Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-14 Utilities Advisory Commission Summary MinutesUtilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 1 of 10 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chair Segal called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 6:09 p.m. Present: Chair Segal, Vice Chair Johnston, Commissioners Bowie, Forssell, Metz, Scharff, and Smith Absent: Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities, announced Matt Zucca, the new Assistant Director for Utilities for WGW. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS Chair Segal announced the Director’s Report would be heard at the end of the evening in the interest of staff time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Hamilton Hitchings commented on last meeting’s topic of sea level rise. He suggested using a projected sea level rise in the 4 to 7 foot range to help prevent levee overtopping during a large winter storm. He encouraged the City to pursue state and federal grant money. He requested staff to update their presentation to ensure a clear, holistic focus and commitment to protecting assets. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Chair Segal invited comments on the August 3, 2022 UAC draft meeting minutes. Commissioner Metz stated that on Packet Page 18, first paragraph, the second to last sentence is Dean Batchelor stated the consultant was looking at a high-level portion of the grid. The decision was made to continue the discussion offline to reword it to a more fitting description. Vice Chair Johnston noted on Packet Page 17, end of paragraph, top of page, temporary adjustment to allow visual should be changed to virtual. Commissioner Metz moved to approve the draft minutes of the August 3, 2022 meeting as amended. Commissioner Forssell seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0 with Vice Chair Johnston and Commissioners Bowie, Forssell, Metz, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 2 of 10 Chair Segal abstained. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Item 1: DISCUSSION: Discussion and Consideration of the Remote Attendance Policy Tabatha Boatwright, Utilities Administrative Assistant, stated City Attorney Jennifer Fine assisted in writing the report and was present on Zoom for questions and comments. The policy has gone through two bodies of approval and is now with Governor Newsom, who has until September 29 to approve. If approved by Governor Newsom, the policy in the packet would be in effect. If Governor Newsom does not approve, then we revert to the current Brown Act policy. Chair Segal suggested deferring to the next UAC meeting where we will have the benefit of knowing whether the governor approved it. Commissioner Forssell requested a staff report at October’s meeting to clarify what the UAC will discuss, what the UAC can decide and what is state law. Attorney Fine stated her next staff report would clarify what is specified in the Brown Act and what is up for the UAC’s discussion. ACTION: Commissioner Scharff moved to defer the item until the UAC meeting on October 12. Seconded by Commissioner Forssell. Motion carries 7-0 with Chair Segal, Vice Chair Johnston, and Commissioners Bowie, Forssell, Metz, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 2: ACTION: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Utilities Advisory Commission Meetings During COVID-19 State of Emergency ACTION: Vice Chair Johnston moved Staff recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and its committees due to the COVID-19 declared state of emergency. Seconded by Commissioner Bowie. Motion carries 7-0 with Chair Segal, Vice Chair Johnston, and Commissioners Bowie, Forssell, Metz, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: Informational Update on Utilities Cross Bore Verification Projects Dave Yuan, Strategic Business Manager, provided an update on the cross bore program. A brief staff report was included in the Commission’s packet. In Phase I, from 2011 to 2013, Hydromax (contractor) cleared 7192 addresses from cross bore, 26 cross bores were found and repaired. In Phase II, from 2019 to 2020, Ames (contractor) inspected 408 addresses and found no cross bores. In Phase III, from 2021 to 2022, one cross bore was found in 1480 addresses and was repaired. There are 3762 addresses remaining for the City to inspect for cross bore. The prioritization process was explained. The plan is to Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 3 of 10 clear 800 laterals per year for the next five years. The cost estimate to clear 800 addresses yearly is $840,000 per year for the next five years. In response to Commissioner Scharff’s query on how much money we spent per cross bore if you divide the number of cross bores by the total amount spent, Mr. Rasay responded one cross bore was found in 1480 addresses and $1,680,000 was spent for this project. Aaron Perkins, Sr. WGW Engineer, addressed Commissioner Scharff’s questions regarding how serious one cross bore is, if it made financial sense to continue spending a huge amount of money to find one cross bore and if the highest priorities in Phases I and II were done. Mr. Perkins explained this is a preventative program and cross bores are a natural gas issue industrywide. The