Board of Public Utilities - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We'd like to welcome you to the Board of Public Utilities. This meeting is called to order. We will now play the inclusion statement.

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order of Business Resolution, the members of all Boards and Commissions and the public are reminded that they must preserve order and decorum throughout the meeting. In that regard, members of the Boards and Commissions and the public are advised that any delay or disruption in the proceedings or a refusal to obey the orders of the Board or Commission or the Presiding Officer constitutes a violation of these rules. The City of Riverside is committed to fostering a workplace that provides dignity, respect, and civility to our employees, customers, and the public they serve.

Rebecca, will you lead us in the pledge? Yes. Please stand. Roll call, please.

Good evening, board members. Board member Wright. Here. Board member Goldberg. Here. Board member Rand. Here. Board member Montgomery. Here. Board member Evans. Here. Board member Becker. Here. Board member Cruz.

Here.

Vice chair Wolgenmuth. Here. Chair Sayana. Here. Thank you.

We will now move to public comments.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

No callers? OK. Thank you. So for item number two, there's nothing noted for the sustainability update for this evening. For item number three, I'll ask our board members if anyone has any conflicts of interest to disclose on our agenda.

OK.

Seeing none, we will now move to the consent calendar. Does anyone wish to pull an item on our consent calendar?

I'll move approval.

second please vote motion passes unanimously thank you thank you we will now move to the discussion calendar we will now open for public comment for item 8

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

And we call for a presentation of item number eight by Kelly Murillo.

Good evening, Chair Cianna and members of the board. My name is Kelly Murillo. I'm the Utilities Principal Resources Analyst in the Strategic Initiatives Division. It is my pleasure today to present the Energy Storage Rebate Program, our first program under the Public Benefits Fund Spending Plan that was approved by board a few months ago and city council last month. As you know, RPU is required by state law to charge customers a public benefits charge with funds to be used for energy efficiency and energy conservation. The bill that initiated the programs was Assembly Bill 1890, passed in 1996. Public benefits funds must be used for energy conservation and efficiency, new renewable energy, low-income assistance or research development and demonstration. RPU began collecting these funds in January of 1998. Further, in 2015, Senate Bill 350 required the state and public utilities to establish annual targets for energy efficiency savings and demand reduction consistent with the state's goals to reduce both energy consumption and overall demand. As I noted at the start of the presentation, the residential energy storage rebate program is the first program that was recommended by RPU's community working group that was approved by both board and council. As you can see here, this will be the first of the spend down of the $34 million that we had in reserves. The additional programs will be coming to you by the end of the year, with a few coming in the next month or so. The only exception is the residential battery storage and solar demand response pilot program. That program will take a little bit longer to get through the program design and the request for proposal process. The program that is before you this evening is a new program. It's a rebate for energy storage systems. It aligns with the three primary goals from the working group spending plan. First, to maximize the benefit of existing programs, such as our air conditioning rebate, heat pump rebate, electrified riverside program, and the self-generation rate, as well as time of use rates. Second, a program that allows customers to store renewable generation from the middle of the day and use it during peak hours and or during a power outage. And third, ensuring that the rebate is meaningful for customers yet represents a cost-effective and fair use of the public benefits funds. To design this program, staff undertook the standard review of available technology, compared the program to other utilities, and completed analysis that I will go over on the next slide. Finally, the team designed the program. Energy storage, primarily batteries, don't result in a savings of energy but result in a more efficient use and conservation of renewable energy that allows daytime solar to be stored and used at times when electric use is at its peak, thus reducing peak use. The methodology that RPU would follow needed to be identified. Staff relied on the methodology that was developed by the CPUC or California Public Utilities Commission in 2025, but used RPU specific data inputs into the methods to determine the rebate amounts. That met the cost effectiveness standard that is used for public benefits funds. As shown here, it is based on avoided costs for load shifting, both for generation assets, bringing electricity into the city as well as the avoided costs or delaying of distribution system upgrades. The value was then adjusted over time and for battery degradation. We included the full methodology as an attachment to the staff report. We wanted to provide you with the rigorous methods used to develop this program since it had been asked by a few of the board members. There we go. The result of this analysis was the avoided cost for RPU, thus the value, was $465 per kilowatt hour for the battery to be installed. For the program, staff is recommending that the rebate amount be set at $500 per kilowatt hour for the battery. If you assume the standard battery capacity of a 13.5 kilowatt hours and an average system cost of about $14,000, we do know that battery pricing is variable depending on the brand, size, capacity, market conditions, and that's actually installed for each of these systems. It does result in a rebate of about $6,750 for that traditional system, and it covers almost half of the total system cost. We wanted to include, and I'm not going to read everything on the slide, some other value propositions from the other public utilities or even private utilities that are offering battery storage programs. As shown here, these rebates can be anywhere from up to the maximum amount. Some of them don't really have a kilowatt per hour dollar savings. They just have a maximum amount based on whatever battery size or if there's an approved vendor or technology. on the total incentive amount to help manage the program costs or value the rebates. The investor-owned utilities offer battery storage rebates as well, and they range anywhere from $150 per kWh to $1,500 per kWh for low-income programs. But it is highly dependent on which utility in the state of California that you look at. Rounding out the RPE residential energy storage rebate program is this summary slide that identifies the key components of this program. We propose a program budget of $5 million to start with an expectation that this will be spent down within five years. The rebate amount is $500 per kilowatt hour capacity for all customers with $850 per kilowatt hour for low-income residential that may have solar on this. This would allow them to apply for a rebate for a larger system than the typical 13.5 kilowatt hours. The maximum rebate potential is up to $10,000 per rebate. $17,000 for low income, not to exceed total project cost, with a limitation of one rebate per year. If the customer is moved from a property, the initial system installed would remain with the prior... Hold on. Okay, the customer could apply again if they moved, basically. We will make this program retroactive to July 1st, 2026. So customers that will have already installed battery storage systems could expect this program to go into play. There would be a rebate for them. No restrictions on a brand or type or energy storage system. We're technology agnostic. While most energy storage systems for residential use are batteries or battery energy storage, we do have some other technologies that are being developed, like IceBear, and there's also some thermal energy storage. Which is a thermal shift and it allows for it could be very cost-effective, but some of these only target air conditioning loads And they have smaller key kilowatt-hour savings or load shifting amounts and so it would be based on nameplate capacity we are not proposing any restrictions on the kilowatt-hour capacity of the equipment and Eligibility is basic for any customers with existing solar, new solar, standalone can apply for this, but they do have to be residential customers and have the ability to apply for the rebate. Right now, multifamily does not apply, because we have to work on these rates, and it'll be part of our virtual net energy metering, and we'll be considering in the future. Customers must also switch to the applicable time of use rates, whether it is our self-generation or our domestic time of use rates, in order for both of them to realize the time of use for the cost savings that result and encourage peak demand reduction. Some of the benefits, this program has a number of benefits utilizing the public benefits funds. It's a direct benefit to residential customers. It will offer and provide RPU peak reduction and peak shaving. The rebate can be combined with other existing rebates. And again, we have no restrictions on the type of energy storage or the system sizing. We do have a few next steps. Marketing and outreach of this program will begin. This will include not only notifying our residential customers and doing outreach to those that have already installed the battery, that meets the requirements as far as the time and go-live date. We will be doing our outreach to our single-family residential customers and providing information on how a battery can benefit the customers and the entire system. We're also going to be researching commercial energy storage rebate program. But eventually, we will have some multifamily and small commercial, large commercial We just need to do a bit more analysis on this. These costs could vary greatly in terms of rebate potential. We have to develop a demand response program, which we're going to be working on, and other programs from the spending plan. And we have to track and assess this program and program outcomes. We recommend that the fund carry out Riverside's responsibilities under the program, making minor non-substantive changes to the program and execute future amendments to the rebate program incentive amounts under substantially similar terms. Again, that is to ensure that the program is working appropriately. And with that, I'm available to answer any questions. We also have additional staff for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have any public comment? Okay, no callers. Any comments or questions from the board? Tom, please.

