Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clean Power SF supporters press PUC after LAFCO/InterNEXT report, commission schedules joint review
Summary
Public speakers and PUC staff debated a LAFCO/InterNEXT report on Clean Power SF (community choice). Staff sought a January joint PUC–LAFCO meeting; public commenters urged moving forward with in‑house procurement and updated rates to capture jobs and lower rates.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission leaders and members of the public spent a large portion of the Dec. 9 meeting discussing a LAFCO consultant report evaluating the proposed Clean Power SF community choice aggregation program.
Barbara Hale, assistant general manager for Power Enterprise, told commissioners the draft LAFCO/InterNEXT report raised questions about where the report’s job figures are actually located and warned some job numbers “seem to be an overstatement” based on the consultant’s methodology and project listings. She asked for a joint meeting with LAFCO and the consultant so commissioners can question the assumptions directly.
Public commenters representing local climate and clean‑energy groups urged the commission to move forward. Avni Jamdar, vice chair of the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Committee, said she was “here this afternoon in support of Clean Power SF” and urged the commission to prioritize projects physically located in the City and County of San Francisco. Jed Holtzman of 350 San Francisco told the commission the report showed the program could be launched in‑house and that “it should be very, very easy to beat PG and E’s price” given market changes since the original Shell contract discussions.
Several speakers, including community advocates and the San Francisco Green Party, asked the PUC to bring back the CCA director (Kim Malcolm) and to task staff with preparing updated rate scenarios. Eric Brooks, a clean‑energy advocate, said the InterNEXT work resolved core concerns about jobs and pricing and urged rapid rate development so the program could start in 2015.
PUC staff said the final consultant revision (released the day before) incorporated many PUC comments, and recommended commissioners schedule a joint January meeting with LAFCO so staff and the consultants could answer technical questions directly. Commissioners requested staff provide the consultant’s redline and, where possible, a clearer answers/changes memo summarizing how PUC comments were addressed so both commissions can prepare for the joint session.
The discussion did not produce a vote to adopt program implementation at this meeting; the commission instead set up the joint review and asked staff to return with clarified materials and answers ahead of that meeting.
