Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf Buildout And Jobs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates and unions press PUC and LAFCO for concrete Clean Power SF build‑out plan; labor warns Shell contract risks local jobs
Summary
Dozens of public speakers—environmental advocates, clean‑energy businesses and labor unions—urged a robust local build‑out, affordable rates and concrete financing, while unions warned the Shell supply contract could outsource work. Commissioners asked staff for build‑out specifics and a peer review.
Public comment at the joint San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and LAFCO hearing focused heavily on the need for a concrete local build‑out plan, affordable rates and clarity about jobs the program will create.
Speakers from environmental organizations and local clean‑energy alliances told commissioners that a credible build‑out plan must include investment amounts, projected local generation, timelines, job‑creation estimates and returns on investment. Ivy Schlegel of Greenpeace and multiple Sierra Club speakers said the city can and should couple Clean Power SF with an aggressive local investment strategy to lower rates over time and create stable green jobs.
Labor groups were explicit in their concerns. Hunter Stern, speaking for IBEW Local 1245, framed the issue as immediate and practical: "Under this proposal, you are contracting their work out to Shell Oil. Pure and simple. That is our objection," he said, urging commissioners to prioritize local generation and local workforce hiring before finalizing external supply contracts. David del Toro of Laborers Local 261 asked three specific questions the laborers want answered: will the program create jobs for members, how many jobs, and where and when they will be created.
Advocates and business representatives proposed policy choices intended to align incentives: using GoSolar SF dollars to seed local rooftop solar that counts for Clean Power SF customers; prioritizing feed‑in tariffs and net‑metering credits that pay local generators; and designing contracting expectations that emphasize local hiring. Several speakers pointed to other CCAs and municipal utilities that achieved lower premiums when they paired customer enrollment with early local ownership or long‑term investments.
Commission response and next steps: several commissioners echoed the public's call for a concrete plan. Commissioner Vitur asked staff to assemble an outline — including financing, jobs, greenhouse‑gas reductions and an integrated resource plan — and return with an "actionable" framework. Commissioners also discussed using peer review (staff identified a contract resource who could be tasked) to evaluate the viability of build‑out proposals. The commission set a follow‑up joint hearing for April 23 and directed staff to provide the requested deliverables ahead of that meeting.
What remains unresolved: public speakers pushed back against a phased approach that places local build‑out after signing a purchase contract; labor representatives warned that signing rest‑of‑supply contracts without local procurement commitments could displace local work. Commissioners have not yet approved the not‑to‑exceed rates or finalized a build‑out financing plan; they asked staff for scenarios that quantify how different rate and resource choices affect bonding capacity and funds available for local investment.
Sources: public comment record at the joint SFPUC–LAFCO meeting, including statements by IBEW Local 1245 (Hunter Stern), Laborers Local 261 (David del Toro), Sierra Club speakers (Sue Vaughn, David McCord, John Rizzo), Greenpeace (Ivy Schlegel) and local clean‑energy advocates.
