tv [untitled] December 30, 2013 2:00pm-2:31pm PST
malfunctioning whether a flicker or a dimming in the lighting because the lamp is getting rode to fail or a complete failure. the system will remotely tells us and we'll be able to role a truck. those are more efficient light they use less electricity and last up to 15 years so that should really help us extend the life as well of the fund we have available for street lights. we that won't be bowing and replacing lamps nearly as frequently as we are presently are. this slide shows you where we've done some led conversion of street lamps here in the city. we're at 2 hundred and 92. the full program role out is
pending some additional pilot work looking at the new extensions for control systems and looking at how the control systems work in san francisco with our high-rises. making sure when we in that case the investment in the remote wireless system it will be an efficient system >> when do you think the led conversion will be complete. >> we expect the process to be complete by march of 2014 and we'll begin the procurement process. at this point we're working with purchasing to prequalify some of the lamp fixtures while we continue to evaluate so by the spring of this year we'll be putting the bid out and receive bids and begin the project role
out. it will take about two years to complete the install depending on the method we use for that installation whether we hire a contractor or use local, you know, small business owner contractors or use on staff together with pe w >> so as far i've talked about the lights we own and control and operate. as i mention we're responsible for paying for the street lights services when the lights are owned by pg&e. so they own about 43 percent of the lights in san francisco but we pay for out of the puc's budget for the maintenance and control of those lights. pg&e is currently before the public utilities commission asking for a rate adjustment.
this is managed by the california pg&e and pg&e is requesting a 36.6 percent there for the charges in san francisco. that's as i mention that's pending all the hearings and the process is complete we're waiting for a decision from the california puc to know whether our funding will be increasing and those funds are to allow pg&e to recover their capital expenses. we're charged by pg&e a fee for distributing the electricity. all the lolts whether we own or they own them is power so we're able to minimize our costs of the supply component by
delivering our own kilowatt hours to those lights. we pay pg&e about $343,000 every year for the distribution component. and we also pay pg&e for transmission to the distribution level. when you look at that on an annual basis in 2013 we'll pay almost 2 million to pg&e for precision maintenance for those street lights that pg&e own in san francisco. if the rate increase goes forward it will be 2.6 million and that's another one of those connoting draws for the limited draw us we have. so when we talk about you how
much the puc pays for on street lights it's the 24 million there's funds that's for maintenance and repair and replacement >> supervisor kim. >> so this is just on the operations and maintenance. so we currently pay for the operation and maintenance of the pg&e lights >> correct we pay a tariff fee. >> and then cities that i pg&e an established fee for the street light maintenance. >> that's right established by the california ultsz commission. >> i'm sorry. i'm not obey clear. the fee we pay is based on the tariff that the c puc they think
we're going to pay so much to operate lights no san francisco so let's do a per lamp fee that's the tariff that puc adapts so then pg&e they bill the city per light based on that improved fee or tariff and on an annual basis under the existing rates a that's about $2 million of fees we pay >> why are we paying a tariff if we're paying for the operation and maintenance. >> the tariff is how we pay. >> i see. so in 516 we pay for the operation and maintenance you're referring to those tariffs >> yes. >> we're maintaining them.
>> and the lights we own we perform the work and pay for it the work that pummeling does - >> and their increasing that tariff for capital improvements for next year. >> that's my understanding. >> so why is pummeling going to take - why not we take ownership of the lights so there's no confusion i mean it's coming out of our city coffers. so where's thefully fair of taking on the capital costs >> yeah. so for example, when we were talking about the series loops. >> uh-huh. >> that organization and m charge does not cover the capital improvements necessary for those loops.
