a sense of what the City can or cannot do with the reserve. Assistant Director Tomm Marshall replied that the City Attorney’s office is reviewing legal uses of the reserves. Chair Foster asked Steve Blum from Tellus Venture Associates if it’s safe to assume that the user-financed analysis did not include the possibility of using the $12 million from the reserve for this kind of project. Blum replied that several scenarios were run assuming the $12 million was used to subsidize the user- financed FTTP system. Blum also explained that with the $12 million upfront and even with $2 million a year ongoing, a user-financed FTTP build-out does not pencil out. Commissioner Waldfogel asked Blum if the per node cost could be much lower under the assumption that nodes are pre-built with $12 million from the reserves, leaving the only remaining cost to be covered the fiber run out to the neighborhood. Blum replied that the total project cost does not change regardless of how the $12 million current reserve and the annual addition of $2 million to the reserves are allocated. Commissioner Hall asked Management Specialist Jim Fleming if a wireless network would be available to residents and whether there is anything to be learned from what Google did in Mountain View with WiFi. Fleming confirmed that the wireless network would be available to residents and that lessons can be learned from all of the many and different municipal WiFi deployments. Commissioner Melton commented that it’s premature to consider staff recommendations because additional work is needed; that he was disappointed that the report was not reviewed with the Citizen Advisors to the Mayor, and that he is not sure if it’s wise to use the money for a closed wireless network for municipal operations only. Marshall replied that staff is proposing to do a study to look at the different ways a WiFi network could be used; one of them is for municipal operations, but also to provide wireless services for the public. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 4 of 11 Chair Foster asked staff if a model has been contemplated in which FTTP is provided to all residences of Palo Alto through financing a bond measure. Marshall replied that it has been looked at several times. Chair Foster asked Council Member Shepherd if the City Council has examined FTTP recently in terms of the Council’s appetite to do a bond measure to finance FTTP. Council Member Shepherd stated that the Policy and Services Committee recommended to the Council not to put any measures on the ballot this year and the Council voted to approve this recommendation; Council is looking toward 2014. Director Valerie Fong introduced Administrative Services Assistant Director Joe Saccio and asked him to describe Council action that has been taken in recent years related to FTTP. Saccio noted that from 2007 to 2009, a Council subcommittee, Citizen Advisors and staff explored a partnership with Axia NetMedia, a private company. Axia wanted a substantial contribution from the City to build out the network and wanted some backup in case there wasn’t a certain return on investment. Since one of the parameters in the Council’s directive to the team was that the City not spend any money from the General Fund to support FTTP, the partnership did not materialize. After two years of discussions the City and Axia agreed to end the discussions. Chair Foster asked Saccio whether the City considered FTTP as a public-private partnership only. Saccio said in the early 2000s, the City looked at doing FTTP on its own by borrowing the needed funds, possibly from the electric fund. Chair Foster asked if the City has looked at the feasibility of floating a bond instead of borrowing from the electric fund and then operating the network on its own, including possibly getting voter approval for a bond. Marshall stated that a bond had been evaluated, but revenue projections were not enough to cover operating costs going forward. Chair Foster asked a series of questions regarding the payment of bonds with operating funds versus simply covering operating costs with revenues and finding other ways to pay off a bond. Marshall indicated that one way or another the bond obligations need to be paid, however, it was conceivable that revenues could be generated to cover operating costs. Chair Foster asked Blum if he had some thoughts about the cost issue. Blum replied that telecommunications networks are high fixed cost propositions with most of the costs incurred to build the network. Blum noted that operating costs are relatively easy to recover and that with sufficient subsidies, a FTTP build out scenario could work. Chair Foster asked Mr. Harrington for comments. Harrington noted that fiber projects are very capital intensive and the risk is that the competition will use predatory pricing that will prevent recovery of sunk capital and bond payments as has happened elsewhere in the US. Chair Foster suggested that if the City wants to do FTTP, it has to be done by floating a bond based on the fundamental theory that it will increase the value of being in Palo Alto for residents and businesses since the user financed model may not work. