Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews Clean Power SF business plan, procurement approach and revised launch schedule
Summary
Staff presented Clean Power SF risk analysis and a contracting strategy that uses supplier master agreements and confirms; initial enrollment modeled at 30–50 MW (~$35M annual revenue) with launch dates revised toward March–April 2016, prompting public and commissioner concern about schedule slippage and marketing readiness.
Barbara Hale, Assistant General Manager for Power, presented the Clean Power SF business plan and enterprise‑risk analysis to the commission on Oct. 13, outlining goals, procurement strategy and an updated schedule for the community choice aggregation (CCA) program.
Key figures: staff modeled initial enrollment at 30–50 megawatts (roughly 20,000–75,000 accounts) producing about $35 million in annual operating revenue; they estimated cost of supply for that initial volume at about $25 million and said supply accounts for roughly 70% of program costs. The business plan effort includes sensitivity testing for variables such as the percentage of renewables procured and the opt‑out rate (assumed at 20% based on peer programs).
Procurement strategy: Hale explained the two‑step contracting approach — sign master agreements with a pool of qualified bidders and then execute short‑term confirms to lock in specific volumes, delivery dates and terms. That approach is intended to preserve competition at the confirm stage because confirms are valid only for hours, and commission and Board of Supervisors approval steps can be lengthy.
Schedule and marketing: staff said the launch window has shifted: pre‑enrollment activity is planned for early January and service to customers is scheduled for spring 2016 with staff highlighting March 16, 2016 as the revised launch target and April 16 as a customer service start date in one slide. Commissioners and public advocates pressed staff for more detail on marketing, scheduling risks, the supplier pool’s capability to support a "virtual power plant" of distributed resources, and the potential impacts of opt‑out behavior. Public commenters including members of 350 San Francisco, Sierra Club and other advocates warned that prior delays have eroded public confidence and urged staff to keep near‑term dates firm and coordinate outreach closely with advocates.
Why it matters: the meeting made clear the program would be large in scale if fully enrolled (staff cited a full enrollment case of ~400 MW and ~$270 million annual revenue) and that procurement, contracting and marketing choices will shape risk exposure. Commissioners asked for additional detail on marketing plans, customer services parity with PG&E offerings, and options for staggered or shorter confirms to limit long‑term exposure.
Next steps: staff plans a business‑plan presentation on Nov. 10, to return with revised materials and proposed policy guidance in December, and to submit contracting authorizations for Commission and Board approval (master agreements followed by confirms prior to signing).
