Nancy Miller, Esquire stated that on October 3, 2003 SFLAFCo had their first public hearing on the Draft Electric Financial Feasibility Study prepared by R. W. Beck. At that hearing, representatives from PG&E appeared and indicated they would be preparing a written response. PG&E would be providing a presentation today. R. W. Beck is here to respond to their presentation as well as any questions that the public may have during public comment.
Matt Lonner, PG&E Government Affairs stated that at the last SFLAFCo meeting the R. W. Beck study was discussed, and PG&E agreed to come back and make a formal presentation of their analysis of the study. They also agreed to provide answers to questions that the R. W. Beck team had for them. PG&E’s response to R. W. Beck’s letter/questions dated November 14, 2003 was delivered to the Commission today and is available at the Clerk of the Board’s Office, City Hall, Room 244, and on the SFLAFCo website at http://www.sfgov.org/site/lafco_index.asp. Some of R. W. Beck’s questions have been answered, others require further research, and others could not be answered.
David Rubin, Director, Service Analysis, PG&E stated that at the October 3, 2003 SFLAFCo public hearing, PG&E presented a preliminary response to the Draft R. W. Beck study. They indicated that there were a number of assumptions that became part of the analysis that they felt were flawed. The LAFCo asked for a more detailed description of what those assumptions were and what impacts they had. A presentation was made and is on file at the Clerk of the Board’s Office, Room 244, City Hall. PG&E’s responses and presentations are also on the SFLAFCo website at http://www.sfgov.org/site/lafco_index.asp.
Questions and comments made on the presentations are as follows:
Alternate Commissioner Peskin asked if there was a public independent verifiable source that would substantiate PG&E’s statements.
Mr. Rubin stated that PG&E provides information to the City Controller as a basis for when they provide franchise-related payments. It is a matter of public record that their revenues for 2001 and 2002 are provided to the Controller. In a Bay Guardian article from the first week of September 2002, specifically referenced was the 2001 related revenues in San Francisco gathered from the Controller’s Office, which stated they were $576 million at the time. In 2002, it was a bit higher; it was just under $600 million.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin referred to Mr. Rubin’s presentation stating that he is not sure what the 13% or the $600 million kilowatt hours represents. The City charges different rates to different departments. For example, the enterprise departments like the Airport pay a higher rate for Hetchy power than the general fund departments.
Mr. Rubin stated that he was referring to the amount that is paid to PG&E to deliver the power.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin asked if Mr. Rubin was referring to the Wheeling costs.
Mr. Rubin stated that was correct. The numbers do not include the Airport, just power that is delivered inside the City gate.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin stated that the City pays PG&E to wheel its power. You have a cost for bringing your own power as well. What are you saying relative to this 13 percent of the total exclusive of the Airport?
Mr. Rubin stated that the City pays PG&E under the Hetchy contract a rate that is approximately a half a penny to a penny a kilowatt hour to bring municipal load into the City. He is not familiar with what happens then in terms of whether the City departments that receive the power charge something different from Hetchy than the price that PG&E charges Hetchy. PG&E’s price to bring the power into the City is about half a penny to a penny. Retail customers of PG&E in San Francisco for transmission distribution end up paying something closer to 3½ to 4 cents a kilowatt hour depending on the rate schedule. Their understanding, in looking at the pro-forma from the Draft Study is that all of the usage within San Francisco is charged at 3½ to 4 cents a kilowatt hour. He is referring to Wheeling-related charges, not the total rate. The understanding is that what is part and parcel of the difference in the revenues, the $820 million versus the $600 million, may well in part be based on valuing or charging a higher price for this power than is actually paid from the City to PG&E.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin asked if between 3½ to 4 cents less a half a cent to a cent multiplied by the 13 percent that this represents gives you that $200 million difference.
Mr. Rubin stated that it doesn’t explain all of the difference, but it does explain part of the difference. There are a few other points that they believe collectively add up to explain the difference between the two as part of the difference, but not all of it.
Chairperson Commissioner Gonzalez asked how much of a difference it accounts for.
Mr. Rubin stated he would have to do a separate calculation and confirm, but he believes it would save roughly a third to a half of the total.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin stated that the LAFCo would need to have information from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) on how those rates work. He is not familiar with how the Wheeling costs are distributed, but clearly enterprise departments pay a higher rate for Hetchy power than non-enterprise departments. How do you account for the Wheeling fees that the City pays PG&E?