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that before accepting that there is no user-financed model, the Mayor’s advisors should also be in the loop reviewing that model. Commissioner Waldfogel indicated his need to hear from the City Attorney on the legal uses of the reserve and the fiber revenue; if there’s no legal use, Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 5 of 11 then he would call it an abject failure and not a success, because we’re generating a pot of cash we can’t do anything with. Commissioner Waldfogel added that the Mayor’s Advisors should vet the consultant’s report because more eyes are always better and there is a need to determine uses for the fiber fund reserves. Commissioner Melton asked Blum about the market analysis that was done eight years ago based on the City building the system which showed a 35% take rate. Blum replied that the data in the latest study doesn’t come close to supporting a 35% take rate. Blum noted that the former analysis assumed a full triple-play network versus the current analysis of Internet only service; an apples and oranges comparison. Commissioner Melton stated that while he encouraged staff to look at a wireless network for City and customer use, he felt it is premature to give up on FTTP. Council Member Shepherd stated she wanted to clarify two outstanding issues, fiber and undergrounding, noting that the Finance Committee wants these items to come forward so the community understands where we’re going. Vice Chair Cook noted his interest in the wireless concept and asked whether there are synergies in doing FTTP at the same time as doing undergrounding. Marshall replied that there could be synergies; however, undergrounding will take a while, even under the most optimistic scenarios. When undergrounding is done facilities will be put in place to allow for fiber to the home. Commissioner Waldfogel asked Fleming about the proposal to do a wireless study and what it would cost. Fleming replied that the cost could be between $25,000 and $50,000. Commissioner Waldfogel commented he would support a study if it was at the lower end of that range, because he feels it’s a little like an application in search of a user and with no known demand for a wireless network. Commissioner Eglash remarked that it appeared that staff was looking for ways to spend the $12 million reserves, a backwards approach. Commissioner Eglash stated he would much rather proceed in a more deliberate and systematic way starting with what $12 million can and ought to be used for, rather than finding ways to spend $12 million. Fong replied that staff did not start with the $12 million then proceed to figure out ways to get rid of the money. Fong noted that staff was not averse to studying the matter further and returning in a couple of months, but also suggested that there should be a propensity for some action. Commissioner Eglash responded that he did not disagree with Fong, but that as a business, the fiber network is generating revenue more than adequate to cover operating costs, not a situation we would allow to persist for any other utility we operate. Commissioner Eglash suggested that the fiber network should be managed the way we manage other utilities, and the surplus should be viewed in that light. Commissioner Eglash added that the FTTP network has been discussed several times before and during his tenure, and the conclusion has consistently been that it’s too expensive and serves too few people; therefore it’s not clear to him why we continue to revisit that same issue. Commissioner Waldfogel commented that after 10 years the City has 78 dark fiber customers with limited ways to spend the excess funds. He further questioned why the City pursues the fiber business if there are no viable uses for the funds and if surpluses cannot be transferred to the General Fund. Fong responded that the City Attorney’s office understands the issue and is looking into the uses of the reserves. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 6 of 11 Commissioner Hall observed that there is adequate commercial competition and services for residents needing more bandwidth and that he was not surprised by the conclusion that FTTP is not economic. Commissioner Hall commented that he is interested in resident access to a wireless network that is either free or subsidized, and that he supports further study at the high end of the study cost range. Saccio commented that when the City ended discussions with Axia, staff proposed to the Council a wireless effort, but the Council said no. Commissioner Eglash asked Fleming for the primary intended purpose of the wireless network. Fleming answered that the primary use is for internal City use to improve mobile access. Commissioner Eglash acknowledged that staff’s proposal was to provide for a variety of municipal services and only secondarily for broadband service. Fong clarified that public Internet access is also part of staff’s recommendation. Chair Foster said the UAC has three fundamental choices for FTTP: 1. Agree with the staff recommendation; 2. Propose something else; 3. Request a delay, or bring the item back after the other items are considered. ACTION: Chair Foster moved the following: 1. Agree with the staff’s recommendation on the continuation of the current business model for licensing dark fiber service. 