Okay, is this thing turned on? Yes. Okay. One real thing, real quickly, as I recall, the prior time this came to, when we actually didn't put on the agenda, but it was on and off, the recommendation was $750 for low income, and now it's $850. So was I wrong about that?

I apologize. I have laryngitis, but I believe we have always had it at 850.

Okay. Could you describe the profile of the customers that you think would most likely benefit from this program?

Good evening. Ryan Gleason from the Customer Engagement Group. I don't think there's any one category of customer that's probably going to benefit more than any other. Really, I think what this program aims to do is to make any solar customer in the city more effective in their conservation and load shifting capabilities. where it's really going to help is i think on the city side helping us manage our demand during peak times and also on the customer side anybody that's that's on a domestic time of use rate that has those time differentiated rates is going to benefit by being able to discharge their battery during those on peak times so i don't think there's one specific customer class but any solar customer that's on those time of use rates is going to benefit from the program

Okay, well that's a category because they're non-solar customers. Sure, yeah. So the marketing initially will be just to those who have already installed solar?

already installed solar and new solar customers. It is possible for a non-solar customer to participate in this program. They're just not going to get a whole lot of benefit of it because you're essentially charging it with the utilities energy and then discharging it during peak times. So there might be a little bit of savings, but it's really either existing or future solar customers that are going to benefit from that.

But you have to be on time of use.

You have to be on time of use, correct. So you can be a non-solar customer, go to a time of use rate, and participate in the program. But it's really going to be the most benefit to a solar customer.

OK. Yeah.

OK. Christian? OK. Pete?

I thank you for the fine presentation. Just to get this straight, this is like approval at the highest level. So we're setting up the program, and we're designating the authorities, and we're setting aside the money from the public benefit funds, but there's a lot of details that still need to be worked out. Is that correct?

So the program has been developed. We already actually have drafts or pretty close to final all of the agreements, the customer agreements, everything that needs to go in place. The website is under development. So as soon as it goes to city council, this will be able to be launched and be live as soon as we have full approval.

Okay. So it's pretty much shovel ready.

Yes, it is.

Okay. That's good. So, okay. Hopefully the response will be overwhelming. And the problem with an overwhelming response is that the funds get exhausted very quickly, kind of like the heat pump program. which was way more popular than anybody understood. So is there a backup plan to commit extra monies to this program above and beyond the $5 million?

So again, I should have introduced myself before, Tracy Sotto, Assistant General Manager of Strategic Initiatives. So this program is $5 million. It may not last the full five years. As we go through this next year and look at all of our existing programs that basically will spend all of the income that we receive each year, We will have to, and the board and the council and the community are going to have to make decisions. Is this the program that would take the place of something else? Because once we have the spending plan and the programs that we already have, all dollars are expended. And so if we want to move money into this program, because it's successful, we would have to take money away from another program. But that's a decision that can be made with plenty of forewarning so that we can make sure successful and beneficial programs are continued to be offered with these public benefit dollars.

Okay. The reason I ask is that compared to some of the other utilities that you mentioned, the terms here seem pretty attractive. And that's good for a marketing standpoint, but I'm just worried about is it enough money? Are we going to need to come back in a year and, oh, well, the program was wildly successful, and now we will need to try to commit more money. And I guess there's no way to know until it happens, but hopefully a balance will be struck there. All right, sounds like a good program. Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you. Christian?

Just a couple questions on the marketing side. When you're doing the outreach, are you going to market in different languages? Will the website be in a different language as well? Additionally, in terms of the marketing strategy, are you going to work with CBOs to get the information out to potential beneficiaries of this program?

So again, and I want to thank Kelly. He's pinch-hitting for me this evening, so sorry. We will be marketing this in Spanish and English is how we typically market. We will make all of our programs also available in any language as requested. and our website is able to be translated into almost any language that anybody speaks in our community. But again, we also have staff on call that we can reach out to to provide information the information in any language going forward. We will also, as we reach out, once we launch the program, we will be giving presentations at a lot of our different community meetings. We can reach out to community-based organizations, CBOs, And we also want to reach out specifically to some of our low income communities that recently received, through a grant, received solar. And so they would also be eligible for this if they wanted to expand and utilize the low income benefit to the program.

Thank you.