James McLaughlin, SFPUC stated that he was not prepared today to answer that question and would get the answer later today after consulting with their Hetch Hetchy staff.
Mr. Rubin stated that there may be a different charge from the Hetch Hetchy department to the City departments that receive the power. The point of their analysis is that the price that is paid to PG&E to bring the power into the City is a half a penny to a penny. If there are some different prices that are charged to different recipients in the municipal load, then that revenue would be received by the City already essentially as a revenue source, so it becomes akin to taking out of one pocket and putting it into another.
The R. W. Beck study states that the PG&E system is in need of modernization in the City. The quote that is in front of the Commission is one of the quotes on this issue from the Draft Study. Yet, when you look at the capital additions line in the analysis, it seems that they are clearly less than what in fact PG&E has been spending on this system in San Francisco and what they expect to spend in the next several years. It only includes distribution and doesn’t include capital additions for transmission as well. It seems to be inconsistent with the basic theme mentioned in several points during the report that somehow the system in San Francisco is obsolete or is in substantial need of modernization, which Mr. Rubin stated they don’t believe to be true. In fact, a recent study that was done on PG&E’s system within San Francisco compared to a number of other urban systems throughout the U. S. shows that PG&E is rated fairly high.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman asked if that is based on the reliability of the transmission and distribution system or the reliability of the generation that comes through the wires.
Mr. Rubin stated that his understanding is that it is based on the reliability of the transmission and distribution system.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman asked if the Jefferson Martin line would allow the closure of Hunter’s Point.
Mr. Rubin stated that they believe that is the case.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman asked if that is independent of what is happening at the Potrero site with the Mirant facility closing down.
Mr. Rubin stated that their engineers believe, based on their best estimate, that Jefferson Martin in combination with other actions including some of the other transmission and reinforcement projects that they are implementing, would be sufficient to shut down Hunter’s Point. The ISO does not agree with them completely on this position, but that is their position.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman asked the status of the Jefferson Martin approval with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Mr. Rubin stated it is before the CPUC now. They are posting public participation hearings and are considering a Draft EIR. He would have to check to get additional details around precisely where they are, but he knows the process is moving ahead.
Commissioner Schmeltzer stated there was quite a bit of information that R. W. Beck requested from PG&E and requested the status of the information in order to enable a better assessment by the LAFCo.
Copies of the PG&E November 14, 2003 letter addressing these issues were presented and distributed at this time to the Commissioners.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin asked if the 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour is what the Dow Jones current forecast is. For what period of time?
Mr. Rubin stated it was the ISO day that had market prices quoted by Dow Jones for the period of November 2002 through October 2003.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin asked what the cost per kilowatt hour was prior to deregulation.
Mr. Rubin stated that he would have to get back to the Commission with an answer. You can’t buy power now and forecast it in the future at three cents. They don’t believe so based on current information that is available from real prices in the marketplace that are quite a bit higher than three cents a kilowatt hour. Information is being provided in response to the letter that is taken from the CPUC’s generation procurement OIR, which has a forecast of prices acquired from brokers, which are for the 2007 period and beyond in the 4½ cents range.
Mike Bell, R. W. Beck stated that they received PG&E comments approximately a week ago so they have had time to review them and prepare comments in response. A presentation was made and is on file at the Clerk of the Board’s Office, Room 244, City Hall and on the SFLAFCo website at http://www.sfgov.org/site/lafco_index.asp.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin asked if the 13 percent that Mr. Rubin referred to is completely accounted for in the R. W. Beck study.
Mr. Bell stated that the bottom-line margin is not being changed. The revenues in the study are higher, but the expenses are also. With data from PG&E and the PUC, they can get those revenue and cost numbers both down to where they actually are. Absent to having that data, they used the PG&E billing rate for the revenues, which are higher than what is being billed to the City municipal loads, but they also increased the costs. They know it is higher than what the true costs are to the municipal loads. The net margin doesn’t change--it is still the same margin. What is being charged to the municipal accounts is still the same.
Mr. Bell stated that at this point in time, they don’t see anything that would change their overall conclusions. They stand by the conclusions that were provided in their report.
Commissioner Schmeltzer asked Mr. Bell to discuss why he thinks that PG&E’s claim about the direct access customers and the 11 percent of customers who would not be purchasing from the City is offset by the assumptions made in the report.