UAC and Council have to decide whether spending this amount of money is worth the risk and the impact it could have. The greatest risks are prioritized, which are high-congregation areas, business districts, schools, hospitals and then residential neighborhoods. Mr. Perkins accepted Commissioner Scharff’s request for staff to come back to the UAC after evaluating if it is worth spending that amount of money and the risks of one cross bore in a residential neighborhood. A little over 4000 remain to be inspected. One cross bore could be a very catastrophic event with a house exploding and potentially harming a family and the surrounding neighborhood. This is an inherent risk in the industry. In response to Commissioner Scharff’s question regarding how much would it cost to clear 800 addresses per year, Mr. Perkins responded that clearing 4000 addresses over the next five years would be around $4M. Mr. Rasay clarified it is $4.2M or about $840K per year. Based on his experience on handling this project, Mr. Rasay feels it is worth paying for safety. In reply to Commissioner Smith’s query on why are we getting an economy of scale when we go from $16M down to $4.2M over four years, Mr. Perkins responded that 408 was from Phase II which had to cancel early due to COVID. The $1.6M was the most recent Phase III Cross Bore Project and was 1480. Commissioner Smith noted that 1081 multiplied by 4000 is $4.3M. Commissioner Forssell asked for help in understanding what is involved in a cross bore inspection and why it costs about $1000 to inspect a sewer line. Mr. Rasay explained that the crew does a sewer lateral video, private lateral video, private cleanout, City cleanout and inspect private and City laterals, which costs approximately $860 per address per lateral, including $50 for NASSCO certification. NASSCO reviews the lateral, which helps the city assess the lateral maintenance need. It costs about $4000 per address if a section needs to be excavated and replaced. In reply to Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities, request to explain the NASSCO standards, Mr. Rasay answered that the NASSCO standards is the process of assessing a lateral. The contractor does a pipeline assessment by scoring. If they found damage on a pipeline, they would score on level of priority. The highest score is 5 and 0 is no maintenance required. The information gathered is used to prioritize lateral maintenance. Chair Segal shared the economic concerns but now understands where the dollars are going. She asked if the inspected sewer and gas lines were City, property owner’s or both. She also asked what we are doing to avoid future challenges and if we are requiring open trenches. Mr. Rasay responded that the inspections for the cross bore project are performed on both the private and City side laterals. Before Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 4 of 10 2001, our contractors did not include the cross bore inspection in their trenchless method of installation for PE gas lines, so now they all need to be inspected. Since 2001, after we install a PE pipeline that is drilled, we do pre and post video inspections to ensure we did not drill on the customer’s or City’s sewer laterals. After 2011, our in-house crews also do an inspection of the drilled method for gas installation. Chair Segal asked if somebody is rebuilding a house and moving a gas or sewer line if there are any requirements to prevent cross bores. Mr. Rasay answered that if a gas meter is relocated and a new gas pipeline is required to be installed, we will inspect the private sewer lateral after the installation to ensure we are safe from any potential cross bore. Chair Segal thought it made more sense to require it on the front end so it is not a second round of inspection and that the cost is being borne by the right party. Mr. Batchelor explained there is no charge to the customer because it is part of the cost for the lateral being installed to the home. ACTION: None ITEM 4: DISCUSSION: Discussion and Overview of City Electric Vehicle Programs and Activities Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Utilities, made a presentation. Electric vehicles (EVs) are the purview of the S/CAP Committee. Council has not provided specific direction on EVs. The goal is to reduce emissions 80% by 2030 from 1990 levels. About 60% of total emissions are from transportation. To reduce emissions, people need to travel less, use single-occupancy vehicles less and help people electrify as many of their miles as possible. A few years ago, the City signed up to participate in the State’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program to promote EV adoption and facilitate vehicle charging particularly in multifamily homes. Some ideas are to partner with major employers or business districts on promoting EV adoption with commuters and regional partners to promote EVs throughout the Bay Area. Some modernization of the grid is needed to support building electrification and EVs and staff is discussing those efforts with the S/CAP Committee. Utilities is working on a grid modernization study and the UAC will be provided updates in the future. Hiromi Kelty, Sustainability Programs Administrator, reviewed the residential EV promotion programs. The California