Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cleanpowersf Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays vote on CleanPowerSF storage addition after labor and community-benefits questions
Summary
Supervisors continued a PUC amendment to add battery storage to the Blythe Solar contract for one week, asking the developer to appear to answer questions about community benefits, project labor agreements and construction commitments; PUC staff warned a delay may affect a resource adequacy filing.
The Budget & Finance Committee on Oct. 20 continued for one week a proposed amendment to CleanPowerSF’s power purchase agreement that would add battery storage to the existing Blythe Solar project, increase the contract not-to-exceed by roughly $83 million (to about $220 million) and extend program commitments through the contract term.
Mike Himes of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission explained the amendment would add dispatchable battery capacity to an existing long-term solar purchase, improving the project’s resource-adequacy capacity under state rules, helping CleanPowerSF meet peak demand and reducing exposure to volatile short‑term capacity markets. PUC staff said the storage component would begin operation by Oct. 2022 and estimated the battery would supply roughly 8% of CleanPowerSF’s typical monthly RA requirement.
Supervisor Asha Safaie pressed PUC staff about the scale and duration of community benefits identified in the BLA report (noted as about $375,000 and that benefits appear to sunset in 2025 despite the contract running through 2040), whether a project labor agreement (PLA) is required or expected for the battery work, and why the developer or Blythe/NextEra representatives were not present to answer construction and labor commitments. PUC staff said community benefits were submitted voluntarily during the solicitation and scored by the panel, prevailing wages are contractually required, but a PLA was not required by the solicitation; staff also warned a short continuance could affect a resource-adequacy compliance filing at month end but agreed to report impacts if the committee continued the item.
Supervisor Safaie moved to continue the matter to the Oct. 27 meeting to allow the developer to appear; the committee voted 3–0 to continue the item for one week. Committee members said they wanted direct answers from the developer about past construction practices, apprenticeship hiring and commitments to union labor for the storage phase.
What’s next: The PUC is expected to produce responses and the project developer has been asked to appear before the Oct. 27 Budget & Finance Committee meeting.