Okay, I have a couple of comments. I'm very interested in this. I think it's going to be, I don't, I'm excited about the possibility of this actually over time shaping our load a little bit. I really like that there's a maximum. They didn't just put a dollar per kilowatt hour. I know people who have 50 kilowatt hours in their garage. It's insane. I'm glad we're not gonna pay for all that. I suspect that we probably overestimated the benefit, the dollar per kilowatt hour benefit. I don't know. I don't know that we have these tiered time of use rates. And so I think the first tiers, there's not much difference in pricing. And so I think it doesn't have to be dramatic. I think people don't have to, you know, have the battery discharging down to zero in order to get a lot of the financial benefit of it. They have different settings. You can run these batteries in backup settings where it's barely discharging and it's there for you in case there's a power outage or something like this. Maybe people will want to do that to preserve the battery. There's options when you install these things, so maybe people will do that. I do think the benefit will rise significantly because I suspect the time of use rates are gonna be more dramatic between the different times going forward. I don't know that for sure. We have to talk about that soon. I'm more interested in the accumulation of this over time. That's very interesting to me. Are we going to be monitoring the usage of these customers over time to see if they're actually taking advantage of it?

So that is part of the annual review of the program. We're going to be continuously monitoring this program.

Okay, yeah, thanks. That would be very interesting to me. And then, yeah, to Pete's point, I'm glad we'll be reviewing this annually because I think maybe, hopefully, this will get cheaper with time, not just because of technology, but just because the contractors will be There'll be more of them, more practice, and so on. Anyway, all of my comments were minor quibbles because I think it might be a little bit different, but I don't know. I'm just really interested because I don't know, and I don't think you guys fully know how this is going to go, and it's just very interesting. But I'm excited about it. Okay, I'll shut up. Any other?

Tom? Real quick question. If you use the 10,000 as the limit, that's only 500 customers that would burn through 5 million, right? Correct. So that's not very many. I mean, when you think of how many solar customers do we have?

I'm trying to remember how many we have right now.

I mean, order of magnitude, 20,000?

Approximately. I know we have about 68 megawatts. How many? 6,800. 6,800? Yes. So 10%, only 10%.

Adoption rate is going to burn through five million dollars So I think I think we're going to hopefully be here talking fairly short period of time assuming the marketing is is aggressive and successful But it seemed to me a pretty easy Number to achieve considering the total population I Think we'll spend that money past which is good. I

We shall see. This is the thing, right? You have to pick a date, put your best numbers forward and make the call. It's very interesting. Other comments or questions?

You should never make a pool with government employees. They get to dictate the timing on it. But I'll move the item after Ryan.

I just wanted to kind of address the number of customers. I kind of envision this the way our solar rebates worked back in the day when we had them. We started out very, very high. we had like $4 a watt, and it would decline over time as systems got cheaper, greater adoption. So I kind of foresee this following a similar pattern. You know, we may be up here next year recommending that it goes down to $300 a kilowatt hour or $250. So I see it following a very similar pattern to that, Tom.

Yeah.

Okay, now I have another comment. I took advantage of that solar when it was $2.25 per watt. And at the time, it was by far the highest in the country. And it opened on June 1st, and you had to apply, and it evaporated in a week. And I was like, okay, that means it's too high. And I hope we don't repeat that. Like if we find out, you guys were bringing it down, just not fast enough. And I got a huge benefit, like really extraordinary benefit because of it at the time. So I hope we adjust quickly. So anyway. You're welcome. I move the item. I second. Okay. Thank you.

Please vote. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now open for public comment for item number nine.

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

Okay, we call for presentation of item number nine by Robert Ennis.

Good evening, Chair Sayana and members of the board. Robert Ennis, Legislative Affairs Manager for Riverside Public Utilities. Tonight, I'll provide a brief overview of several legislative proposals we're monitoring that could impact RPU. The legislature is expected to adjourn in late August, so these bills are still moving through the process and may continue to evolve. Several themes have emerged this session. Affordability remains a top priority, particularly around electric and water rates. Reliability continues to drive conversations around resource adequacy and grid planning. And as California continues to decarbonize, we're also seeing increased attention on emerging technologies like hydrogen and on rapidly growing electric loads such as data centers. This evening, I'll briefly touch on each of these major issues and their potential impacts on RPU. Wildfire liability continues to be one of the biggest long-term policy issues facing California utilities. And while there wasn't major reform this year, discussions continue around utility liability standards, financial risk, and who ultimately bears the cost of catastrophic wildfires. Although RPU is not an investor-owned utility, any changes to wildfire liability policy will affect insurance markets, financing costs, and ultimately customer rates. Next is advanced clean fleets. AB 1436 was a bill that responds to CARB's proposed expansion of advanced clean fleets regulation to contracted private fleets that provide services for public agencies. This bill has actually failed, essentially, so it's not moving forward. But for RPU, this issue is less about fleet ownership and more about operational flexibility, contractor availability, emergency response, and potential compliance costs. Data center development has become one of the legislature's fastest growing areas of focus. Several bills seek to improve planning and transparency as California experiences significant growth in electricity-intensive data centers. For utilities like RPU, the discussion centers on increasing water and electric demands, infrastructure planning, and ensuring that future costs are allocated appropriately. Hydrogen continues to receive legislative attention as California looks for additional clean firm resources. SB 1350 will make certain green hydrogen resources eligible under the Renewable Portfolio Standard, expanding future compliance options. And this bill is passed, actually. So that's a win for California. And while hydrogen is still an emerging technology, it could eventually provide additional long-duration reliability and procurement flexibility. AB 2180 would modernize how Proposition 218 applies to water rates. This bill largely codifies recent court decisions while providing additional certainty for utilities when developing rate structures. For RPU, greater legal certainty could reduce litigation risk and provide additional flexibility during future rate-setting processes. Finally, water affordability continues to receive significant attention this year. SB 1125 and AB 2739 would establish a statewide framework for water rate assistance. If enacted, these proposals could create new funding opportunities while helping low-income customers maintain access to safe and reliable drinking water. That concludes my update. Staff recommends that the Board receive and file this legislative update and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, send the caller through, please.

Hi, good evening, Melissa McKeith. A couple of follow-up questions. Has there been discussion at the staff level or at City Hall about siting of data centers in our city? And perhaps we could get a little bit more detail on what, if anything, is being contemplated. The issue has arisen about the fact that RPU has a significant amount of unused water rights on its book. We highlighted that recently in our urban water management plan. And there's also quite a bit of land that RPU owns up, for example, Pelletier. And so, you know, I'm not suggesting that this is really going on, but there certainly has been some gossip by people that RPU is really angling to develop a data center. Personally, I don't believe that that's true, but I'd certainly like to hear where we are in that process. Secondly, perhaps if Mr. Ennis could provide a little bit more detail on what the bill dealing with Prop 218 actually would do if it is passed in terms of our upcoming water rate changes. And finally, with respect to the water rates, You'll have another item later, and I'll speak to you, but as we use less water because of conservation as a California way of life, that is going to generate less revenue for RPU, which again leads to the question, so are we going to do something with our water, lease it to Western, find a large developer who uses a great deal of water? How are we going to supplement the monies that you need or the general fund monies that our city siphons off of the water rate? I look forward to talking with you later. Thank you.