Clean Fuel Rewards program paused at the end of last month. Staff is waiting to hear what CARB is planning. The City is contracted with three organizations to offer various electrification and EV-related education and outreach. This year, we have offered 21 events and attended two other events. The priority is to raise awareness, help answer our customers’ questions and help them navigate available incentives. In response to Chair Segal’s query regarding attendance for online and in-person events, Ms. Kelty responded it depends on the content. One of our most popular classes in 2022 was online on new models and had approximately 189 attendees. Some EV 101 classes have approximately 30 attendees. Our EV Charger Technical Assistance Program (EVTAP) is funded by LCFS and is an end-to-end service for our customer, including site walks, looking at electrical, doing load counts, working with CPAU engineers to look at the loading on the transformer, putting together low-end and high-end design plans, helping them find incentives and permit applications. About $8.8M is available for 90-100 sites over the next three years. The goal is to expand charging access to 10% of multifamily households by 2025. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Council Liaison Cormack commented that last night at Policy and Services there was discussion about a potential rental survey. In reply to Council Liaison Cormack asking if staff spoke with the Planning Department about survey content, Ms. Kelty replied that staff had been working with Planning on permitting but was not aware of the survey. Ms. Kelty stated she would follow up with Rebecca Atkinson. In answer to Chair Segal’s question regarding what Level 1 entails in a multiunit, Ms. Kelty gave the example of 101 Alma’s permit submitted to install 100 Level 1 chargers so every resident can have 40-50 miles of range. It takes very little load. Mr. Abendschein added it is important to remember that for hybrid electric vehicles and e-bikes, 40 or 50 miles goes a long way. There are over 800 multifamily properties in Palo Alto. Ms. Kelty explained the marketing strategy has been to focus on buildings with 50+ units in order to have the highest impact. Another priority is affordable housing. Palo Alto has 1600 below-market-rate units at 35 sites. Staff has been working on an agreement for the past 2½ years with Palo Alto Gardens, which has 156 units. In March, we amended our contract with CLEAResult to offer direct install services to low-income multifamily properties. In reply to Chair Segal’s inquiry regarding what challenges were causing the long delay, Ms. Kelty responded that many property owners did not want EV chargers in the beginning but now some of their tenants are asking for it so they might have to add it as an amenity. Staff is exploring an e-bike program and there may be an RFP in the near future. At every site, putting in Level 1 chargers for e-scooters and e-bikes in a safe parking situation is discussed. Nonprofits are offered incentives up to $80,000 and free technical assistance. All commercial customers qualify for the California EV Infrastructure Project where we put in $1M of our LCFS funds and CEC matches $1M. The goal is to use half of the $2M for 20 DC fast chargers. There are 41 projects in progress. Eight projects were completed with 79 new Level 2 ports and two Level 3 or DC fast chargers. Commissioner Metz left the meeting at 7:20 p.m. and returned at 7:23 p.m. Commissioner Bowie had questions on vehicle replacement, VMT by model years, low and middle- income vehicle usage and vehicle years and opportunities for programs targeted around vehicle use. Mr. Abendschein replied that staff is also very interested in how vehicles are used and how different types of vehicles contribute to overall emissions but the data is limited. Mr. Abendschein addressed Commissioner Bowie’s queries regarding how revenue is generated and if there are issues with LCFS-funded programs. Mr. Abendschein explained that LCFS funds are limited and it is unlikely to accumulate enough funds to provide charger services to all multifamily buildings in Palo Alto. Innovation is needed to finance projects. Financial modeling was done with the building electrification programs and by applying some of those concepts and taking advantage of the secondary benefits that EVs provide to our electric utility, more sustainable financing solutions may be found. In answer to Vice Chair Johnston’s question on Slide 12 regarding what are direct installation services, Ms. Kelty replied it is an end-to-end service offered by our EV Technical Assistance Program with CLEAResult acting as the contractor hiring subcontractors to oversee the installation. