Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Choice Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marin, Sonoma CCAs show lower rates and local-build options; SFPUC to refine Clean Power SF options
Summary
Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Power described opt-out CCA models that delivered lower rates and local renewable projects; SFPUC commissioners asked staff to analyze Marin/Sonoma models, legislative risks (AB 2145; Wiener ordinance), and how a San Francisco approach might balance price, renewable mix and local jobs.
At a June 25 workshop the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission heard presentations from Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and representatives associated with Sonoma Clean Power on the practical performance of community choice aggregation (CCA) models and what lessons they offer San Francisco’s Clean Power SF discussion.
Barbara Hale (Assistant General Manager, Power) framed the workshop by reviewing Clean Power SF’s prior design goals (local build, renewable mix and affordability) and the financial constraints that prompted a pause in the PUC’s earlier rollout. The two guest presenters then described how their CCAs were designed and operated:
- Marin Clean Energy (Jamie Tukey) described MCE’s phased approach: a default opt‑out product ("Light Green," ~50% renewable) priced competitively with PG&E, an optional "Deep Green" 100% renewable product, and local feed-in tariff and SolShares programs to spur local solar buildout. MCE reported serving about 125,000 customers, achieving about 77% enrollment in its service areas, deploying multiple local projects and offering customer incentives, energy-efficiency programs and workforce training. MCE emphasized that careful rollout and upfront outreach reduced bill confusion and supported enrollment.
- Sonoma representatives (Cordell Stillman and others) described a similar phased model and the importance of conservative feasibility studies, local financing (seed loans from the Sonoma County Water Agency), and a mix of short- and long-term supply contracts. Sonoma reported initial opt‑out enrollment and plans for a local feed‑in tariff and airport landfill solar project.
Commissioners and the public asked detailed questions about rate comparisons, the role of substitute renewable energy certificates (RECs), feed-in tariff pricing and the risk profile of a stand-alone SFPUC program versus joining MCE. Staff and presenters noted that market conditions and the entry of CCAs into California wholesale markets have improved contracting options since SFPUC last modeled Clean Power SF.
Legislative context featured prominently: meeting participants discussed Assembly Bill 2145 (Bradford) and amendments reported in committee and a separate ordinance introduced by Supervisor Wiener to clarify feasibility-study requirements for city developments. Staff said the amendments to AB 2145 removed language that would have prohibited opt‑out but introduced geographic constraints on multi-county CCAs; staff said they would continue to monitor the bills and advise the commission.
Public comment included supervisors’ aides and community groups urging timely action to meet San Francisco’s climate goals and to prioritize local jobs and union contractors in any CCA design. Several speakers advised the PUC to learn from Marin and Sonoma’s experience and recommended that staff pursue a business plan with clear options and labor/community commitments.
Next steps: SFPUC staff will refine a power-business plan and coordinate with LAFCO and the Board of Supervisors’ legislative direction; commissioners asked staff to present options that balance price, renewable content and local jobs and to report back on AB 2145/Wiener legislation status and implications.