A couple things. One, to Ms. McKee's point, does the city have a position on data centers? Slash are we taking a position from a policy perspective?

To my knowledge, the city doesn't have an official position on data centers. From time to time, as customers come in, regardless if they're a data center or some other business, we evaluate the electric load and the water availability for those types of businesses. But Board Member Goldware, right now, I'm not aware of an official position by the city on data centers.

So I posit that to this board if we want to have a discussion about it. There are benefits. There are data centers within the confines of the utilities territory now. With that said, they serve the people within the territory that are being served. Um, it's not coming from into large other, uh, outside of our territory, uh, geography. So I posit that for staff from staff's perspective up to the CM's office, there should be a conversation about it. Um, because in addition to the load on the electric side, there's obviously to miss Mickey's point, the water, um, Robert, when you, and I'm not asking you to necessarily do it now. I would be interested if there are. But there are some programs in here that will have fiscal impacts. And I just wonder where the state's getting the money.

So that's particularly with the water rate assistance program. That's something that still has to be kind of worked out. And that's honestly what has kind of killed the bill in the past is that there's always does. Right. So right now, there hasn't – it's still a work in progress, and whether or not they make a deal in this last month is going to determine whether or not this bill passes. I don't – you know, we've been doing this for so long with this, I have no idea if they're going to – You're not holding your breath. Yeah.

Fair. And I just wonder, and somebody would have to look at actual load versus accounting the money, any conservation that does happen versus the increase in humans and stuff that we take out in load probably balances or comes pretty darn close. So we're not saving any water. People are conserving, but we've added new people and those people take water. So I just, I wonder how far off what that delta is. So that's it. Thank you for the update. Thank you for like in like where I can see it. Thank you.

Thank you. Tom?

Thank you. Why does a data center use what appears to be a lot of water?

Cooling.

But they're not using one through cooling, are they? I'm not. I mean, they recycle the water in the system.

It depends on the data center. They still, because of the heat, a lot of the water evaporates, and they don't always collect the steam. There's a lot of different technologies that data centers use, and it would really be dependent on what was designed here, how much water it would take.

Okay, because again, back to the question whether the city has taken a position, in some respects, locating a data center next to the city's recycling plant would be an ideal location. That would be a good use for that recycled water. We're not always talking about automatically being potable. They might be a good electric load. So I guess it seems to me that you ought to be thinking about, or we ought to be prepared to say it's not all con. There are pros. And so do we have that? Do we have a sheet that says here's the pros and cons for a data center in Riverside?

I'm not aware of one, but that could be something that we develop. I can work on that with the city. We'd have to work on that with the city.

Can I ask a clarifying question? Are you talking about why people would want to develop one in the city or why we would, for lack of a better phrase, permit them?

Well, I guess the answer is yes to both. The city ought to have a position that says, here are the circumstances under which we think a data center would be a good would be good versus automatically the way this is written. No, it's not the way this is written. I take that back. But generally speaking, when people talk about data centers, it's something bad. And in some locations, it turns out to be bad. I mean, the public policy or the community votes no. But there are circumstances where they will be good and they are inevitable. So it seems like tonight we're not going to solve this problem, but I don't feel good about acting like just because they use water, that's not good. Because in fact, there are uses where it would be a beneficial use.

You make a good point, Board Member Evans, that to my knowledge, it isn't a sheet or a term or any analytics that I've done. There hasn't been any deep dives into what data centers could bring pro or con to the city. And I agree that discussion needs to be had. And that's something that I can work on with the city manager's office, at least to get that discussion going. Okay.

Yeah, I think that's an important point. In other words, people are going to do it to us if we're not prepared. Correct.

And I also wanted to say, with regard to the way that things might have been framed in the report, I'm completely agnostic about data centers because I don't I am not familiar or aware of anything that the city is doing, and whatever is going to help Riverside is what I'm supportive of. The state, however, is grappling with these issues because it's an emerging area, and people are kind of getting fights. They're kind of getting... surprised by the you know the considerable electric and water demands and they're trying to kind of get a wrap on it so that everyone feels comfortable through transparency having these in their communities and if into transparency which is a lot of what these measures are doing people will be familiar with what it's going to take to make these something that people can bring to their communities

Well, right. And I think that's all the more reason to have thought it through from a city of Riverside, RPU point of view. And like I say, there might be circumstances where a data center is the right thing to do. So I have a question on a different subject. I mean, within this context.

Yeah. You know, we didn't agendize a data center conversation, but we can suggest that at the end.

Well, I mean, it's on the sheet right here. No, no, I understand.

I'm saying that we should, in the end, at the end of this meeting, suggest a later agenda item to discuss. Okay. And it would be great. And go ahead with your other.

And then with respect to 218. What is our position with respect to the changes that we would like to see in 218?

Well, we don't have a specific position. However, the principles that are, you know, for 218, the AB 2180, I'm sorry, on the weight reform for 218, those are generally – let me see if I can get it back.

Yeah.

Those are generally positive for RPU. Now, I'm not familiar with the rate setting process here, but in my talks with Brian, the policy that is being outlined in AB 2180 is positive for Riverside.

OK, and what are those?

Well, greater rate setting certainty, fewer lawsuits, more having the certainty that when you are going through your rate setting process that we're not going to get jammed up, or having our rates overturned through a lawsuit is one of the reasons, or among the reasons.

Okay, I mean, so like the preservation of tiered rates or the non-preservation of tiered rates is not something that's within our advocacy with respect to how 218 would affect that.

Well, I mean, I'm sorry, you're asking if we're advocating or we're supportive of this? Yes, we are. But we don't have a specific position from the city. We're working through our respective stakeholder groups in support of AB 2180.

And if I may, again, Tracy Sotto, AGM, over strategic initiatives. The city council has not taken a position on this particular bill. So when we advocate, it's pros and cons of what the impacts would be on the bill. We have agencies that we work with that can take a position on this bill. And, Robert, are they in support? Yes. Yes, right now they are. ACWA in particular, yes.

They are supportive of the bill. Pretty much every municipal stakeholder group is supportive of 2180. ACWA, CSDA, CMUA, they're all supportive of the bill.