Mr. Bell stated because those sales were included at a PG&E tariff rate in terms of revenue purposes but they are also included at a higher cost. If you are reducing the revenues, then you are reducing the cost. So the net margin will be about the same. If they could get the data, they could verify that fact. They believe that the offset in the revenues and the expenses will have that impact.
Commissioner Schmeltzer asked if that data is in the package that PG&E is providing.
Mr. Bell stated no, it was just supplied and they haven’t had a chance to look at it.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman stated that in the PG&E November 7th response, PG&E made some observations comparing the R. W. Beck Community Aggregation Study conclusions to the conclusions in the current study. Does Mr. Bell have any comment on PG&E’s observations?
Mr. Bell stated there are observations with regard to community aggregation and the other services provided to the City in joint capacity. As far as this issue is concerned, they see those as being separate. Community aggregation as they found earlier seems to make sense, and it would make sense to move forward with that. The power supply component is a large portion of this particular component. Therefore, it weighs heavily in terms of where those numbers work out. Nothing in particular that would be added at this time.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman asked if the conclusion is that the two studies are not inconsistent with respect to their results.
Mr. Bell stated that was right.
Mr. Rubin stated that just having seen this information, he would like to think about it and have an opportunity to get a hard copy of the package in order to develop a more complete response. Initially, he can identify several different areas where he has fairly significant questions around whether certain costs have been included and whether the revenue adjustments that were mentioned were offset by costs. When they did their analysis, and they included the municipal load as well as the direct access load, they did subtract the power supply costs associated with both of those sets of load. He doesn’t believe there were any other costs that were included in the initial study or in their adjustment that somehow adjusts for the lower revenues associated with those sales. To the extent that those sales are being served off of a distribution system around which there would be certain acquisition costs, certain capital costs, and certain O&M costs, he is not sure there are any other adjustments to be made one way or the other. The power needs to be delivered over a robust system. He does not see how you can reduce or adjust costs in any way other than the power purchase price to essentially account for municipal load which is being served by Hetchy power or direct access load where the customers are buying their power from other sources. He does not understand how the adjustment downwards of revenues would be offset by a similar adjustment downwards of costs that they didn’t already include in their package sent to the Commission on November 7th.
As far as the other comments that were made, he would be interested in seeing how common plant, going concern, working capital, and some of the other cost items were included either explicitly or somehow implicitly in the numbers they had received from R. W. Beck. Their assessment was that they weren’t, but they were in a position of having to try to replicate some of their calculations. If those numbers are included, they would like to see the detailed breakdown. Other than that, they are able to provide some of the information. As Mr. Lonner has indicated, they do not have some of the information. They do not do twenty-year forecasts for a number of these types of items and some of the information they are not willing to provide even if they did have it. To the extent that they are able to clear up some of these issues with colleagues at R. W. Beck, they are happy to do so. He doesn’t believe R. W. Beck’s comments which concluded that they acknowledged that there are some changes that are appropriate, but when offset with other changes, comes out in the wash, that that in fact is actually an accurate reflection of the financial picture. He would appreciate an opportunity to get back to the Commission with a more detailed response once they have had a chance to have a more thorough think-through.
Commissioner Schmeltzer stated that they just saw a chart that showed differences in the rates that were used in the assumptions between PG&E’s letter and what R. W. Beck used and what were published on the PG&E website. She asked to explain the difference in the rates used in the PG&E letter to the rates published on the website.
Mr. Rubin stated there is a difference because the rates that customers pay throughout PG&E’s service territory are based on usage characteristics that are called billing determinants and they include demand and energy-related usage characteristics that are applied to rate schedules. They typically have demand and energy charges. If you look across their service territory, you obviously have different areas with different sets of load characteristics based on climate or makeup of the customer costs. It’s not unusual to have a system average rate that is just that. It’s an average. Different areas are going to be seeing different average bills based on their usage characteristics. San Francisco is a coastal city with a very high apartment population so the usage by apartments is quite a bit less than single-family homes. You are going to see a greater proportion of the residential usage below the baseline levels where the average rates are generally lower. That would explain the residential costs. Some of the commercial industrial classes depend on when power is used. Different rate classes pay different rates according to different rate schedules.
