A proposal by Recurrent Energy to own and operate
a 5 megawatt energy-producing solar voltaic farm
on the Sunset Reservoir in San Francisco,
requires more scrutiny and analysis.
Illustration courtesy Recurrent Energy
By Julian Davis
May 4, 2009
Here we are in 2009 with major roadblocks to the City of San Francisco covering the Sunset Reservoir with solar panels and selling the electricity to San Francisco residents and businesses. It’s a political conundrum that has the City considering a deal with Recurrent Energy, a private solar power developer and owner, to build a solar plant atop the reservoir and bill the City of San Francisco millions upon millions of dollars for energy we should be able to produce and sell ourselves.
The mechanics of the Recurrent deal, before the full Board of Supervisors Tuesday, are decidedly not in the City’s favor. Surprisingly, the deal made it past a Budget and Finance sub-committee in large part because the Sierra Club is supporting the deal out of global warming induced desperation. But there is no good reason why the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) can’t move forward just as quickly with a publicly owned and operated solar plant with huge cost savings.
Why the Recurrent deal is so bad
The cost of building a 5 megawatt solar plant atop the Sunset Reservoir is approximately $40 million. But, as the deal is currently structured, the cheapest price the SFPUC could get away with paying Recurrent for the plant is $50 million, and that’s if it exercises its one-time option to purchase the plant after seven years of paying almost $2 million annually for the energy it produces. The deal gets worse if the City doesn’t exercize its buyout option in seven years because then we are locked into a 25-year power purchase agreement that would cost us closer to $70 million over the life of the contract. The deal would require the Board of Supervisors to waive its right to oversee annual appropriations for the project.
The argument proponents of the deal are making is that Recurrent Energy would be eligible for federal tax credits that are not available to the SFPUC and other public agencies. This, they argue, would lower the cost of the project and potentially reduce financial risk to the City. This argument is a blatant red herring. Yes, the federal tax credits would lower the cost for Recurrent to build the project, but that won’t lower the cost for the City to buy the energy or the plant.
The SFPUC would still be roped into a long-term fixed-rate contract with Recurrent. So, all the tax exemption means is that Recurrent can take at least another $10 million to the bank from the Federal Government and still charge us $50-70 million for a $40 million project. That’s a tidy $20-40 million gross profit for Recurrent depending on whether we buy the project after seven years or decide to let them keep selling us solar power for two and a half decades.
Furthermore, our financial risk is far greater with the Recurrent deal than if we first secured a revenue model for the solar power generated and then issued revenue bonds to finance a city-built plant (something San Francisco voters already approved in 2001). Instead of being on the hook to Recurrent for up to $70 million, the SFPUC could finance the project with $40 million in bond financing. There is no reason why the Obama administration shouldn’t let the SFPUC access subsidies the way it currently does for private companies. This would lower the cost to more like 30 million. The City would save tens of millions of dollars by having the SFPUC finance and own the plant upfront instead of paying Recurrent to sell it back to us.
Recurrent Politics
The real issue holding up the swift development and distribution of solar energy by the SFPUC using voter-approved revenue bonds, is that PG&E has a monopoly on distributing electricity to residents and businesses in San Francisco. If this monopoly were ever genuinely challenged, there would be a quick and ready revenue model for the solar power generated on the Sunset Reservoir. It could be sold by the SFPUC to surrounding residential and commercial consumers offering a more affordable alternative to PG&E. If Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), or public power were ever instituted, this would be possible.
Given the roadblock PG&E’s sole distributorship poses to anybody else selling electricity to residential and commercial customers, Recurrent’s revenue model is simple: milk the city of San Francisco by roping us into buying energy we can’t sell. With a dollar per year lease for the SFPUC’s 480,000-square foot reservoir rooftop, Recurrent would rake in millions from the City, sticking us with a huge bill for solar energy we hope someday we can turn around and sell but, for which, there is no current workable revenue model because PG&E has a monopoly on distribution. OUCH! – that is a horrible deal for San Francisco.
