Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Power Sf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC workshop tests Clean Power SF pricing; staff, stakeholders split on Hetch Hetchy, REC mix and local build
Summary
SFPUC staff previewed a customer survey for the proposed Clean Power SF community choice program, proposed Tier‑1 premium ranges of about $6–$10 per month and sought guidance on program size (20–30 MW). Stakeholders and staff sharply debated use of Hetch Hetchy generation, REC mix, and whether local build/job promises should be reflected in survey messaging.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission staff on the Clean Power SF workshop presented a proposed customer survey that tests multiple price points for a municipal community choice aggregation pilot and sought commissioners’ guidance on a 20–30 megawatt launch phase.
Barbara Hale, Assistant General Manager for Power, told the commission the survey will test a range of premium prices for a 100% renewable product and asked the board to consider a $6–$10 monthly premium for the lowest‑consuming (Tier 1) residential customers. “With this new survey…we're proposing to test that 100% renewable product at premium prices that range from a low of $6 a month to a high of $10 for a Tier 1 customer,” she said.
Staff and several commissioners emphasized the survey’s role in estimating likely customer participation. Hale said the commission previously had guidance that a viable program would require more than 50% of targeted customers indicating they would remain in the program; below that the staff would re‑examine the pro forma and enrollment assumptions.
The workshop moved quickly from pricing into resource‑mix and risk modeling. Todd Reitstrom, Assistant General Manager and Chief Financial Officer, described modeling staff ran that factors in firming and shaping Hetch Hetchy generation to match retail demand. On that work he summarized the conclusion for commissioners: “There was no significant projected savings” once firming and shaping costs were included.
That conclusion drew sharp pushback from Local Power and other stakeholder representatives, who argued their modeling — which includes a mix of Hetch Hetchy output, long‑term contracted supply and tradable RECs — can reach near‑parity with PG&E in early years while supporting a local build‑out and jobs. Eric Brooks of Local Power said the staff presentation did not accurately represent the Local Power model and urged renewed collaboration: “What SFPUC staff has put before you is some number crunching that…doesn’t include the Shell component. It's a completely different model,” he said.
Public commenters and several commissioners urged staff to add questions about local build and job creation to the survey. Juliette Ellis, AGM for External Affairs, confirmed the survey will include questions testing whether customers would pay extra for local build‑out and community benefits, so the commission can compare that appetite with the price‑sensitivity results.
Other issues raised in the discussion included whether the pilot should rely on a fixed‑price contract (staff had previously discussed a 4.5‑year Shell procurement for part of supply), which REC tier (bundled REC versus unbundled/“tradable” REC) to use, and whether PG&E’s announced green option will change opt‑out dynamics. Commissioners and stakeholders repeatedly asked that the staff and Local Power reconcile assumptions and exchange underlying spreadsheets so the public record shows comparable scenarios.
Staff said it will return with survey results and recommended options once polling completes; Hale said the commission should expect a follow‑up presentation with opt‑out modeling and participation projections at an upcoming meeting.