2. Recommend bringing FTTP back for further discussion at the September meeting, or at the July meeting if there’s enough time, with a delay to allow the Mayor’s Advisors to review the report further and allow the City Attorney’s office to weigh-in on legal issues; 3. Agree with staff’s recommendation for a wireless network, with the two caveats: (1) what are the costs, and (2) it is the sense of the UAC that a municipal wireless network is of the greatest interest if it is open to all members of the community. Commissioner Eglash seconded the motion. Fong sought clarification with regard to the motion, noting that staff was proposing to study the wireless network, not to build the network, and that staff would seek the advice of an expert consultant to conduct the study. Chair Foster proposed a revision to his motion to say the UAC would support staff’s recommendation assuming the cost is in line with what Fleming thinks it is and again with the caveat that a municipal wireless network is of much greater interest if it serves the entire community. Chair Foster asked for additional comments on his motion. Vice Chair Cook offered a friendly amendment on item 2 (FTTP) to instead recommend the Finance Committee and Council decide the issue of FTTP. Commissioner Eglash said that he would support a motion with respect FTTP that says the UAC supports staff’s recommendation, which is to discontinue efforts to evaluate and implement FTTP, while recognizing that the analysis isn’t quite complete as Vice Chair Cook indicated. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 7 of 11 Chair Foster said that while he agrees there’s not a user-finance mechanism, based on what he’s heard, as mentioned by Harrington, there may be some other pieces such as a sponsor for network naming rights. Commissioner Waldfogel reiterated his perspective that other eyes should review the report and a ruling from the City Attorney should be obtained. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that information is being withheld by staff and that without an opinion from the City Attorney, the process cannot move forward. Fong stated that the City Attorney has indicated a municipal wireless network is a legitimate use of the fiber funds, but that the question about other use of funds including giving some to the General Fund is the outstanding question. Fong noted that funding a wireless network is not in question. Chair Foster moved the following: 1. Approve staff’s recommendation on continuing dark fiber licensing services. 2. Delay a final recommendation on FTTP and bring this issue back at the September meeting - it could be a different date if Fong wants - with a request to resolve the open issues, particularly to allow the Mayor’s Advisors to comment and to resolve the open legal issues. 3. Proceed with an evaluation of a municipal wireless network, with the added caveat that it would be the sense of the UAC that this would be particularly interesting if it was open to the entire community. Vice Chair Cook offered as an alternative motion acceptance of staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Eglash seconded Vice Chair Cook’s motion. It was indicated to Chair Foster that Vice Chair Cook’s motion would be voted on first. In response to a request for clarification from Commissioner Hall, Fong stated that a wireless network accessible to all residents is part of staff’s recommendation for the study. Vice Chair Cook’s motion passed with a 4-3 vote. Ayes: Vice Chair Cook and Commissioners Eglash, Hall and Keller. Noes: Chair Foster and Commissioners Melton and Waldfogel. ITEM 2: ACTION: City of Palo Alto’s Energy Risk Management Policy (ERMP) Mary Figone, Senior Financial Analyst provided a brief presentation in support of the Energy Risk Management Policy report. She highlighted the four main areas of revision: (1) generally throughout the policy the language has been clarified and streamlines; (2) the update focused on addressing risk and includes references to the Utilities Strategic Plan, Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP), and Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) per Council direction too add the LEAP and GULP as references in the Policy; (3) the conflict of interest section was modified to add a specific process to deal with conflicts; and (4) Risk Manager reporting timelines for information to the UROCC and to the City Council were clarified (within one business day by email to the UROCC and in the next quarterly report to Council). Commissioner Keller noted that gas storage is listed as a product, and asked if that will that change due to the laddering strategy change. Senior Resource Planner Karla Dailey responded that we do not plan to purchase gas storage, and purchasing gas storage was taken out of the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP), but it was retained in the policy to keep the list broad in case of a change in strategy. