Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interconnection Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee clears PUC ordinance to connect small hydro project to PG&E, with ethics waivers removed
Summary
The Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Subcommittee advanced an ordinance allowing the Public Utilities Commission to enter a long-term interconnection agreement with PG&E for a small inline hydro project. The committee accepted city attorney edits removing proposed waivers of voter-adopted ethics and contracting rules and moved the item to the full Board as amended.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Subcommittee on April 24 advanced an ordinance that would let the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) enter a long-term interconnection agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for a small inline hydroelectric installation.
John Doyle, who said he manages energy infrastructure projects for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, told the committee the project would capture otherwise wasted energy from a head drop in the pipelines from Crystal Springs Reservoir to University Mound. Doyle described it as a ‘‘small inline hydro project’’ of roughly 240 kilowatts and said the PUC estimates it will produce about 1,600 megawatt‑hours per year.
Doyle said the ordinance is intended to let the PUC secure PG&E’s interconnection requirements before final design and a construction RFP, and that the interconnection work will involve a PG&E‑owned meter, meter upgrades and a long‑term ownership charge. He said the PUC estimated interconnection‑related costs at about $86,765 (PUC estimate) and expected final costs to come in lower.
The Budget Analyst, identified in the record as Mr. Rose, cited the committee report and gave a PUC maximum estimate to be $86,007.65 for the payment to PG&E under the proposed agreement and said annual net charges to PG&E for transmission and delivery are estimated at roughly $8,700 to $16,500 per year. The Budget Analyst also noted that the PUC reported roughly 1,600 MWh per year from the project.
Deputy City Attorney John Giffner told the committee that portions of the draft ordinance sought to waive certain local contracting and ethics requirements but that two categories could not be waived because they were adopted by voter initiative: Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.126 (the six‑month restriction on contractors’ campaign contributions following contract approval) and Administrative Code chapter 12G (prohibiting city funds from being used for political activities). Giffner recommended striking the proposed waiver language on page 4, lines 8–11; the committee accepted his amendment.
Supervisor John Avalos asked whether schematic drawings exist; Doyle said preliminary drawings are available and offered to provide them to Avalos’ office.
With the city attorney’s edits accepted, Chair Mark Farrell moved the ordinance forward to the full Board as amended; the motion passed without recorded opposition in the subcommittee.
The ordinance now goes to the full Board of Supervisors for further consideration. The PUC and the Budget Analyst provided differing written estimates for the interconnection payment ($86,765 vs. $86,007.65); both figures are reported here and are attributed to those sources in the public record.
