Hetch Hetchy capital program reports $459 million spent and several cost changes

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission received a quarterly update on the Hetch Hetchy Capital Improvement Program on Sept. 24, with staff reporting steady construction activity and several scope‑level cost changes.

Katie Miller, director of water capital programs, told commissioners that $459,000,000 has been spent of a $1,900,000,000 Hetch Hetchy budget through June 30, 2025, with $55,000,000 spent during the third and fourth quarters. "These milestones, total program expenditures and number of contracts in construction indicate that the Hetch Hetchy program is achieving significant progress at this time," Miller said.

Miller highlighted a number of project updates and cost movements. The Moccasin Powerhouse and generator step‑up rehabilitation project forecasted a $10,000,000 increase during the quarter, bringing the project's total forecasted increase to $26,000,000 for additional rehabilitation work and higher anticipated costs. The transmission lines clearance mitigation project forecasted a $23,000,000 cost increase arising from planning‑level scope refinement. In contrast, the early intake dam project in the joint water/power category showed a forecasted cost reduction of about $99,000,000 because that project is currently on hold while long‑term schedule and scope decisions are being made.

Miller described construction progress: 14 projects in preconstruction, seven in construction or multiple phases and one in closeout; 11 construction contracts are under way. She reported that specific milestones included 35% design on the Moccasin dam project and foundation work and valve installations in other mountain projects.

Steve Robinson (identified in the meeting as AGM Robinson) described delivery methods and said the program uses a mix of delivery approaches including traditional design‑bid‑build, job order contracts and an increasing number of progressive design‑build or construction manager/general contractor arrangements. "The progressive design build is a design build entry that PUC has won contract with and then it's authorized on a progressive nature over time through its design process, through construction and through closeout," Robinson said, explaining the staged authorization and the potential to develop a guaranteed maximum price later in the design process.

Commissioners asked about alternatives analyses for large projects such as the Penn Stock Rehabilitation Project and the early intake dam. Miller and other staff said they would provide more detail on alternatives, scope choices and tradeoffs for high‑value projects and noted staff had slowed or combined work on some projects to refine scope and improve cost‑effectiveness.

Ending: Staff said they will return with further project‑level explanations, alternative analyses and forthcoming procurement requests for progressive delivery contracts as those projects reach commission decision points.