Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUC debates scale and risk of Clean Power SF plan as advocates press for local build‑out
Summary
The Commission heard staff and consultant findings on Clean Power SF (a proposed community choice aggregation). Staff presented 12 model scenarios and warned that the consultant's $1 billion borrowing scenario to achieve rapid citywide build‑out carries major financial risk; advocates urged a feasible plan for a local build‑out rather than shelving that option.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission received an update on Clean Power SF on Monday as staff summarized consultant model runs and key financial assumptions and advocates urged a more concrete local build‑out plan.
Assistant General Manager for Power Barbara Hale said staff remain on schedule to present full polling and model results at upcoming public meetings; CFO Todd Reedstrom and LPI managing director Sam Golding summarized 12 model scenarios showing a range of outcomes. Reedstrom emphasized that some scenarios assumed aggressive citywide rollout, significant residential and commercial participation and city borrowing of about $1,000,000,000 to accelerate local build‑out.
"That comes with more money to do local build outs faster," the presentation said, but Reedstrom told the Commission he "did not see a viable way to advise you on how to do something of this scale" at present, calling the borrowing assumption a critical financial risk. He recommended proceeding with an initial 20–30 megawatt phase already authorized, studying adoption, and layering a larger local build‑out over time rather than committing to near‑term $1 billion borrowing.
Advocates from environmental and local justice organizations, including the San Francisco Green Party and the Sierra Club, urged the Commission to develop an alternative path if staff judged the full model too risky. Eric Brooks and other commenters said local build‑out elements (solar, energy efficiency and distributed generation pilots) should not be abandoned and asked staff to propose scalable compromises (bonding in phases or a multi‑stage approach) rather than a binary recommendation to reject the large scenario.
Staff described key LPI assumptions discussed with commissioners: around a 12% average opt‑out rate was referenced in a portion of the presentation but participants raised uncertainty about opt‑out assumptions and timing; the model also assumed thousands of projects (discussed as about 6,000) and various revenue streams including behind‑the‑meter production. Commissioners and staff discussed operational questions such as who would maintain distributed installations (city, contractors or property owners), contract management for many small projects, and the relationship between the Clean Power plan and GoSolarSF commitments (noted capital commitments include $6,000,000 and another $12,000,000 in longer‑range funding for local solar efforts).
No formal action was taken to commit to large‑scale borrowing. Staff proposed to continue with the first phase, present poll results and return with more detailed implementation proposals and options for sequencing local build‑out and risk management.
Next steps: staff will present the poll and LPI findings in forthcoming Rate Fairness Board and Commission meetings, continue stakeholder deliberations and return with detailed options and metrics for phasing and risk mitigation.