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 6 of 10 In reply to Vice Chair Johnston’s query on Slide 4 about what percentage of new vehicle registrations in Palo Alto are EVs, Mr. Abendschein and Ms. Kelty believe it is around 25%. In response to Vice Chair Johnston’s question if that has been the trend for the last couple years, Ms. Kelty responded it is trending down. In a 2017 report, it was 29% and we were #1 in the country in EVs but our recent analysis is closer to 25%. Mr. Abendschein commented that new EV sales and new car sales in general have been affected by the pandemic because of supply chain issues. Vice Chair Johnston believes it is more appropriate to have a state program with incentives for EV adoption to persuade owners of existing fossil fuel vehicles to trade them in for EVs. Ms. Kelty stated CARB is reconsidering a statewide EV incentive program but are waiting to see if there is funding from the federal government through the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) to help incentivize the purchase of EVs. Mr. Abendschein commented that incentives for people to trade their old cars for new EVs is better suited for a state program but it is worth thinking about what can be done at the local level as well. Vice Chair Johnston remarked that if there are federal funds with IRA to help people switch to an EV, he hopes we can find ways to get that information out to Palo Alto residents. Commissioner Scharff wants to make sure we do not subsidize swapping out older vehicles for them to be purchased by somebody else in Palo Alto or a neighboring community. Unless the vehicle disappears off the road and is replaced by an EV, there is no value in meeting our goals because we are just moving the emissions around. Mr. Abendschein agreed that would not help reduce global emissions. Commissioner Metz asked about the impact of IRA on our program and he suggested that staff look at the details and return to the UAC with their findings. Commissioner Metz commented on Packet Page 63, Page 7 of the PowerPoint about grid impacts and he believes we need to be proactive in molding EV charging infrastructure. Commissioner Metz stated it is important to have a 10 or 20-year timeline of what the grid would look like if all these cars were junked and work backwards to how we get there in a way that these vehicles are contributing positively to the grid. Mr. Abendschein noted that is a topic in the grid modernization study. Commissioner Forssell wondered if an educational component could help with the widespread unpermitted installation. Ms. Kelty stated the new service that staff is working on will require permits in order to use vetted contractors at a discounted price. In reply to Commissioner Forssell’s query if people are not getting a permit because they do not know they need one or if they are deliberately avoiding it, Ms. Kelty does not think people are purposely avoiding it but rather they call an electrician for a 240-volt outlet and do not realize they need a permit. Commissioner Forssell stated an educational effort could also be made in the contracting community. In answer to Commissioner Forssell’s question about the cost of permits, Ms. Kelty answered $300, which is significant enough for people to ask themselves if they really need it. Commissioner Forssell said the permit cost might be something to consider. Ms. Kelty addressed Commissioner Forssell’s query if there were amperage size limits for permits issued over the counter. Up to 50 Amps are over the counter, which takes a day or more. There are 60-Amp home chargers but anything above 50 Amps has to go under extensive review. Commissioner Forssell stated 50 Amps is a lot and a cause of grid stress, so she wondered if 25 or 30 amps is more reasonable. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Forssell thinks car salesmen oversell how big of a charger you need and put a fear of being stranded into new EV owners, so the City may need to provide an educational effort on 30 Amp L2 chargers. Mr. Abendschein noted that an educational program is in the early stages and has been a topic of substantial focus with the S/CAP Committee. Commissioner Forssell had questions regarding the transformer upgrade rebate of $10,000, how to change the policy to stop charging the person triggering the transformer upgrade and if it is required by state law to have an after-the-fact rebate. Mr. Abendschein noted that is being worked on this fall. Commissioner Forssell requested staff to provide not just the number of properties but also the number of units and chargers at each stage. In reply to Commissioner Forssell’s query if there has been discussion of electrifying any City vehicles, Ms. Kelty replied that Public Works worked with a consultant last year to do a fleet electrification study. Not all vehicles at this time can be electrified due to budget constraints but when a gas-powered light-duty vehicle comes to retirement, it will be replaced by an EV. Commissioner Forssell asked if the City had any discussions with the school district about electrifying school buses. Ms. Kelty responded that staff had spoken to the school district in the past but now we do not have a contact because there is no sustainability position and the facility manager retired during COVID. Staff would like to reestablish relationships and communication, especially about electric school buses. In many countries, school buses are charged using solar during the day. Staff would like to explore using the electricity stored in the school bus battery packs to help the grid in an emergency. Mr. Abendschein addressed Chair Segal’s questions regarding the percentage of renters who are in single-family homes and if there is any challenge with that population. Mr. Abendschein stated it is a challenge for all of our EV and building electrification