Although it is obvious that the Recurrent deal is not in San Francisco’s best interest, Mayor Gavin Newsom is hot to push it through. He doesn’t seem to care about the financial burden it places on the City as long as he can take credit for the largest solar power project in any American city. Unfortunately, the general zeal to produce renewable energy and stop global warming has blinded the Sierra Club and other environmentalists to the awful nature of this deal.
What the Supervisors need to do: Send the deal back to the Budget and Finance Committee
Instead of approving a politically motivated give away to private interests, the Board of Supervisors should look more closely at this deal and find a better alternative. That means not buckling under pressure from Newsom and the Sierra Club, and immediately sending this back to the Budget and Finance Committee for more scrutiny. Energy issues can sometimes appear complicated and we can’t expect freshman supervisors to have it all sussed out after one sub-committee meeting, although, to his credit, Supervisor David Campos has this one figured out. Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly and Campos, need support on this issue from Supervisors John Avalos, David Chiu and Eric Mar. San Francisco deserves a fair shake on any initiative to develop solar power on the Sunset Reservoir – the Recurrent deal is far from it.
Build a City-owned solar power plant
San Francisco does not need to pay Recurrent or any other private company to build a solar installation on the Sunset Reservoir and then sell the power back to us. The SFPUC should immediately draw up plans to finance and build the solar project and sell the electricity directly to San Francisco customers. The Supervisors and the SFPUC have all the tools in place to accomplish this using voter-approved revenue bonds and the CCA model.
Work with the Administration to allow subsidies for public agencies
There is no reason why Reagan-Bush era tax codes should linger indefinitely when President Barack Obama has already signaled his desire to change them. The SFPUC should be able to take advantage of some kind of federal subsidy like what is currently available to private companies in the form of tax credits. The City ought to be independently pursuing the Sunset Reservoir project while concurrently seeking approval for public entities to get subsidized, the way a private entity would.
The Hunger Site
May 11, 2009 at 1:12 am
As a taxpayer, homeowner and tree hugger, my question is why should we pay to build solar panels at Sunset Reservoir, just to have to buy back the energy produced? As a taxpayer I feel that we should own the energy. It also seems like an inefficient use of space considering the buildings and homes that solar panels could be placed on.
It seems a fair and reasonable solution to build the panels on buildings and supply those buildings with a percentage of what they use in energy. And when there is surplus the energy can be shared or sold.
This is clearly a poorly thought out plan in many ways, and as usual the right hand and left hand are busy arguing instead of coming up with solutions together. I am no expert and perhaps there are many reasons why this couldn’t work but there are surely many ways to make this a better deal for the SF community and for mama earth.
Traci Amos
One People One Light
May 9, 2009 at 9:50 am
The Recurrent Solar Deal Is Indeed Bad, And Is Nothing Like CCA (Now Named Clean Power SF)
It is very telling that when I personally contacted Recurrent and asked to see its detailed numbers on how its sweetheart private solar deal with the City would actually work, the Recurrent rep told me that those details were ‘proprietary information’ and wouldn’t reveal them. This ‘proprietary information’ ploy is always a big red flag for a rip off deal.
And Adam and Aaron are -really- stretching it to say that CCA (Clean Power SF) would use the same sort of PPAs to build its wind, solar and efficiency projects.
The huge difference with Clean Power SF is that under its carefully designed structure, the City would be -guaranteed- ownership of all of those renewables from the start. The lame Recurrent deal demands that we wave the City chartered authority for the Supervisors to annually approve payments, and only gives us two chances to buy the private solar array; once at year seven, and once at year 15.
Another huge problem with the Recurrent deal is that it is a stand alone purchase of only solar (the most expensive form of renewable energy) and locks us into paying current market prices for that solar power for 25 years. This is absurd. Anyone with a junior high school education can see that the price of solar is going to go -way- down over next 25 years. Remember how expensive the first calculators were? It’s a good thing that the City didn’t make a 25 year deal to buy office calculators at the prevailing market price in those early days…
Clean Power SF is a much better way to pursue this project, guaranteeing a much lower price and City ownership from the start. Because Clean Power SF will build hundreds of megawatts of wind, solar and efficiency projects all at once, it will achieve much better economies of scale; and the rapid revenues it will bring in from wind and efficiency will help pay the up front cost of its solar projects quickly so that we don’t have to pay debt and interest for 25 years on those panels.
