Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC updates Clean Power SF enrollment, flags CPUC proceedings and possible bond requirement
Summary
SFPUC staff reported Clean Power SF serves about 81,000 accounts, with a 3.2% opt‑out rate and 4.2% ‘Super Green’ enrollment; staff previewed a 2017 power‑source disclosure and outlined CPUC proceedings on PCIA valuation and a proposed decision that could impose a reentry fee and bond requirements for CCAs.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission heard an update on Clean Power SF enrollment and regulatory activity and discussed possible financial‑security requirements identified in a California Public Utilities Commission proposed decision.
Barbara Hill, assistant general manager for power, told the commission Clean Power SF serves about 81,000 accounts, that the program’s opt‑out percentage is about 3.2% and that roughly 4.2% of customers selected the 100% renewable "Super Green" product in 2017. Hill said the program’s base product proved to be roughly 43% California‑eligible renewable in 2017 — above the 40% commitment — and that staff will present the 2017 power‑source disclosure report to the commission for review before filing with the California Energy Commission.
Hill also summarized two CPUC matters. She said SFPUC and CalCCA filed testimony in a proceeding to reform the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), which addresses how investor‑owned utilities and CCAs allocate costs of legacy contracts. In a separate proposed decision on financial‑security requirements for community choice aggregators, Hill said the CPUC has proposed breaking liability into an administrative charge and an incremental procurement cost; the proposed administrative reentry fee cited in the decision is $4.24 per customer, while Southern California Edison had proposed about 50 cents.
Commissioners asked whether a bond or administrative fee would reimburse CCAs for costs they incurred; Hill said the proposed decision does not provide reimbursement and is intended to ensure incumbent utility ratepayers are not saddled with unexpected costs if a CCA collapses. She said in current market conditions the proposed bond calculation could reduce SFPUC’s payment to PG&E to zero but would not make the investor‑owned utility pay SFPUC.
Jed Holtzman of 350 Bay Area urged the commission to highlight Clean Power SF's GHG‑free performance in 2017 and cautioned that a large bonding requirement could discourage smaller jurisdictions from forming CCAs; he suggested a collective CCA bond or insurance fund as an approach to mitigate that risk.
Staff said comments on the CPUC proposed decision are due April 26 and that SFPUC will work with CalCCA on filings.
