Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transbay Cable topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues controversial Transbay Cable project for further review
Summary
After lengthy presentations from Port, SFPUC and the ISO, and extensive public testimony for and against, the Budget & Finance Committee continued the Transbay Cable items to the call of the chair (within 45 days) to allow additional SFPUC, ISO and port analysis on reliability, environmental mitigation and public-benefit terms.
The committee continued action on the Transbay Cable project—an approximately 400-megawatt high-voltage direct-current transmission line proposed by Transbay Cable LLC—after extensive testimony from port staff, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the California Independent System Operator (ISO).
Port and project staff summarized the CEQA review, mitigation measures, appraisal-based license payments and a public-benefit package that would deliver payments to the Port and to the SFPUC to support renewable-energy and efficiency programs. The port described proposed construction and operating license terms, an environmental-letter-of-credit, and public-benefit payments estimated in the multi-million-dollar range to the city and PUC.
SFPUC staff outlined five initial issues—reliability, energy-resource mix, effect on local plant shutdowns, project cost and broader policy effects—while noting tradeoffs: the ISO identified the Transbay Cable as a long-term reliability solution but conditioned that finding on completion of an 'action plan' of other transmission projects and upgrades.
The ISO's senior transmission engineer told the committee that reliability criteria are federally required standards and that the action plan remains the base path; the Transbay Cable project was described as a credible long-term alternative to help meet criteria but not an automatic substitute for other measures. Local community groups voiced concerns about combustion turbines, particulate emissions, and local impacts; labor and industry representatives urged approval for reliability and job benefits.
Committee action: Given outstanding technical questions and strong public interest, supervisors moved and agreed (without objection) to continue Items 10–12 to the call of the chair (within 45 days) to permit additional analysis and reporting back on community-outreach plans, updated cost estimates, and PUC reliability assessments.
Next steps: Port and SFPUC staff were asked to return with updated cost estimates, outreach plans, mitigation specifics, and the ISO and SFPUC were asked to clarify the project's role relative to the city’s energy action plan.