so if we were to take open ownership of those failing assets then we need to come up with the multiple millions of dollars to consortium them >> uh-huh. >> it comes down to where's the money going to come from in order to improve the performance. so at this point in time we don't have funds appropriated to meet that service obligation >> but if pg&e is going to be increasing or if they're asking for a rate increase because they know the capital improvement is more at some point it's going to come out of our budget we're covering that cost anyway are you suggesting that pg&e actually subsidies that with the tariff increase. >> i'm suggesting we don't have
the immediate funding capacity and if the hatch which he enterprise - we don't have the credit rating. >> so pg&e can borrow with the funding mechanism. >> at this point we don't have the funds in the bank to make the improvement. if we had the ability to borrow fund we could over cam come that huddle we wouldn't have to pay the miles up front. that's one of the solutions at a time sort of is on the horizon for us. we should be getting a credit rating we're working towards a credit rating this summer together with our cfo >> if they raise the costs and tariffs we're stale going to pay for it. >> yes. but we don't have to
pay for all of it. if pg&e raises the costs we don't have to pay the $20 million and it will be spread out in a fee over time which we can afford but not next july >> with the rate increase it's physical examinations plan they'll do a lump sum investment or are they going to be slowly improving it. >> they made recommendations at the cu puc they'll be able to make improvements but pg&e will be presenting i don't want to speak for them i can speak more about their capital improvement plans. >> presumably if the puc were to purchase the street lights
from pummeling there would be an elevation of the street lights and the amount of deferred maintenance presumably or that price would reflect the deferred maintenance. >> right the conversion of the system would be take into account and assigning a value to it so, yes. >> and when rates are set and the puc pays effectively it seems like it is supervisor kim has said puc is putting it up front is there some sort of effective interest rate that we can, tell? because obviously if their front the money i'm wondering if it end up cost the
puc more if it's not front. >> the answer a yes. pg&e easterners a return on the ones they own and we're funding the return. so, yes. yes >> seem like we should be looking for a way to uniform the street light under the puc. >> and then in terms of improvements recommendation an improvements we're looking at you know, i mentioned the fact we have all of our street maps in all our street lights are electronically vanilla to us and we have an assessment management tool around the street lights. we think that's important and helpful to have the same for
pummeling system. and that help us answer the question of who owns the lights. today what happens is we look to see if we own them and if we don't we assume pg&e owns them. we know what we own and have a very good record on our ownership of the street light assets. we also recommend that there be standards set for the levels of service regardless of the ownership. we've heard feedback from the businesses and small business owners it's frustrating to make a question for repair not know who is responsible and see the differences in the levels of service and commitment. we have been working with pg&e trying to come to agreement with them on levels of service
improvements on which we will have electronic mapping of their street light assets. we have not reached an agreement on that. we're also including a broadening of the 311 reported ability. we need to have visibility on the improvements that are being made. i as a manager look to the 311 system as a third party neutral on that. i think we don't have a good sense of the good improvements that pg&e has made. we don't have enough information to respond to the constituent questions we receive and finally, this funding we've been talking about throughout any presentation we've looked at establishing the left to right districts as one way of providing the funding services in san francisco.
we're also looking at the opportunity to utilizes generation bond. we have a program of improvements that we would recommended where we able to use general obligation funds to if you happened this, you know, safety service that the puc has been managing on behalf of city >> are street lights in the city 10 year capital plan? >> the street light are in the puc capital plan and in that way yes. >> okay. it seems like we as the city admiringly over the loose 6 years has become more methodical and organized around our capital needs. we've seen improvements around the parks and a whole variety of areas. it strikes three and 4 that street lights excuse me. are such a critical part of our
cities daily life. >> uh-huh. >> and that it's and they need to be priority tied in a more significant way. and so i apologize for my allergies. i hope we can move in that direction. i'm not being critical of the puc in terms of the choices i know you have to deal with a lot of capital needs but we haven't priority tied lighting needs >> thank you very much. we'll now hear from pg&e from mark and another gentleman >> good afternoon. i'm terry with pg&e i'm joined by terry
should has some information on our prevail data. i'll take boarder discussion. starting off in san francisco we recognize pg&e how important street lights are. we've made some real major changes since last year we show our commitment with the city one of the things is the development of some clear standards and expectations how lights have repaired. i've been working with staff personally to put that together and we're close to getting it wrapped up. to repair 90 percent of all simple outages within 5 days. the actual data she's about 5 days and 75 percent within thirty days that require permits and much for comprehensive work.
