Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Generation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays combustion-turbine financing while officials pursue transmission-only option
Summary
San Francisco supervisors voted to continue four agenda items related to the city's proposed combustion-turbine projects to July 15 after new information from the California Independent System Operator prompted calls to explore a transmission-only alternative and retrofit options.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 3 voted without objection to continue four agenda items tied to the city's proposed combustion-turbine (CT) projects to July 15, after new material from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the mayor's office prompted supervisors to request more time to evaluate alternatives.
The four items (agenda items 7—10) would have authorized debt and agreements to finance and build combustion turbines at the San Francisco International Airport and at city sites, including certificates of participation and related leases. Supervisor Maxwell, who moved the continuance, said the board had "received different and new information" from CAISO and the mayor's office suggesting the city may not need some proposed in-city generation once additional transmission capacity (including the Transbay cable) is in place. Maxwell asked the board to "continue these items to July 15." The motion was seconded by Supervisor Dufty and approved "without objection."
Why it matters: The items on the consent-read agenda included large financing and procurement steps for the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) CT projects. With financing and construction decisions pending, supervisors said they needed to see whether transmission upgrades or retrofit of existing plants could meet reliability and redundancy needs without adding new in-city generation.
Board discussion emphasized two themes: verifying CAISO's recent statements and ensuring the city preserves leverage while alternatives are developed. Supervisor McGoldrick said CAISO's responses so far were "half answers" and urged the board to insist on "verifiable" commitments of funding and firm plans rather than paper promises. Supervisor Ellsberg and others said the board should keep pressure on state agencies to produce full technical and financial details and that any new proposal would go to committee for vetting. Supervisor Sandoval criticized CAISO for what he called a "flip flop" in prior positions, saying the agency had lost credibility by changing its assessment after months of prior advice.
The board's action: The board formally continued items 7 through 10 to July 15 (motion by Supervisor Maxwell; second by Supervisor Dufty). The continuance was accepted without objection. No formal vote tally was recorded in the transcript because the body agreed to continue "without objection." The items remain pending until the July 15 hearing.
What the PUC said at the meeting: In prior staff material read into the record, the items were described as authorizing approximately $273,000,000 in San Francisco certificates of participation to fund the San Francisco electrical reliability (combustion turbine) project, approving agreements for development at the airport and a city site, adopting environmental findings, and authorizing execution and delivery of certificates of participation and related leases.
Next steps: Supervisors said they expect further written and technical information from CAISO and the mayor's office and said any newly proposed alternatives would be sent to committee for detailed review before returning to the full board.
Speakers quoted in this article are participants in the board discussion and are identified in the meeting record; their remarks above are taken verbatim from the transcript.
