Published By: Communications and Public Outreach
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Citizens' Advisory Committee
Power Subcommittee
MINUTES
Tuesday, February 6, 2006
5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
1155 Market Street, 4th Floor Conference Room
San Francisco, CA
Members present: David Hochschild, Aaron Israel, Ken Cleaveland,
Nick Carlin, David Pascal, Steve Lawrence
Members not present: Kimia Mizany
Staff: Jim Marks, Communications
Public: There were no members of the public present
- Meeting began at 5:10 PM.
- Minutes of meeting of 11-14-06 adopted unanimously without revision.
- There was no public comment.
- Update presentation on solar Projects: Paul Bonitz, Power Enterprise Project Manager, reported on the Pier 96 photovoltaic (pv) project. Noted that the system went online on 01-02-2007. System currently has a higher AC output than the larger Southeast WPC Plant system, even though the Southeast system is larger. Reasons: Proximity to Bay keeps pv panels cooler, improving their efficiency; Pier 96 roof is sloped facing south, enhancing insolation; sun reflection off the Bay adds to the energy reaching the panels. Bird droppings on the panels is an issue that needs to be addressed. John Doyle, Manager of Renewable Energy Projects, reported on solar projects completed and under construction. He also outlined a current effort to prepare a 15-year long-term plan for renewables development by the SFPUC. Panel members had a number of questions for staff. (NOTE to panel members: Please review the minutes from 11-14-2006, which summarize responses similar to those offered to the panel’s questions at the 02-06-07 meeting.)
Summary of Q&A:
Is the Pier 96 system being monitored? Yes.
Could the SFPUC put the monitoring information online? PowerLight will create a public-access area on its website to provide information to the public; the SFPUC could mirror this site.
Any other problems with the Pier 96 site? There was concern about corrosion of the conduit, because of the location near the Bay. Coated conduit took care of that problem. Site access is difficult, since it is a pitched roof.
What was the project cost? Approximately $2.4 million. (Rebate?)
System cost about $10/watt; that seems high.
How many bidders were there? Staff believes there were three (bidding took place before they were on staff.)
Why did the project take so long? Negotiating a MOU with the Port took a long time (18 mos. – two years); Port wanted additional benefits. SFPUC held fast to position that pv power would cost same as HH power. Exception for this contract: If, after 25 years there are any additional benefits, these would be shared with the Port. There is now a standard policy of SFPUC being indifferent to cost of pv vs. HH power. Should make agreements with other City departments easier to achieve.
How long did it take to construct? We were delayed by nesting birds and the need to abate asbestos in the roof. Once past those delays, it took about three months to construct.
About site selection, would you do more Port properties? That’s certainly possible, wouldn’t preclude Port property.
What do you mean that the SFPUC is indifferent to cost? That depends on the availability of MECA funds; if the funds are available, we’re totally indifferent; the cost would be covered by MECA.
What do City departments pay for power? Enterprise departments, such as the SFPUC and SFO, pay 12-13 cents per kWh, the standard commercial rate. General fund departments pay 3.75 cents. Some City facilities, like City Hall, pay nothing.
What does municipal power cost the SFPUC? About 8.2 cents per kWh; enterprise depts. subsidize the others.
We’d like a list of who pays what. (John Doyle called in Pamela Husing to provide some financial detail; Pamela will put together a list of depts. and what they pay for the panel members.)
Is the City doing energy-efficiency retrofits of municipal facilities? Yes.
Why can’t we get funding for that from the CPUC? We’re not regulated by the CPUC (David Hochschild).
Question about linking “compliance with energy efficiency;”(question not clear from notes).
Who gets the panels at the end of their useful life? Systems are warranted for 25 years. They could
last much longer than that. (DH) Condition of the roof at Pier 96 might determine how long they stay there. The SFPUC would be responsible for removing the panels.
How much of Terminal Three at SFO will the pv system cover? Most of it, although because of various roof appurtenances what we thought would be close to a 1-megawatt system will now be a 500-kilowatt system. The SFPUC is providing the funding to SFO to do this project. SFO engineers design the project, then put it out to bid with those designs. Award is based on low cost.
How much will the system cost? About $6 million.
That’s about $12/watt; that’s expensive. Yes, it is.
How is the relationship with the airport? It’s okay, but they are independently minded.
SFPUC providing MECA money? Yes. We’re concerned about the airport issuing a Notice to Proceed (NTP) in order to meet a Feb. 24th deadline to obtain a rebate for the system.
Are there plans to put solar on the rest of the airport? That’s a good question. For example, we might be interested in putting a tracker system over their parking lots, but they want to preserve them for future construction. There are other potential sites, such as the parking garage and the United maintenance building.
Mr. Doyle then briefly outlined a current effort to prepare a 15-year plan for the implementation of future renewable energy projects. A draft plan is scheduled to be ready about the middle of this year, but it is a very complex and difficult undertaking.
How big will the MECA budget be this year? It will be very small next year, probably on the order of $2 million. That will be enough to finish the projects in the pipeline and do some planning.
How does the CCA deliberation affect the long-range plan? There will need to be a decision to do CCA and how to do it. We could then look at the amount of power required. A supplier could be contracted for a limited number of years, but gradually the CCA develop its own power supplies.
Has there been approval for a project at University Mound? No approval, but this has been discussed as an option. By 2009 the North reservoir is scheduled to have been upgraded. Standard solar would be too heavy for the roof, but we could install a membrane.
Future agenda items:
Panel suggestions:
Could this panel look at what the Commission will be considering in advance of it’s appearing on the agenda? We need to consider and take positions on policy matters before they go before the Commission.
Couldn’t we weigh in on LEED standards for Municipal buildings?
We should be more of a policy body.
What about a wind power update?
Meeting adjourned at 6:45 PM.