in turn pg&e is trying to identify places to be more efficient. we've done that in our operations. so i'm going to quickly bring terry up to show the improvements that have been made quarter by quarter and i'll talk about more broader considerations >> do you have copies of the slides by chance. >> we do. >> if not can you e-mail them to us. >> no problem. i want to talk about our street light performance response. i can tell by the data we've significantly improved after all performance in inform. in the first quarter we're in the 50 percent we put more focus and we're at an average of
repair time for 3 days. we also have we've improved our staffing we staff 7 days a week and those requests that come in as far as street light burn out. we work within the 311 system as well to, you know, process those requests and enter them into our internal system as well >> i want to give pg&e go and i've been critical but i really want to give pg&e credit they've been mrechlt the 311 system that's been helpful in the response time. >> as you look at the improvements to maintain they don't suffice we've made replac
80 lights. those lights are going to be replaced. so ms. hails point those are $35,000 per light. you're running brand new conduit and you're putting in brand new lights and that's expensive. in many cases it's hard to excavate so we're going to work p with pe w. we do our own replacements. so the construction you'll have 15 more loops left >> as mentioned with year moratorium and that's when the street is being torn up four work and resacrificed this is a 5 year moratorium i don't come in 5 months later so when puc puts out the word pg&e will come
in with the gas line and is that also true of street light work in terms of following the pavement you don't tear up new streets. >> yes. each project is announced you can see the timing of the work. the problem comes when we change the order of a street light repair depending on safety public inputs we might asks for more to your memory. we're looking at reporters to 17th street and cap that's into the district 6 and then some limited work in district 8 which that doesn't have any loops. the idea is in this program all that deferred maintenance should be complete.
that's the majority of the work. at $34,000 per light that's $40 million of investment by pg&e. supervisor kim's mentioned the money is there and it will be updated in the next 3 to 5 years. going back to level of service expectations i've taken the lead and we've established what pg&e is going to do and share data and communicate with the city and the puc to make clear to resident who's responsible for what kind of work. most outages will be reward in thirty days pg&e is going to do the mapping by location so we can identify who owns what.
that means the one day or two days of back and forth. the cause of the out age all those are things will be part of the data set we'll give the city to inform the city broadly and a hour we're responding. that gives u gives you more clarity in the operational news and bring the san francisco employees out to take the of our data we see the reliability in repairs are taking longer that's because pg&e trouble men are being sent to other areas to repair damage by floods and storms and finally, the last
thing is to do frequent meetings with puc and puc staff to make sure we're aligned with major initiative. are there structural communication with either party making the repair of street light it difficult if the answer is yes we're going to get together to solve those. we weren't communicating very well and to put the people together in the field so they can hash out the issues before they become citywide issues >> where are the current soft spots. while we've made major improvements in cooperating there are things that are difficult one fact is the system we log outages. per diem has their own system
for the 15 million customers we operate differently we do duplicate repairs so when an outage comes in it will go to the city and we close it in our system and 311. unfortunately, it's often down so people can't log it in it maybe done in december 1st and it might be out until the 7 letting. it's not an issue from a data and reporting standpoint it miss categories the work that's being done >> i know last year you discussed or we discussed physical examinations database in terms of all the street light locates is that included in the
database observe talking about not everybody everything was in an electronic format. >> the way it works is most of what pg&e side is on paper plat mats. it's even further complicated because the soft of different nature of the bill. the self-puc appraise maintenance and operation services that's in the basically format there's another system being built to accommodate the lights that's for the slow movement. as i said our target is to get the work done by 2014 and to give the city a format so search for the street lights >> just in the big picture does it make sense to have two
entities for half-and-half of the street lights. >> not at all. i think one of the things people have said before pg&e level try to streamline on the process nate's that's not true. and then to look at the idea of having a single person. the idea of a single owner provides the best service. so based on any process improvement it's an ownership issue. we recognize that and we're happy to look at the format to industrial the process. to that point one of the things we've talked about the opportunity to take a look at the puc where they own a majority of the street lights and can we find a way for the puc to acquire 5 percent of the lights in district 3 that gives into parties a chance to a
address the issues there. those generally aren't the up front capital fund. those are the things i've discussions with the puc general manager on and we'll be discussing >> i understand that recently pg&e soiled it's street lights is in the city of richmond is it true. >> right. >> then richmond became the sole provider. >> it's the same issue if a city believes they can provide a better serve we're happy to have a discussion. we haven't gotten a great deal even if information but from our standpoint we have an obligation to get the costs but we don't intend to profit at all. we're happy to have that discussion >> can you comment on discussed
before the puc the need or importance of moving towards integrating lighting and comment where pummeling is towards the. >> one of the difficulties is most the lights we own are on wooden poles beyond street lights. those are distributions powell's poles our people have to climb so on the distribution of the policies there can be no impediments so that precludes a second light. we've contacted the staff about solutions of led lights are are focused back to the pedestrian areas. those are special facilities are don't believe they're more