San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Citizens’ Advisory Committee

MINUTES 

May 19, 2008
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
1155 Market Street
4th Floor Conference Room
 

Members

Alex Lantsberg– Chair	Lurilla Harris	Laurie Schoeman
Nick Carlin	Winchell Hayward	Robert Varni
Jennifer Clary	Art Jensen	Judy West
David Dawdy	Steve Lawrence
Richard T. Hansen	Kimia Mizany

Staff:  Jim Marks
 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1.  Call to order

Vice Chair Carlin called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.

2.  Roll Call

Members Present: Carlin, Clary, Dawdy, Hansen, Harris, Jensen, Lawrence, Mizany (arrived at 5:45), Varni, West

Members Absent:  Lantsberg, Hayward, Schoeman; Counsel, John Roddy

Members of the Public:  Joan Girardot

3.  Approval of the minutes of the April 2008 Meeting (attached). Minutes
approved unanimously with one minor editorial change

4.  Public Comment – There was no public comment

5. Report of the Chair

N Carlin assumed the role of the Chair and provided a brief report.  He noted that A Lantsberg has spoken with Supervisor Chu and is trying to talk with the Mayor’s Office to fill the vacancies on the CAC.  N Carlin directed Secretary J West to draft a letter addressed to Supervisors Alioto-Pier and Chu, and to the Mayor, requesting action on new appointments.

6. Presentation:  City and County of San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance Laws for Board
Members annual training.  Because Mr. Roddy was unable to attend, this item was put over to the CAC’s June meeting.

7. Discussion and possible action on a resolution from the Power Subcommittee

K Mizany distributed a resolution that had been passed by the Power Subcommittee and forwarded to the full CAC for its action.  The resolution would have the CAC voicing its support for the implementation of a proposed one-year, $3-million Solar Incentive Pilot Program.  Ms. Mizany provided background on the Solar Energy Incentive Program (SEIP), stating that the $3 million would come from the Mayor’s Energy Conservation Account (MECA), which is supported by the SFPUC Power Enterprise’s revenues.  This program is an effort to encourage more private solar installations by SF residents and businesses.  SF is currently 9th among the nine Bay Area counties in solar installations.

R Hansen asked whether there are rigorous engineering calculations to support claims of energy/cost savings through this program.  Ms. Mizany responded that the SEIP could increase solar installations in SF sixfold.  N Carlin stated that, though these are primarily privately funded projects, the SEIP would help the City meet its greenhouse-gas-reduction goals. 

D Dawdy stated that the $3 million would yield only about 600 kW and will not pay for itself for many years.  It was noted that the SEIP would not only incentivize solar installations but also the development of the solar industry in SF.

R Hansen stated that he would not want the CAC to participate in a “boondoggle.”  Mr. Dawdy, who had a system installed on his home some years ago, stated that, considering the cost of money to finance the system, it had not yet paid for itself and that, with interest rates now so low, systems might pay for themselves in a more reasonable amount of time.  One should also include the opportunity cost of money in calculating the costs of installing a system.

A Jensen noted that the SEIP is being presented as a pilot program. He asked whether this program isn’t stalled at the Board of Supervisors (BOS).  K Mizany responded that the pilot program had become a political football between the Mayor and the BOS, but the goal of the pilot program’s supporters is simply to get it implemented.  There was a lot of support before the BOS Budget Committee.

N Carlin noted that one solar installation company had proposed starting a training program for solar installers in the Bayview.

Ms. Clary stated that she is inclined to support the resolution, but observes that those first in line for the incentive already have the money to install a system.  Those who would need the incentive most will likely not benefit from it.  For this reason, she supports the resolution with reservations.

A Jensen:  This is a one-year pilot program.  Is evaluation built in?

Questions raised by members about costs and electricity rates.  Mr. Dawdy noted that those paying above the base rate could get a faster payoff on their investment.  Ms. Clary wondered how to develop a cost-benefit analysis that might take externalities into account.

Ms. Mizany noted that solar helps to shave peak demand, thus reducing the need for polluting peaker generation.