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Hall asked if there was any tension between the approved product list and the anti- speculation policy. Commissioner Eglash stated that speculation means that staff would not to engage in betting on movements in the market direction and making transactions to try to make money, rather than to meet load. ACTION: Commissioner Melton made a motion to recommend that the UAC approve the proposed Energy Risk Management Policy. Chair Foster seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Commissioner Waldfogel absent. ITEM 3: ACTION: Power Purchase Agreement for Brannon Solar Project Output No presentation. Commissioner Keller – Noted the report was easy to read and understand and that Figure 2 showed multiple proposals. Commissioner Keller asked if we are considering any of the other proposals at this time. Senior Resource Originator Kabat responded that we are not considering other proposals at this time and very soon we plan to issue another RFP. Commissioner Hall mentioned that Figure 3 shows volumes of renewable contract deliveries falling over time and asked about the trend. Kabat replied that even though they are long term contracts lasting 20 years, they do end in the decades shown on the graph. Commissioner Melton asked if, in our prior experience, any contracts failed to result in operational projects. Kabat answered that the Butte County Landfill Gas Power contract was cancelled by the developer. Commissioner Eglash asked what the risks are, particularly completion risks related to the Brannon project. Commissioner Eglash mentioned it looks consistent with the PV market, where there is occasionally a much lower priced contract such as this one. He asked why this price is so low and whether the project is likely to be completed. He also asked, whether this low price means that there is a greater likelihood that the project will fail. Kabat replied that the market has changed rapidly. The last time we received proposals from an RFP, solar projects were the most expensive, but this time, they were the lowest price. PV panel prices have fallen precipitously. Another reason is bidders find Palo Alto, with our Triple A credit rating, to be an attractive counterparty and also find negotiations with us are more efficient than negotiating with an investor owned utility. Also vertically integrated companies may be offering a low price to get contract volume. The risk of project failure is that we would have to purchase replacement energy, and the market could be at a higher price than it is now. Commissioner Eglash noted that the best and cheapest solar panels come from China, and that the US has imposed tariffs. Commissioner Eglash asked how this impacts prices. Kabat replied that the Brannon LLC and Trina Solar have agreed to absorb the cost of any tariffs. Kabat noted that by the time we were in negotiations, Trina Solar and Brannon Solar were very aware of the likelihood of tariffs. Commissioner Eglash asked whether we could negotiate a clause in the PPA to get a price discount representing a share of reduced tariffs to the extent the Chinese government is appealing application of the tariffs. Kabat replied that he can try to negotiate it. Vice Chair Cook offered congratulations on getting such a good offer and asked how the option to extend the term for 5 extra years works. Kabat answered that the City can extend the term at its sole option and Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 9 of 11 that the City should exercise it if it’s attractive in the 24th year. If it’s unattractive the City does not have to act and the contract ends after the 25th year. Vice Chair Cook asked if Trina Solar has built any other projects in California. Mr. Kabat answered that Trina is in the process, but has not yet completed a project in California. Vice Chair Cook asked if Trina Solar has built any projects of this size anywhere in the world. Kabat answered that he believes there are other projects elsewhere in the state, the country and the world that are ahead of this one and more in the pipeline behind it. Vice Chair Cook asked if there are development milestones that allow us to measure whether progress has been made. Kabat indicated that there are intermediate milestones such as execution of interconnection agreements, obtaining permits, etc. Commissioner Hall asked what happens if Brannon does not achieve its milestones. Kabat noted that missing a milestone creates a default and starts a cure period. The developer can cure the defaut within the cure period and not be in breech of contract. However if not cured in time, the contract can be terminated by the City. Commissioner Hall mentioned that the Brannon proposal looks like a good deal, and asked how we get the performance deposit money. Kabat answered that it will be in the form of a Letter of Credit or a deposit in an escrow account and that the form is still in negotiation. Commissioner Eglash remarked that the solar resource provides a welcomed diversity to a renewable portfolio dominated by wind. ACTION: Chair Foster made a motion that the UAC recommend that the City Council: 1) Approve a Power Purchase Agreement with Brannon Solar LLC, a California limited liability company, for the acquisition of up to 52,000 Megawatt-hours (MWh) per year of energy over twenty-five years with a price of $72 dollars per MWh at a cost not to exceed $94 million; and 2) Waive the application of the investment-grade credit rating