So those are the California Municipal Utilities Association, California Special Districts Association, the Association of California Water Agencies. These are groups that represent or are involved with various water agencies or utilities throughout the state.

Okay. And then the final question is, which is not on this list, and I've asked about this before, what about Prop 2, I mean, the public benefit charge has been around a long time. And I believe we're getting to the point of diminishing returns on what money can be spent on. So is there any bill or any process where we look at the possibility of changing the rate, having more flexibility on when it's charged, how it's charged? Is there any process for that?

At this time, there are no bills in this legislative session. We haven't seen any legislation other than to add additional requirements around the public benefits dollars as far as reporting goes. I will say there has been a very strong look at it under the California Public Utilities Commission. to look at public benefit, well, basically customer programs, and what their impact is on electric rates in the investor-owned utilities. Typically, when something happens at the investor-owned utilities at the CPUC, it'll trickle through to other agencies. The CEC is also looking at this, but we haven't seen any proposed legislation or any proposed changes to the program right now. Most utilities are very supportive of keeping the public benefit dollars because they do provide programs for their customers, for all of their customers. We haven't taken a position on that, nor has the city council at this point. And our position would simply be a pro or con, depending on where the city council wanted to go with it.

And there haven't been any bills this session. I'm not aware of any regulatory, because it's law now, so it would be a regulatory issue to make changes to the program within the current structure of the program. I'm not aware of any regulatory efforts to do that at all.

No, and I haven't seen any legislation that would direct the CEC to create additional regulations around this, very limited regulations on what we have to do as far as reporting goes. But it would take legislative change at this point to change what the public benefit dollars are, how they're charged, and what they're used for.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Just a comment. I do agree with Member Goldware. We should have a discussion on data centers. Also would like that agendized. The reason I say that is because I was at a data center community impact discussion at Caltech. I'm going to send that to our our staff here so they could distribute to this body because it's very informative and it was a long day panel and they discussed it. Monterey Park went through a significant issue on data centers and that's something we should definitely avoid. So having that conversation sooner rather than later would be ideal. But I will share that it's the Linn Center for Sustainability hosted it and I'll share those links for everybody here.

Thank you. On 2180, on Prop 218, it hasn't been officially said, and I'm not used to reading the legalese in the bill, but it sounds like, at least under certain justifications, this is being done to try to preserve at some level the ability to charge tiered rates. Yes. Okay. And we don't have a stance on that? I feel like a lot of people in the room have a stance on this, but there hasn't been a... coordination with City Council to try to come to some agreement on what that is there there has not there hasn't been a discussion at that level there you know with with our tiered water rights that we have there there is litigation out there that that is

that is overturning to your water rights. So that's something that we're watching closely, especially as we bring to you the cost of service analysis for the water system. That was something that will be evaluated by our consultants, our legal folks, and brought here to your attention.

All right, just to change the cost of service analysis. Right. Yeah, okay. Okay?

My presentation, a couple comments. First of all, big props to you for synthesizing all this stuff going on. Thank you. With the laundry list that you presented, it was incredible to me that you're saying that this is a a low volume year for bills of any kind coming through the legislature. So it still seems like we're drinking from a waterfall.

There's a lot. And wildfire, because at the beginning of the session, or the beginning of this year, there was a real push for wildfire liability reform. And I guess over the last couple of months, the last few months, they've realized that it's not going to get done this year. So there were hearings and a lot of talk. But the ball is still rolling, because they know they have to get this. But this is also an election year. So I think that maybe after this year, maybe next year, or sometime in the next session, the next two-year session, we might get some kind of real reform. But we're just kind of getting our arms wrapped around it because you know changing inverse condemnation would be a really big thing right so but that's really that was really what took a lot of bandwidth earlier in the year because yeah I noticed that in the report and the documentation in the the appendices here

One comment for you, Robert. You know your stuff. Thank you. You need to slow down. You talk too fast. You talk faster than I can think. So it's hard to guess. I mean, it's good that I read all the background stuff and was pretty familiar with the presentation. But man, you go fast. All right. The new people on the board are going to hate me. Well, the old people on the board are going to hate me, because I bring this up every year, every time. Why is this important to the board, the people sitting here on the dais? Because this is part of our report card. We said that we would be more engaged in upcoming legislation and following it and, where possible, suggesting advocacy. And sometimes it seems like Robert's leading us, but we're not either responding or we're certainly not on the breaking wave of this. We're like learning this for the first time, myself included here. So we need to probably do a better job. And I agree with the comments put forth so far that data centers are a huge thing coming forward. And we need to have something where the board can weigh in on this, not just passively take what other people tell us and kind of roll with it after the fact. We need to be involved. at a higher level. And the whole 218 thing with tiered rates is huge. And we need to understand how this is going to affect RPU into the future, whether tiered rates are allowed or not. Because if they're not, big changes are coming. And we need to plan accordingly. Other than that, there's just a lot of things here that are in the works that I think we need to have a higher level of awareness of, and hopefully we can do an adequate job of trying to stay on task here. So next time Brian has to report to the city council committee. we can say, yes, we've done our due diligence and we're working on all this stuff. So thank you, Robert, for taking us by the hand and leading us through the myriad paths of the legislature and seeing what might come as a result of the various items working their way through the process. So thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, thank you, and thanks for the reminder. Yeah, 218 reform, you know, addressing that will be huge and really could result in a lot of redistribution of who pays for what, and it's a really big deal that we should be thinking about. Do I hear a motion? Oh, is there a motion? Do we need a motion? Motion to receive and file? Yeah. oh okay thank you a second second thank you please vote motion passes unanimously thank you thank you we will now open for public comment for item 10

Public comment is now open for this item. Call 951-826-8688 and follow the prompts to access the meeting. To request to speak, press star 9. When called to speak, press star 6 to unmute. You can also join via Zoom. The meeting ID can be found on the agenda.

And we call for presentation of item number 10 by Kelly Murillo.