Clean Power SF will be taking bids and starting up next year. Lets wait a few months for this better model to kick into gear, and build the 5 megawatt Sunset Reservoir project under that much more sensible and affordable structure, which will guarantee that those solar panels will be part of the foundation of a new, renewable -public- power system in San Francisco; one which will bring about the death knell of PG&E’s monopoly on our energy supply.
Eric Brooks
SF Green Party, Sustainability Working Group
May 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Excuse me, in an earlier comment, for suggesting that Ross Mirkarimi had voted for this proposal. i studied the record of the amendments and votes available at sf.gov and got the idea, much to my surprise and alarm, that this had been a unanimous vote.
i just read the Bay Guardian editorial which stated that Mirkarimi, Daly, Avalos, and Campos had voted against it, and that Chris Daly said “going green doesn’t mean going green stupid”—hear hear—and, that Daly had called it a “rush job,” (alway a sign that whoever’s behind it doesnt want you to think about this, or study it, too hard).
It’s about 4:50 on Friday afternoon as I’m writing this, so I’m planning to tune into Pirate Cat Radio at 6:00, or maybe even bicycle down the hill, to hear what Ross Mirkarimi has to say about this, and the defeat of the MTA budget defeat, on Pissed Off Radio, at 6:00 P.M.
I know I have something of a rep for going on about Africa, Congo, NIGER, and all sorts of things that seem remote here, but I’ve got African, Native American, and aboriginal Australian friends who are grateful indeed for that defeat of the MTA budget—-because it’s a vote against more cars, roads, driving, and big corporate grid-tied power, all of which create demand for the ongoing resource wars all over the Global South, and not just for fossil fuel and uranium.
All these electric cars that Schwarzenegger and Newsom want built, bought, and driven on PG&E and SoCal Edison electricity require cobalt, from D.R. Congo, as do nuclear and natural gas power plants, jet fighter bombers, and the nuclear missiles they’re all wired to drop.
May 8, 2009 at 9:28 am
Let’s get some perspective. The Sunset project is indeed large – its’ 5MW will more than triple the total amount of solar – to 7MW – that is publicly and privately owned in San Francisco right now. But the City’s energy plan has a goal of 31MW of solar by 2017. There’s a lot more work to do if we are going to see another 24MW installed here.
Our city is also trying to shut down Mirant’s old, dirty power plant on Potrero without adding any more in-city fossil fuels. A 10million gallon biodiesel plant is being considered that might help clean up a serious polluter in Southeast San Francisco – or wreck our locally-based, sustainability-oriented biodiesel community. Our CCA slog is entering a critical final leg readying a CCA program – that envisions 360MW of renewables.
And then there’s the natural gas full-court press. There are currently six new natural gas-fired power plants proposed in the East Bay, together representing over 3,500MW! Three of them are in or near Pittsburgh where, incidentally, the Transbay Cable will originate, bringing fossil fueled power to what progressive, justice-minded city? Yep, you got it.
The state’s Energy Action Plan, an executive order by the governor, and the California Air Resources Board’s Climate Protection Plan all call for expanding renewable energy to 33% by 2020, with a further goal of 50% renewables by 2035. California Public Utilities Commission staff recently warned that to meet these requirements, all new electric generation must be renewable. Large-scale development of new conventional natural-gas plants is not compatible with the state’s commitments. These six proposals could seriously harm the Bay Area’s nascent renewable energy market and swamp us with more energy than is even needed. We are parties to a so-far successful effort to kill the largest of these six gas plants – a feat considering that no natural gas plant has ever been denied a permit in California history.
