Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors probe PG&E and SFPUC interconnection rules after costly delays to city projects
Summary
Supervisors held a hearing on delays and cost increases allegedly caused by PG&E interconnection requirements after the expiration of a prior interconnection agreement; SFPUC officials described disputes over primary vs. secondary service, impacts on schools, pools and affordable housing, and an interim 2018 path negotiated with PG&E pending longer‑term FERC settlement.
The Public Safety & Neighborhood Services Committee opened a hearing on how Pacific Gas & Electric’s interconnection requirements and the 2015 expiration of the interconnection agreement have affected San Francisco‑funded projects, repeatedly delaying construction and adding equipment costs and space constraints.
Supervisor Hilary Ronan said the city is committed under charter and administrative code to use greenhouse‑gas‑free power on city projects but that interconnection disputes with PG&E have burdened budgets and design. Harlan Kelly, general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), walked the committee through the history of the Hetch Hetchy power system, described an interim 2018 process negotiated with PG&E and said the SFPUC and PG&E had agreed to pursue a longer‑term settlement through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Barbara Hale, SFPUC assistant general manager for power, and other PUC staff provided project examples where PG&E’s requirement for primary (higher‑voltage) distribution equipment rather than secondary service dramatically increased costs and occupied valuable building or park space. She cited costs and schedule impacts for the Randall Museum, Balboa Pool and several affordable housing projects, and presented a citywide view showing thousands of SFPUC metered customers. SFPUC staff said continuing disagreements relate to differing interpretations of federal requirements and PG&E tariffs and that some facilities can be connected under grandfathering for pre‑1992 loads.
PG&E representatives, including Jess Brown (San Francisco division director) and John Claviano (service planning), acknowledged delays and said PG&E is willing to work with the city; they framed many disputes as arising from differing interpretations of tariff and FERC requirements and urged that a FERC resolution would settle several open points.
Public commenters from affordable‑housing developers, Mercy Housing, the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. and others described concrete project impacts—loss of leasable community space, additional construction costs (PUC cited roughly $800,000 on select projects), and scheduling risks tied to grants and school calendars. Supervisors asked agencies to return with follow‑up information and the committee agreed to continue oversight and convene PG&E and PUC again for updates.
Next steps: PUC and PG&E committed to return with implementation updates; the committee said it will schedule follow‑up briefings and pursue written documentation of claims, costs and the interim 2018 process.
