Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Power Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUC staff presents draft long‑term energy plan; commissioners call for clearer management and execution
Summary
PUC staff presented a draft long‑term energy strategy that included a 2030 zero‑GHG goal and near‑term solar and repowering options; several commissioners urged labeling the document a draft, requested a formal power‑enterprise management/execution plan, and pressed staff to include energy‑efficiency leadership and measurable near‑term actions.
Staff for the PUC’s power enterprise presented a draft long‑term energy plan and a short list of near‑term actions intended to advance local renewables, efficiency and longer‑term resource adequacy.
Barbara Hale, Assistant General Manager for Power, said staff had assembled a draft statement of goals and a technology matrix to inform commissioner direction. As an illustrative goal she recited staff’s draft language: "By 2030, San Francisco shall meet all of its electric needs with no resultant greenhouse gas emissions through investment in energy efficiency and renewable generation delivered by the city and county of San Francisco." Hale characterized that as an illustrative objective for commissioner feedback, not an adopted policy.
Commissioners reacted strongly to several elements of the draft. One commissioner said staff had presented an "optimal" ownership model as if it were the Commission’s policy and asked that the document be clearly titled as a draft or staff position. Several commissioners emphasized that the plan needs an explicit power‑enterprise management and execution plan — not only aspirational goals — and requested stronger participation from energy‑efficiency staff in future briefings. Commissioner Hochschild said the "most cost effective and most environmentally benign megawatts are the megawatts we get from energy efficiency," and asked that efficiency be elevated in the rollout and financing discussion.
Hale and staff outlined a set of near‑term actions: investigating a design‑build RFP for solar installations at candidate city reservoirs (University Mound a leading candidate), pursuing power‑purchase agreements, studying transmission and Hetch Hetchy right‑of‑way opportunities for large‑scale solar, and exploring options to repower combustion turbines with non‑fossil resources over time. The presentation covered financing considerations tied to cost‑of‑service rate reforms and potential customer‑funded efficiency programs.
Commissioners urged realistic execution and accountability: several members said prior announcements (for example, a solar RFI issued months earlier) had not translated to on‑the‑ground projects and asked for a clear schedule, funding plan and staff resources to carry the plan from draft to delivery. Staff committed to return with a fuller power enterprise management plan, more explicit execution milestones and participation from energy‑efficiency managers in subsequent meetings.
There was no formal action; the Commission asked staff to revise the draft, mark it clearly as a staff document, add an execution plan and return with options and cost/benefit analysis.