And instead of helping address those issues, you make noise about 5MW of solar in San Francisco? Give us a break. Yes, details are actually very important to us here at Sierra Club, and so is perspective.
– Aaron
May 8, 2009 at 6:55 am
So the argument by the Sierra Club is that since Harrington is dragging ass on implementing CCA, that we need to legitimate that obstructionism and proceed apace with a privatization scheme.
Sounds like failure following failure to me.
-marc
May 7, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Hey Aaron. Not being a banker is probably one of the best compliments one can receive in these times, so thank you. Last I checked you and John Rizzo aren’t bankers either – okay so you consulted with your friends. Well it turns out there are no tax attorneys or bankers on staff at Vote Solar or the local chapter of the Sierra Club. Maybe that’s a good thing, I don’t know. Turns out there are a lot of beaurocrats, some academics, and a former PG&E employee.
It seems to me the very crux of the problem with the Recurrent deal goes back to the tax laws that were formulated in the arch-conservative Raegan-Bush era which are now being used to bludgeon public power agencies into accepting the privatization of energy resources. If the folks who helped write these laws are the people you and the Sierra Club are consulting with, it is no wonder why you are all over this deal. It is no different than letting the guys at Goldman Sachs handle the financial crisis.
The real affront to our progressive values comes when beaurocrats and academics take their cues from investment bankers and corporate tax attorneys and become unconscious tools of private interests. Only then can the Sierra Club, founded by the great environmental entrepreneur John Muir, be reduced to promoting the hand over of public assets to private special interests.
All I am asking for is a better deal. I know the details don’t concern you guys over at the Sierra Club but the devil is in the details. I am confident that San Francisco can do better. The energy from the Sunset Reservoir solar installation should be powering the 2,000 residences and businesses directly adjacent to it and should be sold to these San Francisco customers directly by the SFPUC. Find us some progressive tax attorneys, solar developers, and financial gurus to write the law enabling that deal and I will be impressed.
May 7, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Geez,
What do you do when the Sierra Club sells out? Well, no real surprise there. I think their last president now works for Wal-Mart?
h.
May 7, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Friends,
Although this project, many months in the making, appears to be nearing final approval, as it should, there have been lots of requests that we at the Sierra Club explain our views. So I will try to summarize out of respect for those who have raised questions.
The Sierra Club’s support for this project is not simply due to our concerns about climate disruption, but also because this is an important and meaningful step in the development of a clean energy program for San Francisco – a program we have been working on for many years.
A power purchase agreement (PPA) such as this is a very common tool for buying energy. The offer before the city takes advantage of federal tax breaks for solar and it incorporates the savings into the kWh price we pay.
This project in no way conflicts with CCA (Community Choice Aggregation). Our CCA program would be using this very same mechanism, a PPA, to buy electricity. And this project will be absorbed into and count towards our CCA solar goals of 31MW. Despite the confident statements made by others on this blog, the City does not yet have the tools readied to institute a CCA and thus sell power to SF residents. And despite having “Solar H bonding authority†since 2001, we can not yet sell those bonds to raise the necessary capital until we have a revenue source that the bond market will accept as collateral. PG&E’s monopoly has really nothing to do with this. Those of us who have been consistently involved in CCA and this bonding question can say “we’ve been over this and over thisâ€. Until we have a CCA up and running, we can’t access that Solar H bonding authority.
Regarding the project’s finances, our friend Julian has simply given faulty math. He’s not a banker, solar developer or a tax lawyer (at least not yet) – and neither am I, which is why we consulted with our friends at Vote Solar and with Sierra Club members who are in the business of solar, folks who helped write the federal tax laws supporting solar’s development. Public Utilities whom we admire use this financing model and find the contract terms reasonable and common.
The project was selected through a competitive bidding process, and the City chose the bid 10% lower than the next-best bidder. The contractor is not “milking†anyone nor is this project a “political giveaway†or “crony capitalismâ€. Please put away the blanket corporate hatred and paranoid conspiracies. It’s not helping things here, and is certainly scaring the private energy community from working in San Francisco – a frightening possibility considering that a CCA would be a huge public works project that will greatly depend on the private sector’s expertise.
