Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
SFPUC to seek Board approval for peaker package; community groups urge alternatives and question need for four CT units
Loading...
Summary
SFPUC staff told LAFCO it will seek Board of Supervisors approval next week for a package to build and interconnect combustion‑turbine “peakers,” while numerous public commenters and some commissioners urged further study of alternatives (Transbay Cable, renewables, efficiency), questioned the ISO requirement for dispatchable resources and raised environmental justice concerns.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission briefed LAFCO on the status of the proposed combustion‑turbine (CT) ‘‘peakers’’ project and said staff has a negotiated package with an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contractor (ICC) that it intends to present to the Board of Supervisors next week.
SFPUC staff said the package will include five components: turbine upgrades and renovations, a construction management agreement, necessary land transactions, a power‑purchase agreement and interconnection agreements. Staff explained the original J Power deal fell apart and the commission is pursuing the path of early city ownership with ICC as the EPC contractor; staff said the city would own the peakers and that the physical generation units are currently in Houston under manufacturer warranty.
Commissioners pressed SFPUC staff for documentation of formal communications with the California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) about alternatives to building new fossil generation (for example, the Transbay Cable project, energy efficiency measures and renewables). Staff said the city has asked the ISO in writing at least once (responses were received in July 2007) and that staff sent another April 2 letter asking whether all four units remain necessary in light of recent developments including the Transbay Cable and renewables initiatives.
SFPUC staff also explained an ISO technical constraint: the ISO requires dispatchable resources for reliability; intermittent sources such as solar and wind do not meet that characteristic for ISO dispatch. Staff said geothermal could meet the dispatchable requirement but that in‑city geothermal options are less mature and less certain; SFPUC said it is investigating deep‑well geothermal options.
Public comment at LAFCO was extensive. Community and environmental justice speakers objected strongly to building peaker plants in Southeast San Francisco (Bayview Hunters Point), cited health concerns related to PM2.5 and toxic air contaminants, alleged misrepresentations by SFPUC staff to other bodies, and urged LAFCO to task a contractor to study whether peakers are needed at all or whether the city can rely on alternatives. Advocates also tied the decision to other city programs (mayor’s solar incentive, MECA funds) and urged comprehensive analysis across projects.
Chair Ross Mercurini and commissioners agreed to continue parts of the discussion and to consider public input as the SFPUC moves its package toward the Board of Supervisors.
