Organized Labor

Port Commission Approves Licensing Agreement 

The construction of a 55-mile long underwater cable to bring electricity to San Francisco from the East Bay moved closer to becoming a reality when the Port Commission approved a licensing agreement for the cable’s facilities on March 13. The Board of Supervisors will take up the final approval of the Transbay Cable (TBC) in the near future.

The Transbay cable would run from Pittsburg, in northern Contra Costa County, along a shallow trench on the bay floor. The $300 million electrical line would be financed by Babcock & Brown. The Australian company set up Trans Bay Cable LLC in San Francisco as a wholly-owned subsidiary in cooperation with Pittsburg Power Company, which would generate the electricity sent over the cable. Babcock & Brown spokesperson PJ Johnston said the TBC would be a kind of “insurance line that the Cal-ISO needs.”

Cal-ISO is the California Independent System Operator, the public corporation that runs the state’s electrical grid. Cal-ISO has said that San Francisco needs the new line to be up and running by 2010. The ISO, and Babcock & Brown, say that the City is vulnerable to black-outs if an earthquake disrupts service from the high-voltage lines transmitting power to the City from the Peninsula.

The cable would be owned by the City of Pittsburg, which has its own municipal utility company. Johnston said that about 50 percent of the electricity generated would be from renewable sources like wind and hydropower. While it wouldn’t increase the amount of electrical power to the City, it would provide another route for as much as 400 megawatts from the state grid, roughly enough to light 300,000 homes, according to Electrical Workers Local 1245. IBEW Local 1245 News reported that, “In Pittsburg, the cable would hook up to an electrical substation and a converter to turn the state grid’s alternating current into direct current, It would then snake just beneath the bay floor, then resurface at a substation on San Francisco’s southeastern waterfront, at the foot of Potrero Hill, where its electricity would be converted back to alternating current.” Babcock & Brown’s Johnston said that the TBC, “Would give Cal-ISO the comfort level needed to allow San Francisco to not have to use the Portrero Hill power plant. A new supply off the existing grid gets allows the City to not have to rely on in-city generation of electricity.”

Johnston said that 45 construction jobs would be created to build the facilities at each end of the cable, as well as some permanent jobs maintaining and operating the stations. Digging the trench for the cable would be done by dragging a plow across the soft sediment at the bottom of the bay behind a ship. The plow would both carve a trench and lay the cable into it. The high-voltage, direct current power line wouldn’t create an electromagnetic field that could harm sea life. According to the Pittsburg Power Company, there is excess electrical capacity and transmission grid congestion in the East Bay, and “The project is designed to be a cost effective energy efficient solution addressing San Francisco’s need for additional transmission capacity and in-city generation.”

While the proposed TBC has been promoted as a way to protect the City from disruptions to its power supply, it is not without its critics. Some environmental and neighborhood groups in the City have expressed opposition to the TBC. Most of the opposition to the TBC is based on the desire for San Francisco to have its own public, municipally-owned utility, rather than rely on power delivered over a privately-financed line owned by another municipal utility company and possibly controlled by PG&E. Critics also say that the City should move to develop its own renewable energy sources and that flooding the City with excess electricity will discourage conservation and renewable energy development. Babcock & Brown’s PJ Johnston argued that the TBC would reduce reliance on the Portrero Hill power plant, which environmental groups like SF Power say needs to be shut down. SF Power opposes the TBC and has called for shutting down the Potrero Power Plant because it is “the single largest source of polluting air and greenhouse gas emissions in San Francisco, is hazardous to the health of our families and neighbors.”

Johnston said that the benefits to San Francisco outweigh any negatives. He said that efforts by the City to develop its own power supply wouldn’t be threatened by the TBC. “San Francisco has long supported cutting edge technology,” he said. “The ISO will demand that we have an additional line without creating new generating sources. The Transbay Cable could be built quickly and San Francisco will benefit from the extra source of power and income.” He said that as part of the deal approved by the Port, Trans Bay Cable LLC will pay $1 million in annual rent, provide $5.5 million for shoreline improvements, and pay $3.5 million to the SF Public Utilities Commission for sustainable energy development.