Solar is expensive, and leadership is expensive. We’ve got a lot more solar yet to develop here in SF and we certainly will take advantage of evolving technologies and lowering prices. But we can’t simply wait 10-15 years to get going, as some friends have suggested. The Sunset Reservoir solar installation is a good step forward and a project we can support.
Aaron Israel
chair, energy committee
San Francisco Bay chapter
Sierra Club
May 7, 2009 at 11:22 am
After reading Julian Davis’s piece, and then the Board’s vote, I sent the San Francisco Green Party and Sierra Club’s John Rizzo a Twitter asking him to explain Sierra Club support for this, and promising to listen, as I will.
I respect John, and I’ve urged John to run for District #5 Supervisor when Ross Mirkarimi vacates the District #5 seat; so I will indeed read and listen, though I’ll also readily admit that I’m not predisposed to agree with the Sierra Club support, or the Board’, about this.
John responded–with Tweet–brevity—that this Recurrent power will be non-PG&E power, and, promised a lengthier response outside the Twitter format..
Might I suggest that Fog City Journal thus ask John, and perhaps some of the Supes who voted for the Recurrent proposal, including Green Ross Mirkarimi, to further explain their reasoning here?
May 6, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Not all “renewable” energy is environmentally sustainable. Mendocino and Humboldt County environmentalists are fighting PG&E’s mega wave energy project on their coasts, which would damage marine life, including fisheries, and generate far more energy than those counties can use, all to generate power, and profit for PG&E, on the Southwest Grid, http://tinyurl.com/cs5sug.
The CPUC gave PG&E $6 million to research this mega wave project, which Californians will then pay for, again, as ratepayers.
The Recurrent deal, if implemented, will further the environmentally unsustainable concentration of wealth and power. Here’s a report on Recurrent’ and consolidation in the solar industry, http://tinyurl.com/chh228.
May 6, 2009 at 9:45 am
If this replaces polluting sources of energy – do it now. If it only replaces non-polluting energy (such as hetch hetchy), then don’t spend the extra money at a time when we need all we can to keep essential services. Issuing bonds (even revenue bonds) will double the costs when you add the interest paid to the bond holders. So the $40 million project will cost the city $80 Million if they build it themselves. It is still a better deal for the City to go with Recurrent including the profits they will make. And NOBODY who lives in San Francisco believes the City of San Francisco can operate ANYTHING better than a private entity.
May 5, 2009 at 6:47 am
We’ve had this discussion since the first solar bonds were passed earlier this decade. As technology evolves, it is irresponsible to throw all investment in at the outset. Had the City jumped the gun in 2002 and invested in 2002-era solar, we’d be sitting on a herd of white elephants. Similarly, as wi-fi has crested as a technology, allowing Google/Earthlink to have outfitted city poles with 802.11 technology would have been a similar boondoggle.
It makes much more sense to stagger investment over a period of years so that the City can take advantage of evolving technology and not be committed to technologies which are about to be obsolete.
If the City is going to take the dubious path of leveraging corporate tax breaks, then they need to build into the contract the ability to rapidly depreciate rapidly obsolete technologies so that the project tech footprint is keeping up with evolving technologies.
All contracts being let by City government are being articulated in order to build support for Newsom’s political ambitions, not to do what is in the best long term interests of the City. We’ve seen Newsom’s lack of short-term commitment to San Francisco in his record, let’s not legitimate more of same.
-marc
May 5, 2009 at 12:20 am
I will reiterate what I said at the LAFCo/SFPUC joint roll in the hay. You can watch the April 24th playback here http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=16 .
First off, NONE OF THIS ELECTRICITY WILL REACH ANY RESIDENT. Just wanted to be clear on that. PG&E will make sure of that. Taxpayer dollars will all go towards powering up more city services and sale of electricity to tenants like CCSF and SFUSD.
