E-Mail Forum

RETURN

Richmond Firm Provides Structural Design for California's Largest PV System
May 18, 2009

Richmond architecture-engineering firm Interactive Resources has been retained by Bass Electric to provide structural design for what Recurrent Energy describes as “California’s largest solar PV system and the nation’s largest municipal solar project.”

Recurrent Energy is the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) provider for the system, and Bass Electric is the electrical contractor. According to Recurrent Energy:

The City of San Francisco is planning a 5 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) system located on top of the north basin of Sunset Reservoir, the City’s largest reservoir. Upon completion in 2010, with nearly 25,000 solar panels installed covering an area the size of 12 football fields, the Sunset Reservoir Solar Energy Project will be California’s largest solar PV system and the nation’s largest municipal solar project. With this installation, the total municipal solar generation in San Francisco will more than triple from the current 2 MW to 7 MW. Over the 25-year life of the project, the system will reduce carbon emissions by more than 109,000 metric tons, equivalent to taking more than 1,000 typical San Francisco residences off the grid. By hosting a system of this size — the fifth largest of its type in the U.S. — the City of San Francisco establishes itself as a national leader in PV implementation.

Local San Francisco-based companies including Bass Electric and Rosendin Electric have been chosen by Recurrent Energy for installation and have indicated that they plan to hire over 71 people, including electricians, laborers and operators.

In addition to receiving skill training on the job, the apprentices and journeyman are provided trade related classroom training to ensure true craftsmanship. All of these new jobs will be at prevailing wage. San Francisco workforce development program First Source will be utilized, providing green jobs for San Francisco residents.

The City will receive all Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) generated by this project. According to national data provided by the U.S. EPA, the solar energy system is expected to reduce carbon emissions by more than 109,000 metric tons. This is equivalent to removing more than 740 automobiles from operation or preserving over 30 acres of forest from deforestation.

Additionally, the project conforms to City policy objectives on Greenhouse Gas Reduction. San Francisco City Resolution 158-02, 2002 sets a citywide goal of 20% below 1990 levels of Greenhouse Gasses by 2012.

Interactive Resources has developed a special niche in the solar PV field providing structural engineering services for both ground mount and roof mount solar arrays.

Several articles on the process and politics of project follow:

Sunset Reservoir solar plan meets green goals

Adam Browning, Francesca Vietor

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

With San Francisco's aggressive efforts to develop renewable energy sources and President Obama's welcome change-of-tune from the Bush administration on global climate change, it's difficult to imagine that a proposal to more than triple the city's municipal solar power - with a single, cost-effective, low-risk project - could become controversial.

View Larger Image

But San Francisco's oft-stated commitments to expanding solar power and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions face a crucial test today at the Board of Supervisors.

At stake is the approval of a new 5-megawatt solar power installation that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission would like to place atop its recently seismically retrofitted Sunset Reservoir. Once completed in 2010, the Sunset Solar Project would be California's largest solar photovoltaic system and the nation's largest municipal solar project - tripling the amount of solar energy generated in the city and delivering the equivalent energy used by about 1,500 San Francisco homes.

The commission would immediately use the clean energy to power city facilities and services such as our streetlights, public schools, Muni and San Francisco General Hospital. And the system can also become a critical source of clean power to meet the energy needs of potential customers at Treasure Island, Hunters Point and other neighborhoods.

Boost to green economy

In addition to offering significant environmental benefits - reducing carbon emissions by more than 109,000 metric tons - the Sunset Solar Project would also boost San Francisco's emerging green economy. With state and local unemployment levels at their highest in decades, this project would immediately create 71 new jobs in the rapidly expanding solar energy industry. Signed agreements are also in place to give hiring preferences to local and disadvantaged residents.

The project's environmental and economic benefits have earned it the strong support of organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Greenlining Institute, S.F. Community Power, Green for All, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, the Brightline Defense Project and others.

So what's not to like?

