San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Citizens' Advisory Committee
Power Subcommittee

MINUTES

Thursday, November 14, 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, Kimia Mizany, Ken Cleaveland, Nick Carlin

Members not present:David Pascal

Staff:Jim Marks, Communications

Public:Ed Dierauf (SF resident), Joe Boss (Power Plant Task Force), Kate Sherwood (Powerlight), J. P. Ross (Vote Solar)

1. Meeting began at 5:10 PM.
   
2. Minutes of meeting of 10-03-06 adopted unanimously without revision.
   
3. There was no public comment.
   
4. Presentation provided by SFPUC Power Enterprise staff on the status of the SFPUC’s current solar energy projects and plans for the future development of solar power projects by the Power Enterprise.  Presenters:  John Doyle, Karen Kubick, Paul Bonitz and Kim Knox.  Mr. Doyle first provided an update on completed and current projects.  Mr. Bonitz provided details on the specific challenges of installing the 245-kilowatt (kW) project at Pier 96.  These included the structural condition of the existing roof, 70-foot height, steep angle, overhang over water, the need to abate PCBs and asbestos found in the roof, and nesting gulls, which delayed construction start by two months.  These difficulties illustrate the challenges that can be encountered at each solar installation location.  Current status:  Installation is nearly complete; PG&E interconnection inspection slated for early December.

   Mr. Doyle provided a schedule for upcoming projects in the coming year.  He then reviewed future loads that could be served by the SFPUC, additional future municipal projects, and potential long-term future opportunities for solar installations on SFPUC properties or leased areas.  He also described emerging technologies, such as thin film, which could facilitate installations in places previously deemed infeasible.  For example, the roof over University Mound Reservoir could not structurally support a standard solar array installation; a thin-film or similar installation, on the other hand, would be light enough to cover the structure.

   Additional challenges include the loss of the solar installation rebate, since the SFPUC is not a PG&E electric customer; the SFPUC’s capital constraints; the Power Enterprise’s difficulties in obtaining a credit rating; and uncertainties about the availability of MECA funds in FY07/08.  One strategy to overcome these difficulties is to issue a Power Purchase Agreement to a private developer eligible for a 30% federal tax credit.  Private companies could develop sites scouted by the SFPUC, which could agree to purchase the power produced at these sites.  However, this approach requires meeting power cost goals in the range of 12¢/kWh.

   Mr. Doyle provided a long view of how the SFPUC might approach the development of solar power.  He pointed out that it makes no sense to replace hydropower with more expensive solar power, esp. since any excess hydropower under the Raker Act would have to be sold back to the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, which currently would be required to pay only 2¢/kWh.  That strategy would bankrupt the SFPUC.  Mr. Doyle suggested that, in looking at the long term (25 years or more in the future), the SFPUC might aim to serve peak loads in addition to current peaks with renewables, including solar.  (CCA could constitute a significant part of this load.)  He noted that negotiations to change the terms of agreement with TID/MID would be needed.  Although these ideas are very vague at this time, they provided a means for visualizing where and how solar power might grow in SF in the future.

   Members of the subcommittee asked about the process the SFPUC uses to assess solar sites.  It appears that the MECA budget for the coming fiscal year might be in the range $4-to-6 million for solar development and other renewables with roughly $4 million for energy efficiency projects.  Another $2.5 million might be available through operations.  Mr. Hochschild emphasized his desire for the placement of high-quality information kiosks at Moscone Center and the Airport, where high foot traffic provides an opportunity for significant public education.  (Staff question:  Could Art Commission project set-asides be used to finance these?)

5. Date of next meeting not determined.  December meeting is cancelled.
   
6. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.