Second, I am in totally support of renewable projects being built to support ratepayers in this city but it must be under Community Choice Aggregation so that the residents can take advantage of stabilizing our energy rates.
Again, I am in support of renewables being built BUT I am not in favor of building anything just for the sake of it. Building solar for solar sake is a really bad idea and fiscally unsound. Knowing that within 2-3 years a major jump in the technology will help produce 10 times as much on the same real estate of PV cell. Three years ago, I was invited to attend a venture capitalist meeting where leading technologists and engineers working on nano-solar technology said that we are within 10 years of implementation. We have see the reduction of silicon already and lighter, flexible materials that are not depleting the environment.
The mete of the matter is that like WiFi (thanx for the mention Marc), Solar technology is rapidly changing. In this plan, like the WiFi plan, there is no technology upgrade. So, in 5-10 years when the city is ready to buy this project outright it will be a “white elephant”. We will have bought an obsolete system while a technology upgrade could increase output by maybe 50%. And, 3 years later another 25%, and so on and so on.
City government has its own power through Hetch Hetchy. We, as residents and taxpayers, are not allowed, we are prohibited by a faulty agreement that is not being challenged by the Raker Act to use one watt of that power for our own uses. And, we own it as a city! Our tax dollars! But it feels like it’s like it’s not our own.
In addition, the City can’t use all the energy Hetch Hetchy creates and since we are “prohibited” from using it, we sell it elsewhere.
Third, the project will be privatized, per se, owned in trust by Recurrent, holding it for us until the time is “legally feasible” for us, the City, to buy it. I recall that the sweet spot is beyond 7 years. It’s in the video.
In addition, the amount per kilowatt is still fairly pricey per kilowatt and is fixed for the entire term of the contract, 25 YEARS. Technology will have changed ten-fold by that time. Remember, there are no technology upgrades in this contract. White elephant if we buy it.
In conclusion, without the assurances that the energy generation is directly transmitted to us (the residents and local businesses), without technology upgrades, without adjustable rates, without Community Choice Aggregation, without a real vision that is publicly Sunshined, I am afraid this is the wrong path towards energy independence.
I am in favor of all kinds and as much renewables as we can build and get but let’s not sell ourselves short when we are on the cusp of an energy technology revolution.
Don’t build projects for project sake, solar for solar sake. We want renewable energy and we want it now but we must do it economically wise, with our eyes wide open and our vision beyond the horizon.
fini
May 4, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The City has the authority to issue revenue bonds to construct solar facilities, where revenues from energy generated pays down the debt; no need to resort to raising taxes. That is a red herring.
-marc
May 4, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Uh, there’s a reason the Obama administration can’t issue tax credits to the SFPUC. The PUC is a public agency, part of a municipal government, and therefore has no federal tax liability to issue credits for. Hello, this is basic tax law 101.
May 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Addendum: according to the budget analyst report, the PPA (Recurrent deal) is expected to cost $50 million, but if the project produces more than expected, the contract stipulates that the cost to the city is capped at $60.2 million. That’s the reason for the dif between $25 or $35 mil savings–should have made that clear in the post.
May 4, 2009 at 1:54 pm
There is a very good reason why the SFPUC wants to use a power purchase agreement (PPA) to build the Sunset Solar Project. It’s the only way the city, as a non-tax-paying entitity, can take advantage of the 30% federal investment tax credit. And for this project, the tax credits deliver at least a $25 million dollar savings.
Fact.
The city is of course free to try and issue a general obligation bond to pay for a city-owned solar system. Doing so would result in the same covenant to make long-term annual payments that’s contained in the PPA, but would cost the city at least $25 million more. Read the budget analysts report. Or do the math youself. If you are having trouble with the calculations, use this tool developed by the National Renewable Energy Lab:
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam/
The SFPUC expects that over the 25 years, it’ll cost $50 million (about $35 million in 2009 dollars) for the solar power from Recurrent Energy. The SFPUC estimates that if the city issued a bond and owned the equipment, it would cost $86 million over 25 years. Either way, the public owns the power, just one option costs $35 million less.
