An Energy Resource Investment Strategy for the City of San Francisco

The report evaluates three energy scenarios for San Francisco: 'Central Generation', 'More Imports', and 'Distributed Resources'. It compares these paths based on capital and operating costs, electricity supply reliability, environmental impacts, and local economic development. The analysis finds that while all scenarios can ensure reliability and allow the closure of the Hunter's Point Power Station, only the 'Distributed Resources' scenario significantly reduces CO2 emissions and promotes environmental equity. The 'Central Generation' path is identified as potentially the least expensive but carries risks related to market power and higher in-city emissions.

• The 'Central Generation' (CG) scenario relies on the construction of a 540 MW combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant at the Potrero facility by 2005, which would dominate the city's supply capacity and allow for the closure of the Hunter's Point Power Station.
• The 'More Imports' (MI) scenario focuses on increasing import capacity by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line from the Jefferson substation in Redwood City to the Martin substation, adding approximately 350 MW of capacity by 2006.
• The 'Distributed Resources' (DR) scenario emphasizes local control and a diverse mix of resources, including two City-owned CCGT units (114 MW total), a 50-MW downtown co-generation plant, 50 MW of solar PV, and aggressive energy efficiency programs producing over 100 MW of savings by 2012.
• Only the 'Distributed Resources' scenario achieves significant CO2 emission reductions, reaching approximately 18% below 2001 levels, which aligns with Mayor Willie Brown's goal of a 20% reduction by 2010 compared to 1990.
• All three scenarios are projected to reduce local NOx emissions by 70-80% and in-city emissions by about 90%, primarily through the closure of the Hunter's Point plant and upgrades to the Potrero facility.
• The 'More Imports' scenario is the most vulnerable regarding in-city generation requirements, failing to meet the San Francisco Operating Criteria's 40% in-city generation mandate by 2012, reaching only 35%.
• The 'Central Generation' strategy is potentially the most cost-effective, though it is susceptible to the owner's (Mirant) potential exercise of market power and higher in-city pollution concentration.
• A 50% increase in natural gas prices (from $3.00 to $4.50/MMBtu) would increase the average cost per kWh by approximately 20% across all three scenarios.

APA

Swisher, J. N., Rábago, K., & Pligavko, A. (2002). An Energy Resource Investment Strategy for the City of San Francisco. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E02-16_AnalysisForSF.pdf

Chicago

Swisher, Joel N., Karl Rábago, and Andra Pligavko. An Energy Resource Investment Strategy for the City of San Francisco. RMI, 2002. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E02-16_AnalysisForSF.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Swisher |first1=Joel N. |last2=Rábago |first2=Karl |last3=Pligavko |first3=Andra |title=An Energy Resource Investment Strategy for the City of San Francisco |publisher=RMI |date=January 2002 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E02-16_AnalysisForSF.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{swisher2002energy, author = {Swisher, Joel N. and Rábago, Karl and Pligavko, Andra}, title = {{An Energy Resource Investment Strategy for the City of San Francisco}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {2002}, month = jan, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_E02-16_AnalysisForSF.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }