Residents and commissioners press for alternatives as SFPUC weighs in‑city peaker plants

San Francisco — Residents, advocacy groups and a majority of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission members used a public comment period and a Commission workshop Sept. 25 to press staff for alternatives to building combustion‑turbine (CT) “peaker” plants inside the city.

Commissioner Michael Sklar read from a July California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) packet, citing a sentence in the study stating that “options are available to meet the required level of electric system reliability in San Francisco without relying on generation in the city.” Sklar said the Cal ISO materials and recent technical packets warrant a rigorous, non‑political review before the city proceeds with in‑city CT construction.

Community speakers described the proposal as a local health and environmental justice issue. Darrell Cockerham of APRI said neighbors “didn't even know that this was happening” and urged more public engagement. Joseph Bryan, an APRI community educator, said residents opposed replacing one large plant with “four new ones that pretty much are going to generate much more waste in the area.” Verla Williams, a Hunter’s Point longtime resident, told commissioners: “We don't need anything else in that area and we don't want it.”

The Bright Line Defense Project filed for a federal injunction the day before the meeting seeking to stop permit actions on the CT project while federal and state greenhouse‑gas regulatory questions (stemming from Massachusetts v. EPA) are resolved. Lynette Stetler of Bright Line Defense said the group asked the court to halt Bay Area Air Quality Management District and California Energy Commission action until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalizes greenhouse‑gas regulation that could affect permit review.

Commissioners emphasized a shared primary objective: closing the existing Potrero power plant if a reliable, feasible alternative exists. Several commissioners, including Sklar, said they support pursuing options being studied at Cal ISO to retire Potrero without adding new fossil generation inside San Francisco. Commissioners also asked staff not to execute a final contract until they have reviewed a full contract package at a public meeting.

Commissioner Sklar outlined three contract caveats he expects negotiators to pursue: no public‑finance (tax‑exempt municipal) subsidy embedded in the contract, contractual limits tying CT operation strictly to ISO‑declared emergencies, and a prohibition on using CTs to cover routine renewable generation shortfalls. “I would like a piece of the contract that says these units will only come into power and be used when Cal ISO calls for them for emergency purposes,” Sklar said.

Several speakers asked the Commission to consider cleaner alternatives such as demand response, the recently permitted Transbay cable and expanded energy efficiency and solar deployment as paths to make Potrero redundant. APRI representatives said they intend to petition the California Energy Commission and continue legal and administrative challenges.

Next steps: Commission members asked staff and the general manager to consider the Cal ISO materials and to return any completed contract for a vote at a public meeting when the full terms are available. Cal ISO and state agencies continue to examine alternatives and stakeholders have signaled further legal and administrative filings.