That’s why every single significant solar purchase by public agencies have used PPAs since the federal tax credit was made available. It’s what the Sacramento Municipal Utility District uses. Ditto San Diego, San Diego Unified School district, Anderson Union School District, State of California, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CSU Chico, CSU Dominguez Hills, CSU San Bernardino, University of California Irvine, Chuckawalla Vallley State Prison, Ironwood State Prison, Patton State Hospital, CA Dept of Transportation in Stockton, AC Transit, Port of Oakland, UCSD, Cal Tech, Fresno Airport, city of Santa Barbara, about 20 water districts throughout the state…we could go on. LADWP is absolutley notorious for wanting to own all its generating assets. LADWP’s plan for solar? All PPAs, all the time.
And when Community Choice Aggregation happens for SF, it too would use PPAs in order to harness the tax credits for solar.
If you want to see solar happen for the city, this is the cheapest way for the city to do it.
If you don’t care about cost or don’t want to see solar happen—perhaps a sternly worded resolution condemning global warming instead?—then that’s another matter entirely.
Note that this project, in addition to its environmental benefits, would create 71 green collar jobs. The contractor signed a contract that guarantees that 30% of those jobs come from the most economically disadvantaged zipcodes in the city. This is a standard that no other—let me repeat—no other project before the city comes close to meeting.
This project fights global warming with actual clean electrons, not rhetoric. It gives San Francisco a leadership role in the transition to the clean energy economy with a real project, not aspirational intentions. And it provides jobs, not promises, for poor people.
That’s why Sierra Club, San Francisco Community Power, the Ella Baker Center, Green for All, the Apollo Alliance, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Brightline Defense, the Greenlining Institute, the Vote Solar Initiative, and many other groups working on clean energy all support it.
May 4, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I do believe I detect a number of people who may be sparring over this issue lining themselves up to run for D5 supervisor in 2011 …
That said, this has been the best explanation I have read so far as to why I, as an active member of the SF group of the Sierra Club, should have abstained from voting on endorsing the Recurrent proposal for the Sunset Reservoir. It also speaks to the need for multiple opinions to be represented when organizations like the Sierra Club are trying to decide whether or not to endorse a proposal.
May 4, 2009 at 11:06 am
Gavin Newsom running the City like a business, only not in our interests, rather as if he were the business across the negotiating table from the City.
This kind of crony capitalism is the stuff over which once great empires trip. Newsom was wrong on the Google/Earthlink WiFi debacle, and he is wrong on this boondoggle as well.
-marc
May 4, 2009 at 10:15 am
Is there a provision to prevent privately owned Recurrent from selling at any point to PG&E? Otherwise, we’ll just end up with PG&E turning a long term profit by selling “extra” energy back to San Francisco.
(My explanation in middle section of this column http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2009/04/01/stay-tuned-she-sells-sanctuary/)
May 4, 2009 at 9:38 am
Julian,
Brilliant piece. I’d forgotten why I liked you so much. The tax break for Recurrent is much like the one Peskin pushed through for an anonymous group of investors headquartered in, yes, the Cayman Islands. Hard as it is to believe, Aaron obviously signed an agreement whereby our new buses were purchased with what had to be cocaine money. The deal would never sour, said Peskin. Well, it has, and it will be the next big scandal as the City ends up paying out a couple of hundred million to anonymous drug barons who walked away from the deal with a bundle in tax subsidies.
As long as we’re on the subject of reservoirs, why the hell doesn’t the City repair the one on Hyde Street? Our population recently passed 800,000 (highest ever) and all the SFPUC wants to do is sell this reservoir to developers.
City can’t build and operated a utility? Ever hear of the town of Moccasin? You have to work for the SFPUC to live there. Workers from there have kept Hetch-Hetchy running fine for pushing a century.
Avalos is the biggest disappointment in this. What’s going on in his head as he sides with Elsbernd?
h.
May 4, 2009 at 9:36 am
In other words, No Solar energy is better than Private Solar Energy. Well said, comrade!