programs but staff is discussing solutions such as ensuring that renters have information they can provide to their landlords about the City’s programs. Staff can look at ways that renters and landlords could agree on how certain facilities are funded. There are state laws that staff need to be more familiarized with that give renters some leverage. Ms. Kelty added that is not an easy customer segment but a renter could plug into a 120-volt outlet, so the focus needs to be on raising awareness of Level 1 charging. Chair Segal noted there seem to be some delays in permitting. In response to Chair Segal’s questions if there are any barriers we can remove or reduce or make pain points less painful or any way the UAC can help, Ms. Kelty explained that high-voltage installations cannot be done quickly. For example, the Stanford Hospital permit submission needs to go through eight different desks because many people need to sign off before a permit can be issued but there are no big obstacles. Mr. Abendschein noted it might take two years because installations are complicated and the pandemic had a major impact on the pace due to construction slowing down. The pace of this program is on par with PG&E’s program, which takes them two years for one multifamily building installation. In answer to Chair Segal’s query if chargers in schools or other public places are available to the public outside of business hours, Ms. Kelty responded that chargers installed by Public Works at libraries and places of worship are available 24/7. Staff asked the school district if they were willing to make their chargers available to the public but the school district is concerned about safety issues if someone charges at night and something happens. Ms. Kelty addressed Council Liaison Cormack’s questions about lessons learned from the six completed projects. Ms. Kelty explained that every site has its own set of challenges and require a lot more staff Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 8 of 10 time and attention than initially imagined. Mr. Abendschein added that one of the lessons learned was the program has shifted to focus on Level 1 chargers. In smaller buildings, there are challenges with configuring parking to add chargers because of ADA requirements. Council Liaison Cormack encouraged staff and S/CAP to describe concisely the complexity when this comes forward to Council. Walking through a site will help them appreciate staff’s efforts. ACTION: None. UAC took a break at 8:03 p.m. and returned at 8:13 p.m. ITEM 5: ACTION: Staff Recommends the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Accept the Bylaws Amendment with Updated Annual Election Schedule, Meeting Times, and Agenda Additions Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, stated the Council wants to put all commissions on the same timeline. Also changed is previously two commissioners were needed to add to the 12-month calendar and now it is just one commissioner. Tabatha Boatwright, Utilities Administrative Assistant, addressed Vice Chair Johnston’s question regarding Section 7.1 stating the agenda closes nine days prior to the UAC meeting but Section 7.6 states the colleagues’ memo should be provided to the director by noon seven days prior to the UAC meeting. Ms. Boatwright stated the minutes would reflect the corrected amendment at the motion. The colleagues’ memo and agenda will be due nine days before the UAC meeting. Discussion ensued regarding seven versus nine days to review the packet. Ms. Boatwright noted that the UAC has had nine days since early 2019 but it needed to be added to the bylaws. ACTION: Commissioner Metz moved Staff recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend the Council approve the amended UAC Bylaws to reflect scheduling and agenda changes, which include the new election timeline, an earlier start time for regular meetings, and other associated scheduling changes including Sections 7.2 and 7.6 reflecting an early packet deadline of nine days prior to the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Forssell. Motion carries 7-0 with Chair Segal, Vice Chair Johnston, and Commissioners Bowie, Forssell, Metz, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. ITEM 6: ACTION: Colleagues Memo From A.C. Johnston, Phil Metz, and Loren Smith: Implementation of a City-Owned FTTP network and City-Owned Internet Service Provider The public was invited to comment on this topic. Jeff Hoel commented that one important reason for providing citywide FTTP is civic pride because Palo Alto is the birthplace of Silicon Valley. Other reasons for having a City-owned network are to have control over privacy, reliability and customer service. