Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Choice Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC proposes two‑phase RFQ/RFP approach to speed Community Choice Aggregation planning
Summary
Staff outlined a two‑phase plan to accelerate Community Choice Aggregation: run parallel feasibility, legal and market research while issuing an RFQ to industry to get vendor feedback, then issue an RFP. Commissioners asked about CPUC approval, the Raker Act and LAFCO’s advisory role; public commenters urged LAFCO to lead implementation.
Assistant General Manager for Power Barbara Hale and CCA Program Director Mike Campbell presented an overview of Community Choice Aggregation and a recommended two‑phase path that would run feasibility, market research and legal analysis in parallel with an RFQ to potential vendors, shortening the timeline to a later RFP and vendor selection.
Campbell explained the mechanics: under CCA the city would become the generation provider while PG&E would continue transmission, distribution and billing. He warned that the CPUC authorizes a cost‑responsibility surcharge to recover above‑market costs the incumbent utility may have incurred on behalf of departing customers. "There are rules we need to follow," Campbell said. "One of the elements is the cost responsibility surcharge — ballpark estimates are between half a cent and one cent per kilowatt‑hour — that reduces the headroom to beat PG&E rates."
Commissioners asked when the implementation plan would be presented to the California Public Utilities Commission and pressed staff on the legal constraints stemming from the Raker Act and on whether Hetch Hetchy hydro could form the backbone of a CCA supply. Staff said the draft implementation plan exists but lacked some elements required by CPUC filing rules and that the RFQ would help test market feasibility; the plan anticipates a portfolio target of more than half renewable energy by 2017.
Public commenter Eric Brooks, representing Our City and the San Francisco Green Party, urged a faster timetable and recommended LAFCO lead a contractor‑driven process with SFPUC staff in a supporting role. Staff agreed to provide memos, the draft implementation plan and background materials to commissioners and to coordinate timing with LAFCO.
