continue this item to the call of the chair. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yes, i also want to thank the b.l.a. and their team for highlighting these issues. one thing that i wanted you to highlight for your team, it doesn't make sense to have a multiplier and having the multiplier be a disqualification. i know you have the ability in your contracting process, and we do in the city, to make adjustments. if they were not responsive, if they were not able to meet to the b.l.a., you had had a person that was disqualified that was a previous contractor designed one up the street that

was less than $400 million, by the way, but a lot of this doesn't make sense, so i just feel this needs to be a full scale investigation on the part of the p.u.c. with clear explanations as to why we would be asked to look into that and support something that there's not a lot of justification for. >> chair ronen: 100%. thank you, supervisor safai. mr. clerk, can we please take public comment? >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in person, please lineup to speak. for those joining remotely, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d.

2488-607-7768, press and press pound. then press star, three to enter the queue and wait until the system indicates your line has been unmuted before you begin your comments. we have no speakers in person. mr. atkins, do we have any callers on the phone? >> david pilpel. i think this item should be done by staff or d.p.w., but not contracted out. i think this is another thing that should be done by city staff. where's local 21 on this? i also oppose the behested payment. i would ask p.u.c. to explain their position for the existing facilities in the southeast area and the southeast real

estate that p.u.c. owns, including the southside of the digesters, the facility -- the southeast treatment center, and i think this particular committee would be useful. i understand there are a number of concerns here. i appreciate the budget analyst laying those out. i support continuing this matter to the call of the chair, but i hope that my comments will be considered. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you, david pillpel, for your comments. mr. atkins, do we have anymore speakers? >> operator: mr. clerk, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you very much. >> chair ronen: public comment is closed. mr. clerk, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> clerk: on that motion to continue this ordinance to the call of the chair -- [roll call]

>> chair ronen: thank you. can you please read item 6? >> clerk: yes. item 6 is a resolution authorizing the public utilities commission to purchase long duration energy storage from goal line battery energy storage system 1, l.l.c., by entering into the buyer liability pass through agreement, entering into the goal line storage project participation share agreement, and entering into the goal line storage coordinated operations agreement, all of which are agreemented between the california community power, cleanpowersf, and five community choice aggregators to enable the city and county of san francisco to purchase language duration energy storage to serve customers of

cleanpowersf with a not to exceed amount of $60 million for a 15-year term to commence upon commercial operation of the project and making the environment findings. madam chair? >> chair ronen: thank you so much, and we have with us hike hyams, the director of cleanpowersf, on the line, i believe. >> yes, chair ronen. i am mike hyams, chair of the cleanpowersf program. i'm sorry i can't be there in person. i came down with a cold, but i look forward in the future to presenting future opportunities for this committee. we have for you for your consideration today three agreements that would allow cleanpowersf to participate in a second long duration energy

storage project through california community power, the goal line project. i've got a short presentation for you with some slides i'm going to bring up right now. apologies for the delay. can you see that? >> chair ronen: yes. >> okay. great. thank you. okay. so last summer, the california public utilities commission ordered cleanpowersf and other power providers under its jurisdiction to procure long

duration energy storage resources. so these are resources that are defined as having the ability to charge electric energy, hold that energy, and then discharge it at its rated plant capacity for eight hours or longer. to meet this obligation, cleanpowersf participated in a request for offers for long duration storage as a participate in clean community

power. the commission and the board of supervisors approved cleanpowersfs membership in california community power in february 2021 and cleanpowersf formally became a member in april of last year. today, there are ten members of california community power, including all of the c.c.a. programs serving the bay area region. cleanpowersfs participation in california's first long duration energy storage program, the tumbleweed project, was approved by the board of supervisors on february 22 and by the mayor on march 31. on february 25, the p.u.c. approved its second long duration energy storage project, the goal line project.

