Why S.F. should shelve 'peaker plants' idea
We are facing a major decision - whether to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on new fossil-fuel burning power plants in our city, or to initiate a program that provides incentives to install solar on rooftops citywide. The juxtaposition of approving polluting power plants while stalling a modest solar program puts at risk San Francisco's reputation as an innovator and leader in climate change.
We are facing a major decision - whether to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on new fossil-fuel burning power plants in our city, or to initiate a program that provides incentives to install solar on rooftops citywide. The juxtaposition of approving polluting power plants while stalling a modest solar program puts at risk San Francisco's reputation as an innovator and leader in climate change.
The city is considering a proposal to install four peaker power plants that will run on natural gas and be used when our energy grid needs power. The peakers were originally a part of a deal to help close an existing power plant in Potrero Hill. While the peakers were given to the city as part of a legal settlement, the cost to install them is now $238 million and could grow further.
Meanwhile, a $3 million pilot solar incentive program that is stalled in City Hall would provide cash incentives to city residents who install solar. This would jump-start San Francisco's solar industry and provide needed green-collar jobs. It could nearly double the installation of solar on private rooftops in just the first year alone by leveraging $15 million in state and federal incentives and private investment.
We think it's time to reconsider the peakers but move forward on the solar program.