Hello again. Good evening, Chair Sciana and members of the board. My name is Kelly Murillo. I am a Utilities Principal Resource Analyst in the Strategic Initiatives Division in Riverside Public Utilities. I'm here tonight to present amendments to the City's Water Conservation Ordinance in order to comply with the requirements of state law. The State of California continues to advance statewide water conservation efforts that are a response to recurring droughts and climate change impacts affect all water supplies in the state. Assembly Bill 1572 became law in late 2023 and went into effect on January 1, 2024. The bill established a phased statewide prohibition on the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf, which is ornamental lawns, on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, as well as in common areas of HOAs. The requirements do not apply to single-family homes. Non-functional turf is, or NFT, is ornamental grass that serves no functional purpose beyond aesthetics as shown here. Lawns are still allowed for areas of outdoor activity, including parks and sports fields, cemeteries, and things of that nature. Additionally, turf is allowed in areas that support trees and other perennial plantings, though it is limited to the areas needed to support trees and perennial landscape. The state of California indicated as part of the reasoning for the bill that the use of potable water for non-functional turf was wasteful and unsustainable in light of the long duration droughts and the lack of full recharge to stay water systems to support the water needs for health and safety during droughts. This item is part of the requirements placed on the city and the bill. By January 1st, 2027, the city is itself required to stop using potable water for irrigation on ornamental turf for all of its properties. The city, not just RPU, is required to revise its policies or adopt an ordinance consistent with AB 1572 and to communicate the changes to its customers. The bill also requires that commercial, industrial, and institutional property owners with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated areas self-certify compliance with the state water board beginning in 2030. There's exemptions and they show, as shown apply. RPU has been working with customers since the passage of the bill and has provided funding through the existing water conservation funds to help with the removal of non-functional turf and replace it with low water use landscaping. I also want to note here that these changes do not change other aspects of the existing ordinance other than to clean up, clarify, and remove the word minimal from the section relating to the irrigation of trees and shrubs during conservation requirements. As I mentioned earlier, the bill established a phased schedule for the requirements. As shown here, the January 2027 requirements is one of the first deadlines. The replacement of turf for commercial, industrial, and institutional properties is January 1st, 2028. HOA common areas have until January 1st, 2029. Self-certification is in 2030. It's not shown on the graph. And areas in disadvantaged communities that qualified and were approved for delays have until January 1st, 2031 to comply. With that, staff recommends that the Board of Public Utilities recommend that the City Council introduce an ordinance of the City of Riverside amending sections 14.22.010 through 14.22.080 of the Riverside Municipal Code to update the City's water conservation ordinance to comply with the requirements of Assembly Bill 1572. and ensure compliance with California Water Code Section 10608.14, and adopt the ordinance at a subsequent City Council meeting following the first reading. AGM, Tracy Sato, Utility Senior Water Resources Analyst Melody Morgan, and I are available to answer any questions after public comment. Thank you, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Do we have any public comments? Okay, please send the caller through.

Good evening again, Melissa McKee. So we have no choice but to actually adopt this ordinance. I was opposed to the California as a conservation of the California way of life simply because it's a state project applying to a city that has ample water. In fact, we have a lot of water rights that we don't use at this point, and I would prefer that that water be used to keep our city green and our trees alive. But I lost that battle at the state level, as did Western. So you're going to have to take out a lot of turf, and that could well include things like the medium in front of Poly High on Victoria. It has a couple trees, but I looked this morning and there's a lot of grass We have a lot of grass at La Sierra and our other institutions like Cal Baptist. All of that's going to go. And with that, we're going to have even more excess water than we already have. And if you look at the urban water management plan, there is no way that our growth, which is less than projected, is going to compensate for that water. And it matters. The other reason I oppose this, the conservation regulations was that it's going to impact our general fund and it is going to impact how much revenue you generate for RPU. I don't know what percentage. Maybe staff can tell us they ought to know. I'd also like to just briefly comment on, you know, the legislature can try to work its way around Prop 218, but that's a constitutional amendment we have. And, you know, those nagging rate payers who went to court to muck up your rates and have prevailed, prevailed because the court concluded you were violating the constitution as other courts of appeals have concluded that tiered race are not constitutional. So yes, I understand that municipal agencies support this in the legislature. I would have liked to have seen a more balanced discussion for the public and for this board. And I also think it's naive to think that the city council is going to be in the weeds on these issues because our city council If you've ever attended, they're focused on all sorts of other issues like hiring a city manager. So I think if we have stronger leadership at the RPU, and that includes staff, we would have these discussions earlier because I anticipate what's going to happen is the rate plan is going to get presented to you like two weeks before we have to get it to the city council the way it's always been, and there's not going to be a lot of public dialogue. And I hope that doesn't happen, but history is prologue, and that seems to be the way our staff does things. And I hope in this instance, because we could have significant rate changes, which have a significant impact on both RPU's finances and the general fund, that we have plenty of time when that rate study comes out. And I'm glad that we're at least starting to talk about it and educating the new members on this board, because it's going to Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Jordan?

Good evening. Thank you for the presentation. Just a couple points of clarification. The definition on slide four references privately owned public parks. Is that different in some material way from city-owned parks?

No, I think that's a typo. I apologize. No worries. It should be any type of public park. It can be privately owned and used for public uses. As long as that turf is being used, it can stay as an exception. So let's use a golf course, which would be private. They can keep turf in certain areas where it is important to play golf, but they do need to change out some of the side areas that currently are probably turf with some other type of landscaping.

And that would be the same for city-owned parks at some point?

Correct. Okay.

That, however, does not apply to large areas of green space that are privately owned like Cal Baptist.

Cal Baptist is actually covered under the commercial, industrial, and institutional. So they do have to remove some of their large areas of turf. Interesting.

Okay. Rebecca?

I just want to make sure. I'm going to drill down on that, Tracy. Okay. If I recall correctly, the definition of non-functional turf, and let's continue to use CBU. I don't have any connection. They use that giant lawn on Magnolia for everything, including athletics, graduation. They use it for all kinds of things, including the academic mission. So that would not be wrapped up in this.

Probably not under the current requirements. That's not going to need to be removed. But if they do have lawn in, for example, in the landscape. The medians going up the center. The medians in the center, the landscaping that's alongside the roadways, or even lawn that's next to sidewalks, but is not directly being used in some active way.

I had not thought about it until right now. So forgive me. for the goose chase I might send you on. But I believe, and it's because I secretly hate them, palm trees are grass. What? Something to consider. OK.

I know some people in the city who would agree with you 100%.

Tom?

This only applies to the use of potable water, right? Correct. Correct. So entities like Cal Baptist that have wells and pump from the local groundwater could still use non-potable for large areas of turf. And so it might be at some point helpful to those kinds of customers to suggest that they put a sign up that says using non-potable water in cases where they are. So we've got to be careful that we don't paint everybody with the same brush. There are entities that have the capacity to use non-potable and pump from the local groundwater.