requirement of Section 2.30.340(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Commissioner Waldfogel absent. ITEM 4: DISCUSSION: Review of the Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan Steven Turner, Senior Planner, provided a presentation to support the written report. Turner explained that all the land use and planning decisions must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is a plan required by state law. The plan provides a guide for the capital improvements program, identifies transportation priorities and incorporates economic development goals. The plan is to be updated with growth projections through 2020, to retain sufficient land for neighborhood-serving retail services, and to add sustainability components to the various elements to the plan. About 75% of the existing policies and programs of this element are still considered relevant and are carried forward. Turner pointed out the key changes made to the energy sources and conservation section. Changes included: (1) an emphasis on energy conservation and promotion of renewable energy use (Policy N3.1); Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 10 of 11 (2) implementing cost-effective energy efficiency programs (Policy N3.4.1); and (3) implementing gas and electric rate structures that reflect the cost of service (Policy 3.1.1). A new policy was added to energy sources and conservation. Commissioner Eglash thanked Turner for coming to the UAC and for seeing that this was relevant to the UAC. He was very pleased to see life cycle analysis in the plan. Grasslands and trees do have economic value. With respect to climate change, some emphasis should be on adaptation in addition to doing what we can to reduce greenhouse gases. He suggested that staff may need to take an expansive view including micro-grids and energy generation at the wastewater treatment plant. Vice Chair Cook asked who in Utilities was involved. Fong said that Joyce Kinnear, the Manager of Utilities Marketing Service was involved. He asked if Turner had seen the comments from Canopy. Turner said that he had and commented that he held a community stakeholder meeting on June 5 at which Canopy was a participant. Catherine Martineau from Canopy indicated that she would submit comments to the UAC and City staff, which were received today. Vice Chair Cook stated that trees are one of the most valuable resources in the City. He has heard that recycled water can cause harm to trees and wanted to make sure that concern is included in the plan. Commissioner Keller asked how the Comp Plan is used, especially with projects that may not be completely consistent. Turner said that decision-makers have flexibility so that they can weigh all factors. The Plan is meant to be broad enough to provide overall direction, but not tie the hands of decision-makers. Commissioner Keller would like to increase the clout of the Plan when decisions are made. She stated that consistency of projects within the plan is very important. Policies and programs in the plan do not seem to have a way to track progress and accomplishments. She asked that some detail be added to some of the policies so that the plan provides more specific direction. She stated that the urban forest is valuable in many ways and needs to be protected. There are conflicts with water conservation and managing the trees and the use of recycled water. Some of the policy statements are not clear as to the timeframes, for example Programs N 3.4 and N.3.4.3. If there is a way to describe the approach to the goal, it may be easier to meet the goal. For Program N5.4.1 regarding recycled water use, she asked if this is for citywide and all resident’s use, or only larger projects. Commissioner Melton indicated he would provide some comments directly to Turner. Commissioner Hall asked if we discuss meeting or exceeding water quality standards in relation to the policy on reliable water supply. He asked if Policy N5.1 addresses wastewater. Turner confirmed that it did. Commissioner Hall asked if we should include a goal to conserve energy when treating wastewater, or even become energy self-sufficient in wastewater treatment. He asked if expanding the infrastructure for recycled water should be added. In general, Commissioner Hall advised broadening the concept of water quality and the commitment to provide a safe drinking water supply that meets or exceeds standards. Chair Foster asked where Policy N5.1 came from. Assistant Director Ratchye said it emenated from Council’s support of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Water System Improvement Program, which aims to protect the regional water system against emergencies such as earthquakes. Chair Foster added that where a small city like Palo Alto can make a difference is when we adopt novel and forward thinking programs that can be mimicked by other cities in the world. He advised that staff should look for ideas like that to expand the influence of your good work. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: July 11, 2012 Page 11 of 11 ITEM 5: ACTION: Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC ACTION: No action. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marites Ward City of Palo Alto Utilities