One of the things they observed in the study’s assumptions were that a much greater proportion of the San Francisco usage seemed to be grouped into the rate classes that pay higher average rates relative to what is actually the case in San Francisco. When you put the kilowatt hours in the right buckets, you will find a much greater percentage of usage that is charged. For example, their large light and power rates which are lower than the small and medium power rates. Taking a look at the average really masks what happens locally as well as how rates are paid differently by different customer classes. The numbers that they provided are the actual numbers for San Francisco 2002. You can take a look at tariff schedules and system average numbers, but it won’t tell you as much as you need to know.
On the rate reduction—the numbers that were used for 2003-2004 was based on what they filed as part of their plan of reorganization proceeding. The numbers that were shown in the chart that Mr. Bell displayed unfortunately included the GRC rate increase and then took the plan of reorganization rate decrease and assumed that that plan of reorganization decrease was a gross decrease. It was not. It was a net decrease which means it already considered the general rate case rate increase. In fact the number was taken from a prior proceeding. Now that net number is higher than the $350 million. The numbers were not meant to be added in the way they were added on that chart. The numbers that they used in their submission last week were based on the most current numbers that were presented in the regulatory proceeding.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman stated that she had a question regarding the Energy Commission forecast. She asked that Mr. Rubin comment on PG&E’s view or personal view of the validity of that forecast and its usefulness in terms of developing regulatory decisions.
Mr. Rubin asked in regards to power procurement decisions—the CEC’s forecast for power costs?
Alternate Commissioner Fellman stated or what the Commission is looking at with respect to evaluating whether or not it is feasible to recommend a takeover of the PG&E lines.
Mr. Rubin stated that as far as the forecast that was used in the pro forma in this study, they believe that those costs do not reflect what it would take to go out and procure power. One benchmark would be what power has cost in the short-term market. He agrees with Mr. Bell and wouldn’t advise anybody to lean on the short-term spot markets for power procurement. However, the numbers were put in there in order to provide a reference point relative to the three cents that was in the CEC simulation. The CEC’s study was based on assimilation which is different than a set of estimates of what it would really cost to go out and buy power. He would point out that the CEC also has an estimate of what it would cost to build a new combined cycle gas turbine facility that was referenced earlier. That estimate based on gas prices that were in effect at a prior point that are not as high as they are today was 5.2 cents a kilowatt hour.
The Modesto Irrigation District recently was given board authority to go out and buy power to fill its needs under a variety of different contracts. This is a public Board document that is available. The Board provided staff authority to go out and buy power subject to certain price caps. Those price caps were well above five cents a kilowatt hour. These were for ten-year contracts. He would not use the CEC’s simulation results as a basis for estimating what it would really cost to procure power under a variety of means either short-term supply, long-term contracts, or building your own power plants.
Mr. Bell stated at this point, he thinks it would be appropriate to take a look at the information that PG&E has provided in light of the discussion today and see if that compels them to make any changes in the analysis. With responsive data available, many of these questions may be cleared up.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman asked if Mr. Bell would be able to report back by the November 21 public hearing.
Mr. Bell stated it would depend on the extent of the data provided. If everything that they asked for is provided, one week may not be enough time. If it is partial, one week may be more than enough time. Without having a chance to look at what had been provided, it would be difficult to judge.
Public Comment
The following comments were made by members of the public.
Mr. Howard Ash, member of the PUC Rate Fairness Board, economist with 17 years of experience in the energy and utilities business. He had provided written comments and gave a presentation regarding his comments on the R. W. Beck report that are available at the Clerk of the Board’s Office and on the SFLAFCo website at http://www.sfgov.org/site/lafco_index.asp.
Chairperson Commissioner Gonzalez confirmed with Mr. Bell that he had received a copy of Mr. Ash’s letter.
Mr. Ash presented Mr. Bell with a copy of his written comments.
Mr. Bell stated that he had received a copy and had a chance to read through Mr. Ash’s letter once. There was a fair amount of detail and would like some time to consider the points that were raised. Mr. Ash’s comments would be addressed at the next public hearing.
Mr. Francisco DaCosta stated that the R. W. Beck Draft Study is a debate. In listening to this debate and attending the other meetings with CPUC, FERC, and the San Francisco Department of the Environment the situation cannot be addressed because of a lack of data. This jurisdiction lies beyond San Francisco and there comes the Jefferson transmission line. Right now, PG&E is having a difficult time addressing the situation. They have 280 clients who do not agree with the Draft Environmental Impact Report under the Jefferson Transmission line. This ongoing process is going to take years and is going to affect today’s discussion. It is not possible to address all the issues in three minutes, but he would like to address the history going back to the Raker Act. Those people at that time thought it best that we have clean water and hydroelectricity to meet demand. They initiated a bill and got PG&E in. PG&E got the monopoly and now we have to deal with PG&E. It will be difficult to deal with PG&E. They have been in the business for too long of a time and will not give in easily. The public needs more data and participation in the deliberations in every level if this is a public process.
