Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter warns of toxins in compost as PUC pushes Clean Power SF timeline
Summary
A San Francisco Green Party activist told the Public Utilities Commission tests show toxic chemicals in sewage‑sludge compost; PUC staff say they are conducting blind lab tests and will publish results. Commissioners discussed timing and contract steps for Clean Power SF ahead of a June 8 deadline.
Eric Brooks, speaking during public comment, told the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on April 13 that a study he reviewed found "toxic chemicals" in compost produced from sewage sludge and urged staff to stop presenting such compost as safe. "There's no way to make sewage sludge turn into organic or even good compost," Brooks said, and offered to share the documents he cited.
Assistant General Manager Jim Harrington and Barbara Hale, assistant general manager for Power, responded that the PUC has not conducted a compost giveaway since October and that staff have sent compost samples to laboratories for blind testing. Hale said the lab used a blind process so testers would not know which samples were the PUC's and that the commission would publish results when available. "We are testing our own samples. And we will report that publicly when those are available," she said.
The exchange came amid a broader briefing on Clean Power SF, the commission's Community Choice Aggregation effort to secure competitive rates, a stronger renewable mix and reduced risk for ratepayers. Staff summarized the negotiating posture: aim for competitive rates versus PG&E, a better renewable portfolio and protections to limit risk to the general fund. Commissioners and staff discussed the compressed timetable: staff said they were aiming to have a contract signed by the city before June 8 so the program would be positioned before a related PG&E ballot measure, while also leaving time for Board of Supervisors and mayoral review.
Commissioners asked how the program would treat energy‑efficiency funding that currently flows through PG&E and whether those funds could be redirected to PUC‑run programs. Staff said some energy‑efficiency dollars now administered by PG&E and the Department of the Environment could be shifted, but that designing cost‑effective efficiency programs and measuring the cost to save kilowatt‑hours remain work in progress.
The commission did not take formal action on Clean Power SF at the meeting; staff urged commissioners to hold tentative dates so a contract could be presented as soon as negotiations conclude. Hale and other staff emphasized the need for a short window for contractors to lock in prices once the market was sufficiently clear before signing.