Some have wondered why the city isn't building the system on its own. Instead, San Francisco is using a commonly utilized public-private partnership known as a power purchase agreement to move the solar project forward in a fiscally responsible way.

Through this agreement, Recurrent Energy, a San Francisco-based company with significant California solar experience, assumes all the risk and responsibility of financing, constructing and operating the project. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission commits only to buying all of the solar power from the system at a competitive rate for the next 25 years.

The power purchase agreement lets the city pay for predictable clean power rather than expensive solar infrastructure. In addition to removing the project's up-front cost, the contract allows the city, which doesn't pay taxes, to effectively harness a 30 percent federal investment tax credit available to private companies like Recurrent.

$25 million savings

All in all, that's an arrangement that saves the city $25 million over going it alone. Moreover, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has the option to purchase the Sunset Solar Project outright at depreciated costs at various points in the life of the contract. Because of these attributes, every large-scale purchase of solar by a city or municipal utility since 2007, when the federal tax credits were first available, has used a power purchase agreement.

Concerns have also been raised about the 25-year length of the contract commitment. But solar installations need a lot of up-front capital, mainly for equipment and construction costs. Similar to the kind of covenant that banks require of homeowners to secure a mortgage, Recurrent needs a long-term guarantee from the commission in order to line up financing for the project.

Members of the Board of Supervisors have asked responsible questions about the project. But we believe that the commission and Recurrent have worked diligently to address these concerns in ways that make the Sunset Solar Project even more economically compelling and financially responsible for the city.

There is no more time for delay. An approval today by the full Board of Supervisors would demonstrate the city's willingness to take bold steps toward energy self-sufficiency and once again place San Francisco at the vanguard of America's clean energy future.

Adam Browning is executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, and Francesca Vietor is a commissioner of the San Francisco PUC.

Green City: Sunset Reservoir Solar Energy Facility

Posted on April 28, 2009 by livinintheloin

If ever there were a win-win green project that San Franciscans could feel virtuous about, the Sunset Reservoir 5 megawatt Solar Energy Facility is it. However, at least two members of the Board of Supervisors are making noises about trying to stop the deal during today’s vote.

In exchange for a 30-year power purchase agreement that frees The City from $45 million in upfront construction costs, San Francisco-based Recurrent Energy would install 25,000 solar panels on the seismically reinforced eight-block rooftop of Sunset Reservoir. The 24th Avenue and Quintara Street location averages only 15 percent less sunlight than San Francisco’s sunniest areas.

The 5 megawatts of clean, renewable electricity generated by the reservoir’s solar panels would be sold exclusively to help power The City’s facilities for 30 years — at the below-market price of 23 cents per kilowatt hour delivered, far lower than the 27 cents paid in Los Angeles or the 32 cents at a similar Florida array. For this, The City would just pay $1.8 million annually.

The project would nearly triple the Public Utility Commission’s existing 2 megawatt solar output. Union-wage installation could begin this summer and finish by early 2010. Facility operations would create 71 jobs.

This would be California’s largest solar panel system and the largest municipal solar project in America. It would reduce carbon emissions by more than 109,000 metric tons.

So why would any city lawmaker resist this outstanding project backed by the Sierra Club and organized labor? San Francisco has a peculiar statute letting the Board of Supervisors approve annual payments on every long-term contract. In effect, supervisors could back out of any city contract in any given year.

All five bidders for the Sunset project specified they could not proceed with panel installation without a waiver of the annual appropriations review, because they could not borrow money unless lenders saw a guarantee that all contracted electricity would be paid for.

However, new Supervisor David Campos has said he refuses to waive one of his “most important functions … to provide oversight of … city funds.” This sounds to The Examiner like ego-driven turf protection that willingly risks the deal.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi apparently wants The City to take over building and operating the power plant — although that could cost taxpayers twice as much. Only a private business is eligible for a federal stimulus 30 percent tax rebate. City bonds would cost about $25 million more than the power purchase agreement and require voter approval that is likely to delay the start-up for years.