Mr. Andrew Bozeman agreed that it appeared to be a debate. As he took a look at the numbers and assumptions, PG&E was not willing to supply the data. In the many meetings that had been held with the San Francisco Department of the Environment and PG&E, the data changed from meeting to meeting. He is concerned about the Hunter’s Point Power Plant with its ever-changing closing dates as they continue to push them more and more out into the future. They are getting money together to upgrade the plant so they can keep operating it. He has been to FERC meetings, CPUC meetings, and many meetings with all kinds of different people, including ISO people. He appreciated that the Commission is taking a major step in this area to clear up ambiguities to see what they really have going and what the opportunities would be.
One thing that PG&E mentioned is their intention toward renewable energy. But PG&E had always been resistant to renewable energy. It costs a bit of money to get the solar panels from Moscone hooked into the PG&E network, because they are not set up to accept that, and it doesn’t look like they are ready to accept it in the future.
Mr. Jim Chapell, President, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), a professional planner with a long background in power studies. He had consulted to many power companies, both municipal and private including SMUD, SDG&E, Sierra Pacific, East Bay MUD, Alaska Power Authority, and once for PG&E in 1977. He has personal knowledge of power generation and transmission systems and their economics. SPUR did a major study of the public power measures on the ballot a couple of years ago. The subject study is quite partial and there has not been enough work done to draw any conclusions. There are many questions and more questions than answers. The biggest red flag for him was on pages 27 and 28 where it says in the early years, the City may have to set rates above PG&E rates and the City would have difficulty maintaining a positive net income and rates competitive with PG&E. This is quite troubling. If the public is going to spend another million dollars on feasibility studies and somewhere between one and two billion dollars on a takeover we better be certain in this time of huge municipal budget deficits before we move ahead in that path. Clearly it isn’t—it is far from a sure thing.
He commended the Supervisors on dealing with a $350-million shortfall and stated that it would be harder next year as there is continuing uncertainty in the economy. There is an enormous bill to rebuild Hetch Hetchy. There is going to be an enormous bill on our sewer system. San Francisco General is going to have to be replaced. Prop A was just passed for the schools, but that is a small piece of what the school bill is going to be. That is going to be a three-year fix. The parks have hundreds of millions of dollars and it goes on and on. He believes it would be irresponsible to continue throwing money on something the voters have said they don’t want several times and is a high risk. It is really pursuing an old political agenda. The time for this has come and gone. PG&E went bankrupt for some very understandable reasons. If this had been the City and County of San Francisco, the City and County of San Francisco Power Energy would have gone bankrupt. He recommended that community aggregation should be definitely looked at, and that the responsible thing for this Commission to do would be to table further acquisition.
Mr. Hunter Stern, Electrical Workers IBW1245, representing utility workers in San Francisco and throughout northern California. In San Francisco, it is primarily PG&E employees, but there are employees that work for Mirant Corporation that generates electricity in Potrero. Throughout Northern California, it includes about 1500 members at 17 municipal utility districts or municipal utilities. They oppose a takeover of the PG&E distribution and transmission system in San Francisco. However, they have supported and continue to support the development by the City of generation facilities and community aggregation.
The comments on the R. W. Beck study are high-level comments. The study draft seems to have limited predicted value, which makes it difficult for the Commissioners to decide which way to go or how to proceed. There seems to be good assumptions—one about having to purchase all of the electricity is a good or realistic assumption. The other assumptions are around risk management, although they don’t agree with all of the specifics that are well worth the Committee’s review and consideration.
