The Solar Bear - Round Two of the Solar Project Debate

Constant Readers,

Last week, I described for you the nail-biting ordeal that was the vote on solar panels for City power. Supervisor Mirkarimi offered three sets of last-minute amendments, two of which failed. Ultimately, the deal passed by a vote of 7 in favor, 4 against.

Voting Yes: Alioto-Pier, Chiu, Chu, Dufty, Elsbernd, Mar and Maxwell
Voting No: Avalos, Campos, Daly and Mirkarimi

Lots of folks were none too happy with Mar for voting against all of Mirkarimi's amendments - the two parts that failed were decided by a 5-6 vote, so he was arguably the "swing vote."

Today, the talented Luke Thomas reports that Mar may be having second thoughts about the terms of the deal.

One big complaint is that the contract locks us into paying $60.2 million over 25 years ($1.8 million per year) even though the cost of producing solar power is likely to go down over time as technological advances make solar farms cheaper.

To which Ed Harrington has basically replied: "You wanna wait 25 years to use solar energy?"

SIDENOTE: From Luke's report, it seems that failed bidder EnXco has been whispering in Mar's ear about getting a better deal. According to information from Laura Spanjian, the solar project is supposed to cover the seismically sound South basin with panels, and EnXco wanted to cover the North basin, too. Despite the larger area of panels, the EcXco bid would not have produced the 5 megawatts the City is looking to generate because it would use inefficient panels. Plus EnXco would not commit to a firm price. 

In sum: EnXco couldn't follow directions, wanted to use janky panels and were sketchy about the cost.

Oh, and their un-firm price was $249 per megawatts per hour while the company the City is about to contract with is charging $235 MWH. So I'm not sure what the better deal looks like, but I'm far from an expert on all this.

Okay, so ordinances get two votes - one on "first reading" and the other on "second reading".  What happened last week as a vote on the first reading; it actually has to be passed by the board one more time. Don't ask why, it'll just frustrate you.

While Mar never said it outright, there may be a push today to send the solar contract back to the Budget and Finance Committee, where it could be changed and resubmitted to the Board.

(Note: sending this to committee in between first and second readings - where no new information has surfaced - would be a rarity bordering on unprecedented.)

It takes six votes to send the contract back to committee, so it'll take more than just Mar to switch his vote from "yes, go ahead" to "send it to the Budget and Finance Committee."

We'll see who's got the power.

-Melissa

Comments

[generic]

Is Eric Mar the Sandra Day O'Connor of this board? (Maybe it's only on this issue.)

But if there's one swing vote among these supes, who is it?

[Mary Stream]

It's hard to imagine that Gavin's pawn Carmen Chu voted to give away public resources to a private company that will lock in expensive rates. Oh right, she's not from the City and was only put into office to say yes to all of Gavin's whims. She is unqualified except to say yes yes yes to Gavin. No wonder the City is falling apart.

[Be_devine]

@Mary - You can disagree with Chu's politics (I often do), but to say that she's "unqualified" is ludicrous.

What's it take to be "qualified" in your book? She holds a Master's in Public Policy from Cal's prestigious Goldman School and held two very wonky jobs in city government before being a Supervisor. And while she was appointed to complete Ed Jew's term, the majority of people in D4 voted for her when presented with two other candidates last year. Apparently, the people who matter (her constituents) think she's qualified.

[Chris Daly]

The $249/Mwh was preferable to the $235/Mwh due to less escalation. The Recurrent deal includes 3% escalation. In other words, we'll be paying about $475/Mwh in year 25. The Enxco price would have escalated at .5%, which would have made it cheaper by the fourth year.

All water under the bridge now. I just hope that the PUC opens up to advancing technology in our future renewable projects.

[Chris Daly]

The $249/Mwh was preferable to the $235/Mwh due to less escalation. The Recurrent deal includes 3% escalation. In other words, we'll be paying about $475/Mwh in year 25. The Enxco price would have escalated at .5%, which would have made it cheaper by the fourth year.

All water under the bridge now. I just hope that the PUC opens up to advancing technology in our future renewable projects.

[Melissa Griffin]

@Generic - Right now I'd say the most important swing vote is Bevan Dufty. In second place is Sophie Maxwell. While progressives have the six votes needed to pass whatever they want (though I'm hugely generalizing here) Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Daly, Mar and Mirkarimi. The real trick is to get a veto-proof majority - which is eight votes. Maxwell generally goes with the progressives (though she can switch from time to time) and Alioto-Pier, Chu and Elsbernd ain't budging from the moderate stance - which leaves Dufty in the important position of being that 8th vote. Again, big generalizations here, but that's my best answer.

@Chris - thank you so much for clarifying the EnXco deal! I was pretty sure I was missing something there. I put up a follow-up post to this one that explains it better - as you did at the meeting.

[Mary Stream]

Devine: Carmen Chu is Gavin's representative on the BOS. Her ethnicity got her the Sunset vote coupled with the Chinese language flyers and newspapers put on my front door telling the Chinese voters to put her in office (and do you doubt the Chinatown connection?)coupled with Diane Feinstein's and Gavin's support printed therein and Chu's lies to my neighbors that she would get their kids into the schools they want and she would fix Muni and, oh yes, one of my favorites, make Ocean Beach a great recreational area etc. Well, she ended up fixing all the voters in the Sunset and the City by raising Muni fares and voting for the sunset solar issue that will cost us all money forever more. Her education has nothing to do with her lack of knowledge of The City or her shown willingness to be Gavin's pawn. Her 3 years living in the City shouts out that she is unqualified!

[Steve G]

About the price escalation: 3% seems a little expensive, but the city does have an option to buy out in a few years, which it will probably do to avoid paying $475/Mwh in year 25.

@Chris: thank you for using the right units to discuss energy. Too many people don't.

As for toxicity and the lower-cost panels in EnXco's bid: while cadmium telluride is extremely toxic, it's used in a crystalline form that is not water-soluble in solar panels. The issue is really what to do with them when they're old and outdated, since disposing of cadmium telluride is far far more sensitive than disposing of run of the mill silicon-based solar panels, since silicon is a very very safe substance.

Last, while I wasn't thrilled this project is being rushed, at least only the South basin is being covered. Solar technology is advancing rapidly, and if we covered all our best sites in solar today, we'd have no solar real estate left to use in 5 years when prices have dropped and efficiency has climbed. From that perspective the EnXco deal was quite bad.