The solar project heads for a voteBy Tim Redmond
Lots of talk about the Sunset reservoir Solar proposal over the weekend; the Chron weighed in with a fairly weak story that just did the he-says-she-says without getting into any of the real issues. And Julian Davis has a pretty detailed analysis here, at Fog City Journal.
The simple point is that the contract the supes are about to sign off on isn’t a great deal for the city. We’re going to be paying a lot of money to a private company to do something the city ought to be able to do itself.
I had conversations last week with a number of supervisors, and it’s looking like some of the progressives -- John Avalos and Eric Mar, for example -- are leaning toward supporting the project. Mar told me he’s been listening to the Sierra Club, which is often a good thing to do when it comes to alternative energy, but in this case I think the traditional enviros are so thrilled that there’s actual a viable solar project on the horizon that they’re not spending enough time on the details.
In fact, I spoke with John Rizzo, the Sierra Club’s point person on the project, and he told me that “The Sierra Club doesn’t care about the details of the contract. We’re not contract experts. We just want to see this happen.”
He agreed that it’s infuriating that so much of the federal alternative-energy money is going to the private sector, and said he’d support legislation that would give public agencies access to the same sort of money private companies get in tax breaks. “But global warming isn’t waiting,” he said. “Let’s build this one with this kind of a deal, and try the have the city build the next one.”
I with Rizzo in spirt, but the truth is, we’re going to regret this deal.
The only reason it makes sense to pay Recurrent Energy to do this is that Recurrent gets a $12 million tax break, and the city, as a public agency, doesn’t qualify for that money.
Let me make a humble suggestion. Rep. Nancy Pelosi is, I believe, still the speaker of the House. She’s managed to get San Francisco something like a billion dollars for the Chinatown subway. I’m willing to bet a case of Bud Light (and I don’t make bets that valuable easily) that if the mayor of San Francisco called Rep. Pelosi and told her that the difference between building a five-megawatt solar project and not building it was $12 million in federal money -- so little in terms of federal spending that it’s what Mirkarimi calls "decimal dust" -- San Francisco would have a promise of that cash so fast that Newsom couldn’t even find a shovel to break ground before the check arrived.
And the thing that frustrates me is that nobody’s even trying.
The supes ought to send this deal back to committee and take a real look at ways the city can do the same project, and own it, for less money. I refuse to believe that’s not possible.
And if Gavin Newsom wants to say he can’t make this work, then he’s going to have a hell of a time convincing any of us that he has the ability to run the State of California.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (11)
Redmond confused!?!
When Peskin let some Cayman Island drug cartel people buy a generation of our MUNI fleet cause "they can get a tax break" Jake McGoldrick said: "But, don't the same people pay local, state and federal taxes?".
They all laughed at him. Literally. Face it, Mar and Avalos are backing this deal because they are personally intellectually shallow. Live with that one for 8 years.
h.
Posted by hbrown | May 4, 2009 10:57 PM
"The supes ought to send this deal back to committee and take a real look at ways the city can do the same project, and own it, for less money. I refuse to believe that’s not possible."
If you wanted to stall solar projects, sure. The fact is, you have few city engineers with any experience with solar. You might as well say, we shouldn't do anything unless we have a public power system, like in Sacramento - but why go after solar projects?
Posted by c.c. | May 5, 2009 12:16 AM
Pay attention c.c.
SFPUC has run 163 miles of the 170 mile power train from Hetch-Hetchy for a hundred years. Your attack on City engineers is obviously based upon your bias for the private sector. There is a town called Moccasin that is just for PG&E employees who run a giant dam and electrical power producer. Yes, C.C., there is a Santa Claus and there are competent City engineers. Everything doesn't have to get out-sourced to your greedy corporate buddies.
I'm suspecting that the difference in you and I is that I didn't get paid to post my comments.
h.
Posted by hbrown | May 5, 2009 12:22 AM
correction,
Moccasin is filled with SFPUC employees. It is downright beautiful. Let's see how this breaks down today. In 7 years Redmond can do a duet with me. The refrain will be: "I told you so!!!".
Worst part of this Recurrent deal is that it sets a precedent. Remember how valuable owning a utility was when you played Monopoly? Who has money in hard times? The super rich and they'll continually spin off companies like Recurrent (they already have control of channels up and down the Pacific coast where tidal power is feasible) ... letting private enterprises own public power ad infinatum is a bad idea.
h.
Posted by hbrown | May 5, 2009 11:10 AM
I guess I am a little confused. I certainly am sympathetic to the interest in getting a significant and important solar project done in SF, but can someone explain to me why the buyout price would be the HIGHER of fair market value or $33 million? Why would the City ever pay more than the fair market value of the asset? In fact, given the tax benefits to Recurrent and the seven years of guaranteed payments from the City, might not the appropriate buyout price be something less than fair market value? Or perhaps I am missing something.
Posted by Rafael Mandelman | May 5, 2009 12:39 PM
Oh Christ, Ryan, lighten up.
Posted by tim redmond | May 5, 2009 01:00 PM
Hey Ryan,
Back off! Redmond's my bitch.
h.
Posted by hbrown | May 5, 2009 01:19 PM
I am with Ryan on this one, Bud Light have you ever drunk beer? The Board of Supervisors should look closely at their Sustainable Economics policies in light of a local “Progressive” Publisher promoting an out of town brew.
Tm Redmond should be asked to drink copious amounts of a local brew until he sees the error of his ways.
Posted by Chris P | May 5, 2009 02:01 PM
I have said repeatedly that if Anchor Steam would make a light beer, I'd be a regular customer. Some of us, as we get older, have discovered that we can drink copious amounts of light beer, but not such copious amounts of the heavier stuff. And when it comes to drinking beer, you should all know that more is always better.
Posted by tim redmond | May 5, 2009 02:09 PM
"I’m willing to bet a case of Bud Light (and I don’t make bets that valuable easily)"
Bud Light? Valuable? So you use the big mega-multi-national conglomerate corporate machine as your "valuable" example...the producers of non-organic, non-local, flavorless yellow pisswater? The carbon-emitting shippers of trash from parts unknown?
How about a case of 21st Amendment's Brew Free or Die IPA? How about Speakeasy's Big Daddy? How about anything brewed by hand locally with local labor and local ingredients?
Constant + f*cking + hypocrite = Redmond.
BTW...quite playing politics with the environment. Don't block solar.
Posted by Ryan | May 5, 2009 02:53 PM
John Avalos cast his vote against the deal with Recurrent.
Posted by Chris Daly | May 5, 2009 04:35 PM