Supervisors approve first reading of solar incentive ordinance, reject priority ordinance; amended program sent back for public comment

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 3 adopted on first reading an ordinance establishing a solar energy incentive program (agenda item 15) and took a series of follow-up steps after extensive debate over who should receive public funding from the city's sustainable energy account.

Supervisor Duffy (Dufty in parts of the transcript) introduced the ordinance as the product of a yearlong task force and a coalition of environmental and workforce groups. The ordinance establishes a rebate program for solar installations, with proposed rebates described on the record as ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 for residential owners, up to $10,000 for nonprofits, and higher amounts (up to $30,000) for nonprofit affordable residences or businesses that hire graduates of the city's workforce programs. Assistant General Manager Barbara Hale of the Public Utilities Commission explained the utility's use of power purchase agreements (PPA) to place solar on city property because the city cannot directly use federal tax credits; PPAs let third parties capture incentives while the city pays for kilowatt-hours.

Board action and votes: Supervisor Dufty's ordinance (item 15) passed first reading by roll call (7 ayes, 4 noes). Separately, Supervisor McGoldrick's ordinance to prioritize use of the energy conservation funds for city-owned and city-related facilities and to restrict broader use (item 14) failed on roll call (4 ayes, 7 noes). A third item, Supervisor Mercarimi's version (item 16) was amended on the floor (an amendment of the whole passed 9 ayes, 2 noes), then an amendment removing a clause on seeking further board funding passed 11 ayes, and the item was ultimately continued to a committee of the whole on June 10 for additional public comment (continuance passed 8 ayes, 3 noes).

Why it matters: Supervisors debated whether the city's sustainable energy account (referred to in the discussion as MECCA or the energy conservation fund) should prioritize city-owned facilities and nonprofit affordable housing or be used more broadly to accelerate rooftop solar across the city. Supporters of the broader program argued it would leverage state, federal, and private funding to expand rooftop solar and local green jobs; opponents argued public funds should focus first on public facilities and low-income housing and warned of rapid depletion of the fund.

Key figures and arguments: Supervisor Dufty said the SFPUC allocated $3,000,000 to the program, which could leverage substantially more private and governmental incentives and produce about 1.5 megawatts of solar; he framed the proposal as an opportunity to expand installations and workforce training. Supervisor McGoldrick argued prioritizing the funds for public projects and nonprofit housing would preserve public control and public benefit and repeatedly warned against subsidizing private property owners. Supervisor Mercarimi proposed a compromise pilot allocation of $3,000,000 split between low-income/nonprofit programs and single/multi-family residential and moved several floor amendments that the board adopted in part.

Next steps: The ordinance passed on first reading moves forward; the companion item (16) was sent to a committee of the whole for a June 10 hearing to provide additional public comment on adopted amendments and to allow further refinement. Public comment and amendments adopted on the floor will be reflected in the committee materials.

Quotes used in this article come from the meeting transcript and are attributed to the supervisors and PUC staff who spoke during the discussion.