Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts 2-week continuance and 90-day due-diligence review for proposed combustion turbine projects
Summary
The Board of Supervisors agreed to amend and continue legislation authorizing combustion turbine projects proposed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, requiring a 90-day final due-diligence review and additional written statements from Cal ISO before the Board considers final approval.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Wednesday voted 10–1 to adopt amendments to a package of ordinances and resolutions authorizing the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) combustion turbine (CT) projects and to continue the items for two weeks while the SFPUC and other agencies complete a short-form due-diligence review.
The motion, offered on the floor as an amendment to the ordinance and related agreements for the city combustion turbine projects (file numbers 08-0523 and 08-0577), would establish a ‘‘final due diligence review’’ not to exceed 90 days. Under the amendment’s language the California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) must provide a written statement that a proposed alternative project would satisfy ISO criteria before the SFPUC may implement an alternative to the CT proposal; the SFPUC would remain the implementing agency for the review.
The amendment grew out of committee discussion and a broader hearing in which members raised concerns that enforcement and regulatory details, staff capacity and alternative technologies had not been fully developed. Supervisor Ellsberg, who introduced the amendment, said the package "allows 90 days for the PUC, for the mayor's office, for all of us to make sure that this is a proposal that we want to, frankly, put on the city of San Francisco for the next 18 years, for the next 30 years." Ms. DeBary, the mayor’s representative, told the board the mayor’s office "continue[s] to investigate the available alternatives" and was working to identify options that might avoid the need for the CT plants.
Supporters of the continuance said the amendment creates a framework to compare alternatives and secures a role for Cal ISO, the SFPUC and other regulators in verifying feasibility and compliance with ISO requirements. Supervisor Mercarini and others pressed for explicit treatment of environmental liability and cost burdens during the review; Supervisor Ellsberg pointed to amendment language (section 4(g)) that requires the project to result in reasonable costs and value to ratepayers and the city and said he would accept further language if the City Attorney recommended it.
Opponents expressed concern that the amendment was a delay tactic and might allow the city to pursue a different peaking strategy that would extend operations at existing plants. Supervisor Daly cast the lone no vote when the board took the roll call on the motion; ten supervisors voted in favor and one was absent.
The board also accepted a set of non-substantive technical amendments to the ordinances that incorporate budget analyst recommendations and clarify the design-build agreement language and CEQA and general plan findings. Those non-substantive changes were presented by Deputy City Attorney Teresa Mueller and were agreed to separately on the floor.
What happens next: The package (items 8–11) was continued as amended to the Board’s meeting two weeks later. Under the amendment the SFPUC must complete the 90-day final due-diligence review (including any required written statements from Cal ISO) before the Board will take final action on the authorization package.
Votes and formal motions recorded in the meeting minutes show the motion to adopt the amendments and continue the items passed on a roll call with Supervisor Daly voting no and ten supervisors voting aye.