I'm sorry. I'm going to jump in because it's a great plug for Bourns. Bourns Inc. redid the entire front, which was covered in turf on the corner of Columbia and Iowa. And it was covered in turf, and now it is a huge water-wise area that they have some equipment that people take walks through and can do some gym stuff, and the donkeys come down, and they love it. So to plug, and they have purple pipe signs in and around because they do use reclaimed water.

Right. We gave them $400,000 for that when I was a board at Western Municipal Water District. There you go.

Okay, yeah, Pete.

So I think this is a no-brainer that we support this program. But my question is, how big a problem is this? Do we have any idea how much non-functional turf there is in the city limits? So...

I am not sure. I know we have gone through and analyzed some of the areas, but some of it we might have thought it was non-functional. It actually serves a functional purpose, and it might comply with the exception. So it's hard to say.

So we have no idea how much water we will actually be saving here because we don't know how much area.

That we do have an estimate. Oh, we do?

Yes. Well, how is that estimate attained if we don't know the area?

Melody, did we have that as part of the?

Let me see if I can figure out how to turn this on. So I don't have that estimate, but I did document. Let me see if I can find it really quick. Oh, here we go. I just know that it's going to be a large amount of potable water that we expect to save over time, but they can't quantify the exact savings because it depends on what they convert it to. There may be drip lines. There may be other things. So we can't quantify how much that we will be saving depending on the redesign and the landscapes that they use. We do know also the other question. We can tell you, or we can look up and tell you how many industrial customers or how many, you know, those types of customers. But again, it depends on what is functional and what is not functional. And I think that a good definition that I've heard before from an RPU employee, they said the only time you walk on it is when you mow it. that would designate non-functional turf. So if it really is a strip in the middle of a parking lot, that would be non-functional turf.

It would just be interesting to know if we're talking about gallons or acre feet here. Because I don't get a sense. I mean, everybody can think of the big lawn area at CBU and say, ah, you know, we're wasting tons of water here. Citywide, how much non-functional turf is there? I think that would be an interesting point to know at some point along the line of discussion. And it would be kind of important to see how effective this measure would be in terms of not irrigating non-functional turf. Are we saving gallons or are we saving acre feet?

We will take that as a comment and see what we can come back and get back to you with that.

Okay, I know it's not an easy thing because of the definition of non-functional turf and everything else, but there must be some ballpark figure you could give us that would at least give us an idea of what kind of size we're talking about, what kind of program we're talking about, what kind of water savings we're really talking about. I really like, by the way, the red line in the report. That was very helpful. And we could see how things are changing. A lot of it was grammar and syntax. And that's good, because we wouldn't want to clarify that while we have the chance. So good job. I support the program. It'd just be interesting to know how much water we're really saving.

Okay, thank you. I actually had a follow-up because you looked like you were looking up numbers and then you didn't say anything about numbers because you said it was difficult to know how much we would save because what people would replace it with. Do you have a number for how many acre feet per year are used in these types of things regardless of if it's all going to be replaced or half or whatever? I don't.

I could get you possibly a guesstimate by looking at the number of commercial and industrial users and landscape laterals versus. But it's hard to quantify. It's not something that's going to be easy to quantify, especially because they're going to have to convert it to something else, and they may still use it.

Yeah.

Drip lines and water. But yeah.

We can divide by two and just get it. Say it's, yeah, OK. Yeah, I mean, I know at UCR, there's tons of grass. But most of it's not going anywhere, because it's like quads in the middle where everybody, that space is used many times over. But there are certainly plenty, there's acres of grass off in the corners that, yeah, I've been advocating for a long time, actually. Like, what are we doing here? I have a very specific question. Near UCR, there is a reservoir just south of university next to the Latter Day Saints little church there. It is covered with like an acre or two of turf grass. Yeah, we got to get rid of that, right? I mean, we don't use that for anything else except to cover that reservoir, right? I guess you don't want to commit to this, but I'll ask the people who mow it if they're the only ones who set foot on it. But this would be probably an example of something that we, the utility, will have to address.

That's correct. When that turf was put in, it was put in for aesthetic but also security reasons in order to disguise the fact that there is a drinking water reservoir. So I'm not sure if that would fit in any of the definitions, but it sounds like that's something we may need to address. Okay.

Okay.

Any other?

Yeah, Jordan.

So on that note, kind of piggybacking on both of those comments, the more we drill down, the more it becomes evident that we need to kind of have a definition of what functionality is, because security sounds like a function to me. But who determines what is functional and what is the baseline criteria? To say that we know it when we see it probably isn't... probably isn't something that a lot of institutions would like to hear. And I understand the commercial and industrial applications, but you start talking about institutions over 5,000 square feet. We're looking at a lot of faith-based communities who utilize their lawns, who don't utilize their lawns, who some parishioners might, some might not. So it gets a little... it becomes a little bit of a sticky wicket without a clear definition. So I would advocate that we kind of get some clarity on that too, in addition to how many acre feet we have.

Thank you. I would like to say that there are a lot of definitions in the ordinance that were here. Some of this is definitely going to have to be going out and seeing if it makes sense to, and if it's actually being used that way. And it is, they do leave a lot of discretion up to the local government as well, so that we can enforce it the way that Riverside wants to enforce that. Though I will note, anybody can also report into the State Water Board on this, but we can investigate it still against our city ordinance.

The kind of last piece of that is do we have an appeals process? If somebody says, you know, I do in fact utilize this turf for X reason and we can show proof that we utilize it, is there some sort of process they can appeal the decision?

So it follows our city enforcement of the ordinance, and I do believe there is an appeals process for that, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head. So we would have to get into it, but I do believe there is a way for property owners to, or anybody who has that turf, to appeal the process.

Okay, Rebecca.

I would counter Jordan, and I would say make it as vague as possible so that to the point, we already are bound by state law, like whatever it says in there. And if somebody doesn't like what we, they can go through the appeals process, and they can then have the conversation with the state because at the end of the day, all you're doing is a pass-through and rolling up. So don't make it more complicated. Okay.

OK. Do I hear a motion?

I'll move.

OK. Is that Sean? Oh, Jordan? OK. Thank you.

Please vote. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any board or staff communications to report on item 11? Are there any items for future consideration for item number 12?

Is this where we make the formal request for the data center? So I will go ahead and make that request.