There was good debate about the cost—the 3 to 3½ cents per kilowatt cost are of interest. He knows it comes from the CEC. Their relationship and their contracts with energy providers like Mirant and two others that they represent who actually sell or are the sellers in these contracts--they are viewed that the contracts are much different and they don’t relate to what the CEC study indicates. He is not sure that anyone is right or wrong, but he is not sure that’s a reliable source of information. One other concern is the language in the conclusion and the economic financial feasibility section of long-run savings. There are some issues about how long that run is. If it is fifty years, then it is probably true. If it is fifteen years, then it may not be true. They would like to give some insight about PG&E. They often request and review information from PG&E. For two reasons PG&E information tends to be better. First, it is performance-based rate making requirements that the PUC put them under, and the second is response to public pressure like here in San Francisco.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin stated that he had not read the R. W. Beck study or PG&E’s response and R. W. Beck’s response to PG&E because he is an Alternate Commissioner. He stated that he sat on the Blue Ribbon Committee with Jim Chapell relative to exploring the feasibility of rebuilding and retrofitting the Hetchy system and did read every word of those documents that R. W. Beck prepared. That was a different set of economists and different set of players. That was work that they all found to be very good work and led the City down the path with Ms. Martel to floating the 1.3 billion dollar Hetchy water system bond. The last speaker spoke about the inherent bias of the consultant. The consultant in the past on a different subject area presented very good information, and he was part of the Committee that reviewed that information.
Mr. Landis Martila, Business Representative, IBW1245. His associate Mr. Stern gave a high-level view of the report. He stated that he would give a low-level view of the report from a lineman’s point of view. He was a distribution lineman in San Francisco for thirteen years, and currently represents the electrical workers in the City and County of San Francisco. The R. W. Beck report incorrectly identifies four kV circuits as comprising the majority of the overhead distribution lines in the City. That characterization is incorrect. The majority of overhead distribution lines in San Francisco are 12 kV distribution circuits. The authors go on in the report to state again on page 5 that this aging 4 kV system is at the end of its useful life and from both a physical and technological standpoint, the comment about the physical life of the distribution system. It’s true that the history of evolution of the distribution system is from lower to higher voltages.
In San Francisco, there was probably originally before his time a 2160 system. Then they went to 4000. Now there is primarily a 12000 volt distribution system. What happens in these systems is that the component parts have changed. The current 4 kV system in San Francisco is made up of transformers, pulls, insulators, wires, primary and secondary switches, protective systems. All of those component parts have been changed or scheduled to be changed over time, just like the 12 kV system. They just have a useful life and there is a rigorous inspection that is conducted by PG&E to maintain that system. That is what keeps the reliability relatively high here in San Francisco. He has worked on the 4 kV distribution system. It’s a robust effective system and it serves its identified load well in San Francisco. The system is complex and heterogeneous. It’s periodically upgraded. There’s this damage caused by third parties and there is this wear and tear by storm and vagaries of customer load, emergency load swapping. That has an impact on conductors.
What you can do yourself in terms of looking at the system out there--it’s almost color coded. Prior to 1970, transformers were dark-blue. Everything that you see that is light gray has been installed since 1970. If you look at insulators which have changed along with the conductors prior to 1970, brown insulators were used on the high and low voltage system. Now gray insulators are. If you look at the overhead system and you see gray, that means it is relatively new. If you see blue or brown, that means it’s relatively old.
Alternate Commissioner Peskin stated he had a question relative to the 12 kV versus the 4 kV system. PG&E had invested money into the current infrastructure--so you disagree with the macro level comment that the system is in great disrepair to the local distribution system?
Mr. Martila stated absolutely. They believe that the greatest problem a utility will face, and this has to do with operation and maintenance, is securing and maintaining a skilled workforce in San Francisco. PG&E has a designated San Francisco division workforce. He was formerly part of that, but it is augmented by a general construction workforce. There are also journey linemen. But they are a mobile workforce and they can be moved around the system where needed. In San Francisco you have a situation where only a minority of their San Francisco personnel lives here. That is really a function of housing costs. Their employees find houses they can afford to buy in outlying areas. They buy them there and they continue to work there. Eventually, their seniority allows them to get out.
Chairperson Commissioner Gonzalez recommended that the speaker submit the rest of his comments in writing.
Ms. Miller recommended that the November 21 SFLAFCo hearing be cancelled because of the extensive comments received today to give R. W. Beck the time to respond to the PG&E comments. January 9th or the 16th would be possible public hearing dates. We would continue to accept written comments through December 5 or extend the date.
Mr. Bell stated he would have to review the data received to determine whether he could respond by the next scheduled hearing date of November 21.
Chairperson Commissioner Gonzalez requested that a public hearing be scheduled in December.
Mr. Bell stated that would be more than enough time.
This item was continued to the Call of the Chair and to be placed on the agenda for a public hearing in December.
Alternate Commissioner Fellman suggested that written comments should be open until one week before the hearing date—December 5th or whichever date is later.