Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUC hears tradeoffs on Clean Power SF: price, local build‑out and resource mix drive different launch scenarios
Summary
Staff presented a Clean Power SF build‑out roadmap and four rate/resource scenarios (roughly 11.14¢–14.57¢/kWh). Commissioners asked for explicit build‑out numbers and a comparison with PG&E’s proposed green option; staff agreed to return with 3–5 scenarios and detailed bill impacts before the next vote.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission spent substantial time April 24 discussing the proposed Clean Power SF Community Choice Aggregation program, focusing on how rate choices, the mix of renewable products and decisions about local build‑out would affect launch price and the program’s ability to finance local renewable projects.
Assistant General Manager for Power Barbara Hale and Clean Power SF director Kim Malcolm presented a framework that uses a transition contract (the Shell supply agreement) while the city builds a local portfolio of efficiency and renewables. Staff described four illustrative scenarios that trade off customer price and available build‑out funds; staff cited a range of approximately 11.14¢ to 14.57¢ per kilowatt‑hour across scenarios, and proposed a middle scenario (about 12.86¢/kWh) that would split savings between customer rates and reserves for local build‑out.
Policy choices and constraints: commissioners pressed staff on whether the program can meet earlier policy goals to "meet or beat" PG&E's comparable green rate. Staff warned that PG&E’s proposal remains under review at the California Public Utilities Commission and that press figures vary, but noted that the CCA’s chosen resource mix and the use of renewable energy certificates (RECs) will materially affect price. "We would still have a 100% green product," the director said, noting different categories of green products under California rules; commissioners asked staff for clearer definitions and assurances about product quality.
Local build‑out vs. price: staff said options to spur local investment include net‑metering tariffs, feed‑in tariffs, targeted RFPs and use of dedicated build‑out reserves or bond financing. A scenario that prioritized immediate local investment would create more headroom for bond financing and faster local projects; a low‑price launch would be slower to finance local build‑out. Staff illustrated the scale: one scenario would generate roughly $9 million a year in build‑out funds over 4.5 years; another would generate about $18 million over the period, depending on the chosen resource mix and use of REC versus firmed/ shaped products.
Legal and procurement constraints: staff reminded the Commission that use of Hetch Hetchy power for the CCA must comply with the Raker Act and continue to be revenue‑neutral for municipal operations. Staff also reported they filed protests at the California PUC in response to PG&E filings under AB970 related to marketing rules and would comment on PG&E’s green tariff settlement to protect competition and competitive neutrality.
Public input and next steps: community groups — including Sierra Club, Local advocacy groups and the Tuolumne River Trust — urged the Commission to preserve a strong local build‑out plan with concrete job and project targets and to avoid using watershed or environmental program funds as a backstop. Commissioners asked staff to return with 3–5 explicit scenarios (including a version that assumes a competitive PG&E price) and with average bill impacts and implementation timelines ahead of the next vote scheduled for May 14.
Ending note: staff agreed to circulate the detailed scenario tables and a tested set of options to the commissioners within days and to present a recommendation suitable for a May 14 vote if possible.