If the Board of Supervisors kills the Sunset Reservoir Solar Project today, The City will not only lose a key source of renewable energy but will harm future partnerships that allow The City to leverage private funding with public interest.

sfexaminer.com, 4/28

News

How Green Is Our City: Sunset Reservoir Solar Deal Approved

by Chris Roberts

May 5, 2009 4:30 PM

The final word: The deal between Recurrent Energy and the city and county of San Francisco was approved 7-4, with the dissenting votes coming from four out of six progressive Supervisors. Ground is supposed to break -- well, figuratively, of course, since it's on top of a vital water reservoir -- later this year.

Relive the liveblogging excitement below

Hi. Glad to have you with us.

As with all public meetings, this brouhaha is also viewable, with a slight lag, on SFGTV.

2:10 p.m. We settle in a little bit late but manage to snag a seat up front. The place is packed with all sorts of sundry folk, but mostly public access TV supporters. We appear to be the only dork with a laptop aside from the supervisors themselves.

2:11 p.m. Someone stinks like month-old Winston filters. We assume it isn't us, because we've quit, but you never know.

2:15 p.m. Ok, here we go -- the Board cruises through its consent agenda and gets to item 9, the oft-contentious deal between the city of SF and solar energy firm Recurrent Energy. To recap: the SF PUC brokered a deal with Recurrent for the firm to build a giant solar energy farm atop a Sunset District reservoir. A divide has arisen between the Mayor's buddies on the board -- specifically, legislation sponsor Carmen Chu -- and the progressives, who think the deal, in a word, stinks.

2:20 p.m. Both Chu and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi have introduced amendments to the deal -- Chu's would allow the city to buy the solar farm outright from Recurrent anytime after Year 7 of the 25-year deal, not just a one-time opportunity. Mirkarimi's amendments would allow the city to buy it outright for the less of about $32 million or fair market value.

2:28 p.m. Oh god, voting!

Ok, Chu's amendments pass unanimously. That, of course, means that the legislation itself can be voted down regardless. Now Mirkarimi's talking about his amendments, the key bit is the power-purchasing agreement (PPA). Under Mirkarimi's amendments, the city every year gets a report from the PUC on the status of the project -- the amount of energy produced, the cost to the city, and suchlike.

Mirkarimi's amendments to the PPA oversight pass 10-1, with Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier the lone naysayer. Now we vote on what's probably the biggest change suggested by Mirkarimi -- allowing the city to buy the project outright at $32.4 million or fair market value, whichever is LOWER.

2:36 p.m. Uh-oh, big problem: PUC general manager Ed Harrington says that that would torpedo the deal: Recurrent Energy will only get the funding necessary to build the huge stinking thing if it can get a federal tax break. That tax break is the reason why the city wants a private company build the project in the first place.

"it would be nice [to allow the city to buy the project at the lower of fair market value or $32.4 million,]" Harrington said, "but in the business world, you do not sell a project for less than fair market value."

According to Harrington, if that language was in the deal, the IRS wouldn't view it as tax-exempt, ruining everything.

2:55 p.m. Mirkarimi's amendment fails. The deal-breaker was none other than Supervisor Eric Mar, in what is -- to our recollection -- the first major break, vote-wise, with the rest of the progressive bloc.

2:58 p.m. Mirkarimi's last amendment is the annual review. Under most contracts, the Board makes an annual decision on projects such as this whether or not to continue paying for the project, via choosing whether or not to appropriate the funds necessary to complete the contract. Chu's legislation waives that right, and Harrington says that Recurrent's lenders will not loan the company the capital necessary to build the project unless the waiver is included. Harrington says that the amendment suggests the city won't pay; David Campos dissents.

3:03 p.m. If we had to wager, we would guess that that 6-5 vote to reject Mirkarimi's amendment, with Eric Mar as the swing vote, portends well for supporters of the project.

3:05 p.m. We now have had a few minutes of legal wrangling between Harrington and Campos, as to whether or not the waiver of the administrative review clause. Harrington likens it to a partial guarantee of a loan, and what bank would accept such an agreement?