with the approval of this goal line project, cleanpowersf will be able to comply with the cpucs long duration power program that i mentioned before. the project will be a 50 megawatt lithium ion battery. the project will be located in escondido, california, in northern san diego county. this location will meet the cpucs requirements to procure energy requirements that supports statewide reliability, and the specific location demonstrated high energy market valley in california community power's evaluation process. the goal line project is committed to building its

project in line with california prevailing wages and the special operation date is targeted for june 1, 2025, and the total cost will not exceed $60 million over the 15-year operating term. i did want to point out, too, that i've updated our image on a slide deck here from the tumbleweed project presentation i made to this body in response to supervisor safai's interest in seeing some actual projects, so this is an example of

another battery storage project of this type. i'm sorry. my apologies. i do have one -- >> chair ronen: oh, sorry. go ahead. >> sorry. i have one other slide here. and this is just really to show the -- the two projects that we have brought through, with goal line being the second for approval through california community power, will support cleanpowersfs proposal to provide clean power. this will provide us a little bit of a margin in case regulations change over the time frame that we're required

to comply. that's about a 10% margin, and my final slide here is just to show you a summary agreement structure. this is the same summary as the tumbleweed project i got you. number two is the project participation share agreement. this is between the project participants and california community power and specifies the requirements of the project as well as how the benefit would be shared. number three is the buyer liability pass-through agreement, and under this agreement, cleanpowersf and the other participating c.c.a.s are

guaranteeing the payment of their share of california community power's obligations should it fail to make a required payment, so this agreement is intended to address the fact that california community power itself does not have any customers or revenues, and it mimics what cleanpowersf would commit to if it entered into the agreement on its own. so that concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. so before we take any questions, if we can hear from the b.l.a. >> thank you. this item approves agreements for long duration term storage with goal line, l.l.c. as we show on page 29 of our

report, this provides approximately 54% of the storage capacity that is required by the state, california public utilities commission, and we recommend approval. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you for the thorough presentation. one question i have is i know that southern california has had a large number of fires. can you talk about how the energy storage is protected in fire zones? i know that escondido is one that's been hit by fires, so can you talk about how fire protection is ensured? >> thank you, supervisor safai, for the question. to be blunt, i don't think

there's any way to ensure that any area in california is completely protected from fire -- >> supervisor safai: no, let me be clear. if there is a fire, and the energy storage is destroyed, how does the provider ensure -- no, not insure, but ensure that they'll be storing our energy? >> okay. thank you for the clarification. so projects like this absolutely carry insurance, and fires tend to be force majeure, something out of the case of

the supplier, the developer, and operator of the plant or the buyer, so typically, there are no obligations under those types of circumstances when a force majeure event is call. but if, for example, in the hypothetical, the plant was significantly damaged or destroyed by a fire, cleanpowersf rate payers would also have no obligation for on going rate payer obligations. so the obligation that we have to the plant is contingent on it being able to operate and perform. if it's no longer able to operate and perform in this particular example, a catastrophic fire that disables it in some way, then payments

would cease. i hope that answers your question. >> supervisor safai: it does. if we pay for the energy storage and it's lost, it's lost. there's no obligation for them to provide energy for us even if there was storage for it. >> correct. if there's energy stored at that time, i do not believe they would be obligationed to compensate us for that amount of -- obligated to compensate us for that amount of energy. it's something that i'd need to look at the contract to get a firm response on that. i think the loss of the use of the plant going forward would be probably a larger -- have a larger impact to the program than the loss of one roundtrip of storage facility. >> supervisor safai: got it, but it's more we're no longer obligated for the payments that

we're contracted with the provider because the fire destroyed it, and that is in the agreement. >> yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thanks. thank you, mr. hyams, for this presentation. i really appreciate how -- the information that this, combined with the tumbleweed long duration energy storage project that we approved earlier will allow us to meet the requirements of the cpuc on long duration storage, and also, this will also -- how we're also using the c.c. power with the other c.c.a.s in the region to negotiate a good deal for this contract, and also

very much appreciate the labor provisions on this, as well. i just had a similar question that i asked for the tumbleweed project. what's the source of the energy that's being stored at the goal line's facility, and i just want to confirm that it's 100% renewable clean energy. >> yeah, happy to speak to that, supervisor mar. thank you for your question and your comments. so this particular plan is what we call -- it's a grid connected stand-alone storage facility, so it is connected to the power grid and charging based on sort of the general supply of the grid around it. there's -- there's no way,

