Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Power Distribution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC briefs commission on Clean Power SF growth and distribution disputes with PG&E
Summary
The SFPUC reported Clean Power SF serves more than 80,000 accounts and is finalizing supply contracts to add roughly 100 megawatts for enrollments starting July 1; a separate power business-plan workshop flagged repeated PG&E demands for primary service that the SFPUC says are delaying projects and increasing costs, and the SFPUC has filed protests with FERC while pursuing local remedies.
Barbara Hill, assistant general manager for Power, updated the commission on Clean Power SF enrollment and procurement: the community-choice aggregation program serves more than 80,000 accounts, maintains a very low opt-out rate, and staff are working with the general manager to execute supply contracts that would support roughly 100 megawatts of additional customers beginning July 1. Hill said staff expect a credit facility to close in the near term and are preparing a simplified bill-comparison tool and a mailed rate comparison as part of the enrollment outreach.
Later in a separate workshop on the power business plan, the SFPUC outlined long-running distribution access challenges with PG&E. Barbara Hale (assistant general manager for Power) reviewed a century of interconnection history and described a recent practice whereby PG&E is requiring customers served by SFPUC to take service at primary (high-voltage) levels for relatively small projects (75 kVA or more) — a threshold the utility does not apply to other customers. Hale said PG&E’s implementation raises project costs (primary equipment can be roughly six times more expensive and occupy far more space than secondary equipment), delays openings and in some cases forces the city to forgo community benefits included in project plans (for example, reduced community-room space or delayed pools at Balboa Pool).
SFPUC staff said they have filed complaints and quarterly protests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to flag PG&E’s approach and are discussing particular projects with PG&E in hopes of negotiated fixes; staff said federal filings and ongoing conversations are their primary legal and administrative tools. Commissioners asked whether additional federal declaratory relief or injunctions are available; staff said FERC processes must be pursued first but that local advocacy (including hearings before the Board of Supervisors) is underway and staff are trying to find project-by-project solutions while litigation and regulatory filings proceed.
Commissioners and staff emphasized the practical impacts: increased capital costs, lost usable square footage (primary gear takes more room), delayed openings of pools and housing, and higher greenhouse-gas outcomes when projects default to non-PUC service. The commission directed staff to continue pursuing FERC remedies and local coordination to limit collateral impacts on city projects.