S Lawrence:  Stated that the way the program is funded is not right.  Compared the source of SEIP funding, MECA, to the siphoning off of SFPUC water revenues by City Hall for many years.  HHWP was divided into the Water and Power Enterprises.  MECA provides a means to siphon off Power Enterprise revenues.  The program was set up to install solar on public buildings, but now this money will be used to support solar installations on privately owned buildings.  Water rates will be higher than they should be.

K Mizany reminded the members that money is used to provide incentives to conserve water among private entities.  This discussion is not about the existence of the Power Enterprise.

Mr. Dawdy suggested Contingent Worth Analysis should be done, while Ms. Clary wondered how one quantifies benefits that don’t have a price tag.

Question called.  Moved by N Carlin (?) and seconded by K Mizany (?) that the CAC would support the resolution as amended (see attachment).

Public comment:  Joan Girardot noted that MECA was established by Mayor Brown in June 2002; asserted that $77 million has been appropriated for MECA in five years.  Ms. Girardot stated that there are a lot of questions about the SEIP:  Why was the program pulled from the ballot?  Why not use Prop E and Prop H money?  The SFPUC’s use of public money for private funding is another effort is another effort to take public revenues and use them for another purpose.  Ms. Girardot urged caution in this matter.  She wondered, what is the point of taking $3 million from Pier 96 for SEIP? 

Mr. Hansen expressed concern that funding for SEIP might inhibit progress on the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP).

J Clary requested that the Power Subcommittee consider what might be included in an evaluation.  A Jensen would like to see reports on the pilot program and an analysis by Harvey Rose that go to the BOS before they act. 

Question called.  Voting aye:  Carlin, Clary, Dawdy, Hansen, Harris, Jensen, Mizany, Varni, West.  Voting no:  Lawrence.  Resolution as amended passed, 9 votes to 1.

8. Discussion and possible action on a resolution from the Water Subcommittee supporting the City’s Recycled Water Program.  (See attached)

Jennifer Clary moved and Art Jensen seconded adoption of the resolution.

S Lawrence questioned how much this program would cost.

J Clary responded that the members of the Water Subcommittee agreed that recycled water is an appropriate resource to develop; cost was not considered here.

S Lawrence objected that the Water Subcommittee is proposing that the CAC support something without knowing how much it will cost and who is going to pay for it.

A Jensen noted that he has similar concerns but wanted to support further development of the program.

Mr. Dawdy wondered why the cost keeps going up.

There was no public comment on this item.  After brief discussion, the question was called.  Voting aye:  Carlin, Clary, Dawdy, Hansen, Jensen, Mizany, West.  Voting no:  Lawrence, Varni.  Resolution fails to pass, 7 votes to 2.

9. Discussion and possible action from the Water Subcommittee on supporting the filling of vacant appointments to the Rate Fairness Board.

      Item held over until the next CAC meeting.

10. Subcommittee reports – Not taken up.

11. Discussion of potential future agenda items – N Carlin announced that there would be an update on the SFPUC’s security program.

12. Adjournment at 7:04 PM.

SFPUC Citizens Advisory Committee
Resolution on SFPUC Solar Incentive Program
Passed on May 19, 2008

WHEREAS, the SFPUC and the City and County of San Francisco have a goal of deploying more renewable energy technologies in the City to achieve the goal of more sustainable power generation, and;

WHEREAS the City and County of San Francisco currently has the least amount of solar energy systems installed out of the nine Bay Area counties, and;

WHEREAS, the SFPUC has proposed a one-year pilot program to offer a one-time, fixed dollar amount incentive to any property owner in the City who decides to install a solar electric system, and;

WHEREAS, the SFPUC Power Enterprise has identified $3 million of funding for this program in its own budget for solar projects, and;

WHEREAS, it is believed that this solar incentive program will result in a significant increase in the use of clean, solar energy in the city and a reduced reliance on fossil fuel power, especially during peak demand times;

THERFORE, be it resolved that the SFPUC Citizen’s Advisory Committee hereby strongly urges the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to immediately implement the $3 million one-year Solar Incentive Pilot Program as originally proposed by the SFPUC;

And FURTHER be it RESOLVED, that the SFPUC shall conduct an evaluation of the Solar Incentive Program, at or near the end the one-year anniversary, to determine efficacy and report back to the PUC and Citizens Advisory Committee.