Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors pause $3M solar pilot, seek stronger workforce and equity language
Summary
After months of discussion, the Budget & Finance Committee paused a proposed $3 million SFPUC solar incentive pilot drawn from the mayor—s energy conservation account and asked staff to return in three weeks with clearer workforce guarantees and measures to target low-income and environmental-justice communities.
San Francisco—s Budget & Finance Committee voted to continue consideration of a proposed $3 million pilot solar incentive and related ordinance after supervisors said the program lacked clear protections for disadvantaged residents and specific workforce commitments.
The pilot, proposed to come from the mayor—s energy conservation account (MECA/MECCA), would use incentives to subsidize residential and commercial rooftop solar and leverage state and federal credits. SFPUC staff told the committee the program could increase local installations "by a third or up to 6 times more than would otherwise have occurred," according to assistant general manager for power.
Committee members highlighted two competing aims: using the MECA funds to develop larger municipal projects on public sites, or using smaller subsidies to leverage private- and nonprofit-led rooftop installations. Chair Supervisor Jake Magolik said the board had expected funds to support public-site projects and asked why the PUC—s proposal emphasized many smaller private installations.
Supervisors also pressed SFPUC and the mayor—s office for written workforce commitments. Wade Crowfoot of the mayor—s office said the administration is working with CityBuild and the mayor—s workforce office to align rebates with hiring: solar companies that hire graduates of local training programs would receive stronger incentives and, when feasible, sign First Source hiring agreements.
Public commenters ranged from solar manufacturers and local installers to affordable-housing advocates. Mercy Housing, Community Housing Partnership and other affordable housing providers urged priority access for nonprofit housing stock, arguing that combining incentives with public affordable sites would produce larger energy and financial benefits for low-income residents.
Supervisor Ross Mercarimi (raising equity concerns) and others said the pilot—s environmental-justice bonus (higher payments in designated ZIP codes) needed a precise, administrator-defined map and stronger means of ensuring benefits reach low-income residents rather than higher-income homeowners in those ZIP codes.
Rather than approve the reserve or ordinance, the committee voted to continue both items for three weeks so PUC staff and supervisors could refine eligibility, define environmental-justice areas and add workforce-language that links incentives to local hiring and training outcomes. The committee—s continuance was approved without objection; supervisors said they expect the PUC to report back with specific ordinance amendments and implementation metrics.