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 9 of 10 Herb Borock expressed his concern that the meeting next Monday is a study session. He wants more detailed questions answered at the study session and a description of the system. He was concerned with the take rate spreadsheet because it might take a very long time since the proposal is to fund it in part by revenues and the assumptions are based on the survey. Hamilton Hitchings stated that AT&T and Comcast Xfinity have a multiyear head start over CPAU in rolling out FTTP to Palo Alto residents. CPAU is not offering improvements over what AT&T offers except for $5 less on the bottom tier. He thinks the service is duplicative and a financial risk and thus should not be pursued. AT&T Fiber allows connectivity in a power outage with an internal or external battery backup. He thinks it is important that Magellan Design also provide this capability. He believes the City should provide subsidies for low-income residents to have internet access regardless whether fiber is pursued. Given the huge need for capital to build electric in the coming years, he does not think $10M should be transferred from electric to fiber and that amount should be minimized. Chair Segal invited commissioner comments on the memo to City Council. Discussion ensued on the wording in the memo. Dave Yuan, Strategic Business Manager, addressed Commissioner Forssell’s inquiry about Magellan’s status and the work remaining on their current plan. Magellan is about 92% done with the engineering design. There are another 1400 poles to survey, mostly in rear easements. Magellan is waiting for guidance from the UAC and Council regarding the financial and business models, which they will refine as needed. In response to Vice Chair Johnston’s question if Magellan will be presenting at the Joint Session, Mr. Yuan responded that John Honker and one of his staff would be there in person. In answer to Commissioner Forssell’s question regarding a heat map or an indication of which neighborhoods are served how well by the incumbents, Mr. Yuan believed that was presented in the market assessment in the preliminary meetings. Comcast passes throughout the whole city and AT&T Fiber passes around 25% of the city. Commissioner Forssell requested that the Subcommittee provide her access to any additional information and data they have. ACTION: Chair Segal moved to approve presenting the UAC Fiber Subcommittee memo to Council and note that the full UAC has not yet taken a position. Seconded by Commissioner Scharff. Motion carries 7-0 with Chair Segal, Vice Chair Johnston, and Commissioners Bowie, Forssell, Metz, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, delivered the Director's Report and gave a presentation on recent utility outages. Over this past year, there have been 19 unplanned outages with eight impacting 500 customers or more. One challenge has been how to notify the public about outages after hours and on weekends. As a result, there will be additional operator training next week as well as having more Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 12, 2022 Page 10 of 10 people on-call instead of two. When an operator gets a call about an outage of greater than 500 customers, they will post on the website we are aware there is an outage, crews are on their way and the customer count. Twitter updates our website. The outage map populates automatically from the OMS (outage management system). Updates will be posted every two hours or when there is a change. Palo Alto Utilities follows California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) guidelines for inspections and equipment replacement. On September 27, staff will address Council regarding our new OMS, which will allow customers and staff to stay more informed with outage and restoration information including an outage map, automated email and text alerts. Timeline to install is six to nine months. Commissioner Forssell recommended obtaining all household members’ cellphone numbers and emails for the OMS. Mr. Yuan replied that the new system allows multiple phone numbers or emails. Commissioner Forssell requested staff to consider making the default be for people to get email, phone and text alerts unless they opt otherwise. Commissioner Metz asked if a Pareto analyses was performed to understand the biggest causes of outages as a first step toward remediation. Mr. Batchelor responded that the outages have been analyzed. Some outages are caused by a Mylar balloon or a car hitting a pole. Staff will look at when the cables were installed because the age of cable at the distribution and secondary sides is important. Mr. Batchelor addressed Commissioner Forssell’s inquiry about how the Utility decides which customers are affected when there are rolling blackouts. The downtown areas, California Ave, university, hospital, Stanford Shopping Center and cooling centers are priorities to protect from rolling blackouts. The City is working with CSD on putting information on cooling centers on the website. Staff is simulating with operators where to pick up the most power with the least impact. Staff communicated with the business park days in advance that a heat wave was forecasted and they will be the first to black out. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS and REPORTS from MEETINGS/EVENTS None. FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS: Chair Segal added an update from Jonathan Lait on permitting. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: October 12, 2022 Commissioner Forssell moved to adjourn. Chair Segal seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Segal, Vice Chair Johnston, and Commissioners Bowie, Forssell, Metz, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. Meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Tabatha Boatwright City of Palo Alto Utilities