really, in this type of configuration to ensure that the elect rons that are charging this facility -- electrons that are charging this facility are linked to cleaner sources of supply. specifically what we see happening on the grid today, in developing solar resources, as certain times of the day, california is actually producing more solar energy that had can use. more energy in total than it can use, especially with a significant amount of solar

energy now being produced, and oftentimes, it's exporting that power to regional areas outside of the state. energy storage facilities like this one will help the state utilize its abundant solar resource. the way this will be managed is really around market pricing because it's connected to the california state grid and the wholesale market, and the idea is to maximize the value to our rate payers that we would charge this plan, charge it when the cost of power is low and release it when the charge of power is high. it happens to be during the time of day when the cost of power is very low is when the solar power is most abundant,

and in fact, what we're seeing is prices are consistently negative, so the supplier has to pay the user to take the power. we need to store the power during the middle of the day when prices are at their lowest and discharge it in the even when statewide demand is at its highest and reliance on natural gas applies, so that's how this plant is going to operate. i can't guarantee that all the electrons that we store will be operable, but it will likely be majority renewable. >> supervisor mar: thank you for that very thorough explanation of this. i just had a follow up -- few

follow up questions. escondido is quite a long distance away from san francisco and the bay area. i was just wondering if you look -- if c.c. power and sfpuc looked at closer -- geographically closer options for a long duration energy storage and whether that -- the geographic distance to san francisco might have any impact on the source of energy is clean energy and 100% renewable, and also whether it might impact other considerations, like transmission, you know, the transmission lines and wildfire risk? >> yes. let me take those one by one. so with respect to considering local or regional projects,

this -- this project, the goal line project, we're bringing to you as a result of a competitive solicitation, where california community power issued a request for offers, inviting bidders to submit project proposals that met general criteria. it had to be long duration energy storage that would support our compliance to california p.u.c. order. it had to be able to deliver energy into the california grid. [please stand by]

and when we issue our power supply solicitations, we do identify a preference for projects located in the bay area. so we're actually in the midst of a solicitation now and are hoping to move into negotiation phase on contract shortly ands that particular solicitation that include the bay area region. i'm hopeful and optimistic that we'll be able to bring projects like that through to approval soon. >> members of the public who wish to speak on this item and joining us in person should line up now. for those listening remotely, please call 415-655-0001.

the meeting i.d. is 24886077768 and press pound twice. once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that will be your cue to begin your comments. we have no in-speakers here in the chamber. first speaker, please. >> caller: good morning. i'm the research and advocacy director for the san francisco electrical construction industry. i have been working, at this point, over two years now with -- following the clean power s.f. and its activities with the -- with community clean power.

this thing is being advanced and glad to see that the labor standards that c.c. power had adopted for the tumble weed project are expanded to this one as well. nonetheless, i do want to keep you as members of the board updated on what is going on with c.c. power. since starting tracking c.c. power, we've been trying to get this joint powers authority to adopt permanent policies for transparency, for labor standards and for -- and around environmental justice. unfortunately, we've not made very much progress. when the board allowed the clean power s.f. to join c.c. power, it was directly in the resolution from the c.p. -- from the sfpuc and i believe it was coming from the board

as well that we were supposed to take a strong leadership position in supporting these. unfortunately clean power s.f. has not done that. we've -- like i said, it's great to see this happening on this particular project, but to move on an ad hoc basis really puts the burden back on to communities and advocates to make sure that this is done on work moving forward -- >> thank you for your comments. i do apologize for cutting anybody off but we are timing each speaker at two minutes. >> caller: i spoke on the related item back in march and if you could associate that file board 22145 with

this in legistar. that would be excellent. i support this resolution but maintain the concerns that i expressed then on environmental aspects locally and as to waste. i hear the regulatory requirement but i would try to reduce demand on that side and increase willful generation on the supply side. i appreciate the discussion that you just had. i agree that this location is farther away than the tumble weed promise and i'm concerned about transmission loss. we're moving essentially power elsewhere and storing it there for a period of time. and then moving it back here there is inherently transmission loss in that transaction. and, you know, that is something to try to avoid. i discussed this so none of this should come as a surprise. in any event, as i said last time, perhaps some periodic follow-up at a meeting would be helpful to the board an