Yeah, and I would just add that I don't think it should just be data centers. I think it should be any extremely large new water or electric load, right? Because it's not some marginal residential, you know, you're just adding a house and who cares? When you're adding 20 megawatts or whatever, it's this step that requires resource adequacy, new transmission, you know, all this stuff that if we were to come up with the cost of these things like we did with the avoided cost of the battery thing and would be very expensive, right? I mean, this battery thing is like, we're gonna save like a megawatt in the evenings, and if some 20 megawatt, and that's $5 million. And if a 20 megawatt load comes online, you can see where the cost would be, like who's paying for that? So anyway, just any big load, it doesn't have to be data center. It could be a big kayaking water park thing, for example. So, anyway.

We are in the business of selling electricity.

Yeah, and so I should clarify, I mean, yeah, and we should include the fact that it's not, it should not be as simple as 20 megawatt load, but is it 20 megawatt flexible load? Are the incentives there from our existing rate structures to get them to flex enough and whatnot? Because you're absolutely right. If it's a very flexible load, it could be very beneficial to rate payers if it is, yeah, 100%. Yeah.

Not only electric, but also water.

Yeah. Yeah, I think the same principles apply, right?

I want to posit, at some point, that is administrative work. And we're not approving permits. That's somebody else's job. But we do set policy. And so on the legislative side, I don't see an agenda. I see items being brought forth, which is great. And I appreciate that. But there's no agenda. There's nothing for us to say, yes, we, as a body, are making a recommendation that the city council take a position on fill in the blank. And that's like a next layer that can come from Robert. You all can make staff recommendation to us from a policy perspective of ACWA supporting this, SMUD's perspective, you know, whoever, right? CMUA, APA, like fill in the blanks around it. And then we can have a discussion and make a decision. And the staff recommendation is to move the item forward based on whatever we decide that night. Right? That way staff is not in a position where somebody is questioning you are lobbying and we can make the advocacy position up or council of the electeds can make that determination. Because as things come up, in theory you all want to have the ability to have letters of support sent. And right now you don't have anything to stand on because there's no approved platform. So if ACWA needs letters of support coming from the agency, you have these 15 hurdles to go through a bureaucratic sunshining process. Whereas if you had it already approved, you could take a letter, send it up to the CM's office, and it's signed and done. So something to consider moving forward. But to the point about data centers or anything that's going to change, I mean, you could have policy determination of what could impact our load beyond X. And so that's something that the body can take position on as opposed to individual items. So I don't know how you position that, but it is something that you should think about filling in throughout the year as either new pieces come up in Tracy's world, because that's primarily where a lot of them sit, and then they can come back. I don't think they need to come all at once. I can do that in education because our staff moves. So it's a recommendation. I don't know timing-wise of when to do it, though.

Yeah, thanks. I want to point out that I'm just talking to the board here that it might be the case that for a certain staff here, it might be difficult to bring something up that may, they don't know where the city council stands and, you know, city council can hire and fire and, you know. So if it's really important and we may want to put something on the agenda and discuss something regardless of you know, we may need to take the lead. So if it's really important, then...

I don't disagree with that, but I don't live in the utility world, and there are super important things that are happening both at the state and federal level that we can't possibly know unless you live in it. And if you live in it, then they have to tell us in some form or fashion. So if it's going to come to the agenda-setting committee, that's fine, so that we can provide protection for staff. But at some level, they are doing their jobs by bringing that information, and it would be considered retaliatory. So I think they should be brave and bold enough, regardless of who's sitting on the dais, because they do report up through a different structure. But I appreciate that not everybody has as much gumption as other people.

Yeah, it is something to keep in mind, that we may have to initiate something on our own if it's that important. Okay. Oh, yep.

I just have one comment. On the legislative side, the report was great. Everything was good. In the future for another, when this comes to the agenda again, is it possible to get a rubric of where the legislation is, what committee it's in, if it's, you know, a two-year bill, if it's not? Kind of a little bit more information around the actual bill outside of just the presentation would be great. I've ran a legislative committee before, and that was always something that was asked for, and it was always informative for us to understand exactly where it's at. And if it's going to die, we already know that in advance. So prior to coming to the meeting itself, we as a body already know generally where the bill is going to be at.

Yeah, I suspect it's hard because things are changing, but you're right. It would be better to have more information available. I mean, we did get a little bit kind of informally about this one's dead, this one is likely to proceed, or this one passed.

Yeah, but we didn't know what body it's at, if it's in the Senate or Assembly, or you know what I mean. So a little bit, it doesn't have to be a ton of information, but a nice rubric of words and kind of generally what's going to happen with it.

Yeah. That would be interesting given how quickly things change and how slow this process of agendizing these things are.

And we do have a rubric. Robert does a really good job of tracking that so we can provide that. In the past, we have provided it for member crews. And I think the comment usually is that it's outdated by the time it gets here. But at least there's an opportunity to see the positions and where they stand. So we definitely can do that. Okay.

Just a quick question. Is the cap and trade item coming at the next meeting?

It is not coming on the next meeting. I have it slated for late August. For when? Late August.

Oh, okay. That's right. August is just, we're at the beginning of August. Okay. But it's in August. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you.

OK, so we'll turn over the time to David Garcia for the general manager's report. Thank you, Chair.

I do have one item to report. You may have all heard in the news lately about water main breaks in Los Angeles, streets being flooded out, large capacity type breaks. The city of Riverside was not spared that either. So we did have an incident on July 15th where one of our main transmission lines was leaking, our Waterman transmission line, which carries about 60% of our water supply. And I just want to give kudos to our team. Our team worked around the clock. for about nine days along with the emergency contractor approved by the city manager's office in order to get into that waterman line, make the repairs, and keep us in water during this hot period of time. So the team did a fantastic job in getting out there, identifying the leak, getting down 29 feet below the surface in order to get to the leak, bringing welders in that could weld a 48-inch pipeline and get us back in service. So great job by this team. There will be a report coming to the board for ratification for the expenditure of that emergency. And then we'll also have some really cool videos and pictures to share of what we're dealing with. And I want to thank our partners, our sister departments, for conserving water during that period of time. We had our parks and recs, our general services, as well as Riverside Unified School District shut off their irrigation systems for that period of time in order to get us through any sort of shortage that we may have had. But the teams, our engineering teams, our operations teams, and our field teams, along with our outside contractor, did amazing work to keep the city in water during this period of time. That's all I have, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

It had to happen in July, huh? Right.

Okay, this meeting is adjourned.