Clean Power SF reports high enrollment but rising delinquencies, outlines DAC programs and rate actions

Michael Hyams, deputy manager for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission—s power enterprise responsible for Clean Power SF, told the Local Agency Formation Commission on March 19 that Clean Power SF has now completed citywide enrollment of all eligible customers and serves more than 409,000 accounts.

Hyams said the program has maintained about a 96% cumulative retention rate (roughly a 4% opt-out) since launch, and about 2.1% of customers have chosen the voluntary SuperGreen product, representing roughly 8,000 accounts. He highlighted program finance and procurement milestones: Clean Power SF received an A2 investment-grade rating from Moody—s and issued a 2020 integrated resource plan that targets a 100% renewable mix for customers by 2025. Hyams identified three new long-term power purchase agreements, including the Maverick 6 solar project (with 50 MW of battery storage), Crow Creek and Aramis (a 75 MW solar-plus-storage project in Alameda County).

Hyams also presented delinquency data by ZIP code. Clean Power SF staff said about 15,600 residential accounts (roughly 4.5% of residential customers) and about 1,740 commercial accounts (about 6% of commercial customers) were more than 90 days past due on Clean Power SF generation charges. Hyams noted residential past-due generation balances at 90+ days ranged roughly from $50 to $180, and commercial past-due amounts ranged from about $400 to $1,500 on average; total electricity indebtedness including PG&E transmission and distribution charges would be larger.

To address arrearages, Hyams said Clean Power SF joined the California Public Utilities Commission—s arrearage management program (AMP) in December; AMP offers low-income residential customers debt forgiveness (equal to one-twelfth of arrearage per on-time monthly payment, up to a stated maximum). As of the presentation, staff estimated about 3,100 Clean Power SF customers were eligible for AMP enrollment. Hyams also noted the recent American Rescue Plan Act and federal LIHEAP funding as potential sources for additional customer assistance, while cautioning that distribution details and timing were still uncertain.

On rates, Hyams reviewed recent PG&E filings that increased the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) (a large January increase followed by a smaller March adjustment). Clean Power SF reduced its green-product generation rates in January by approximately 16% under a commission-approved rate-adjustment formula and has been using reserves to cover the resulting revenue shortfall. Hyams said staff are preparing a new rate action for possible implementation July 1, focusing on program financial health, cost recovery, rate stability and affordability.

Hyams described Clean Power SF—s application to administer California PUC Disadvantaged Community (DAC) programs: a DAC Green Tariff (new solar projects in DAC census tracts with a 20% bill discount for eligible low-income CARE/FERA customers and program capacity to serve an estimated ~1,200 customers) and a DAC Community Solar program (projects within five miles of subscribers, estimated to serve ~350 customers). He said the CPUC had issued a draft resolution approving Clean Power SF—s application and that a final decision was expected in the coming weeks; implementation steps include issuing requests for offers, coordinating billing with PG&E and developing operating procedures.

Multiple commissioners asked follow-up questions about how relief would reach high-delinquency neighborhoods (for example ZIP 94124), how income thresholds would be applied across federal, state and local definitions, and whether the state disconnection moratorium could be extended beyond June 30. Hyams said CPUC proceedings are developing policy tools (including a percentage-of-income payment plan and arrearage management elements) and that Clean Power SF was focused on outreach to enroll customers into existing discount programs while coordinating with statewide efforts.

Hyams—presentation, and subsequent public comments, prompted discussion about prioritizing local renewable build-out vs. regional procurement, the structure of PCIA cost recovery, and the equity implications of program design. No formal action was taken on the Clean Power SF report at the meeting.