"It wouldn't occur to me to ask whether or not a bank would accept a partial guarantee of a loan," Harrington told Campos.

The amendment's shot down. Whatever the supes now vote on will be more or less exactly what's been on the books for quite some time.

3:18 p.m. "Going green doesn't mean going green stupid," said Supervisor Chris Daly, who voices his intention to vote against the deal as currently brokered. His position is that we the people -- the taxpayers and the ratepayers -- will be paying too much for power down the road.

3:21 p.m. The project is approved, to applause from the crowd -- and, presumably, the PUC. The dissenting voters were Mirkarimi, Daly, Campos and John Avalos.

1.Sunset Reservoir Solar Project FAQs

(http://www.recurrentenergy.com/resources/sfsunsetfaqs.php#eleven)

o What is the significance of this solar energy project?

o Who will use this electricity?

o Why was this location selected?

o Why doesn’t the City build the system?

o How many new green jobs will be created?

o When is construction slated to begin?

o What will the project look like?

o Does this project help San Francisco meet greenhouse gas or renewable goals?

o Why does the system need to be located within the city?

o Are there other reasons why the City is doing this?

o What does Recurrent Energy do?

o Why was Recurrent Energy chosen?

2. What is the significance of this solar energy project?

3. Who will use this electricity?

The electricity will be fed into the grid and distributed to San Francisco municipal users like the General Hospital, San Francisco International Airport, Muni light rail, and city schools.

4. Why was this location selected?

This location was chosen because it is one of the largest reservoirs and rooftops owned by the city. The recent seismic upgrade of the roof over the Sunset Reservoir’s north basin makes it strong enough for the installation of solar panels. While located in the Sunset district, the solar resource is still very good, on average only 15% lower than the sunniest areas of the City.

5. Why doesn’t the City build the system?

Pending Board of Supervisors approval in first quarter of 2009, the project would be on track to begin construction in the summer of 2009 and complete in first quarter of 2010.

6. How many new green jobs will be created?

7. When is construction slated to begin?

Pending Board of Supervisors approval in the first half of 2009, the project would be on track to begin construction in the summer of 2009 and be completed in 2010.

8. What will the project look like?

The solar modules are unobtrusive and sit near the surface of the reservoir roof. From most sides of the reservoir, they will not be visible and they will not obstruct any views.

9. Does this project help San Francisco meet greenhouse gas or renewable goals?

10. Why does the system need to be located within the city?

The City needs electricity generated inside San Francisco. Starting in 1998, the City made efforts to shutter old polluting power plants within San Francisco. In 2006, Hunter’s Point power plant was permanently closed and subsequently demolished. The Potrero Hill power plant was also under discussion for closure, but the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) has determined that the Potrero Hills power plant cannot be decommissioned until new transmission or generation is added within San Francisco. This project will add much needed generation to the City of San Francisco.

11. Are there other reasons why the City is doing this?

The project will also support the San Francisco Mayor’s Executive Directive 05-107: Municipal Rooftops for Municipal Solar, 2005. This directive sets a commitment to increasing the pace of municipal solar development. Moreover, this project supports the Mayor’s Clean Energy, Clean Air Policy requiring all city government power to come from clean renewable sources by 2010.

12. What does Recurrent Energy do?

Recurrent Energy is a distributed power company and a leading provider of solar energy. The company owns and operates solar power systems, selling the electricity to customers at competitive rates. In return, government, utility, and commercial customers achieve energy independence, predictable pricing, and enhanced sustainability — without the upfront expense, risk of ownership or maintenance burden of having to own a solar plant themselves.

13. Why was Recurrent Energy chosen?

The project was competitively bid in the spring of 2008. Recurrent Energy was selected based on lowest cost.

Recurrent Energy has strong financing and development relationships in place, thanks in part to recent successful solar projects in Northern California. These relationships enable the company to develop large-scale projects such as Sunset Reservoir much more efficiently and economically than local utilities or municipalities.