San Francisco staff to issue revised Clean Power SF RFP; advocates urge broader asset study first

Mike Kimball, director of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's Clean Power SF program, told the Local Agency Formation Commission that staff planned to issue a revised request for proposals next week for the city's community choice aggregation program and give firms two months to respond.

Kimball said the draft RFP clarifies how written and oral scores will align, adds points for local business enterprise outreach, limits the use of renewable energy certificates for any portion above the state's RPS-compliant share and asks proposers to identify key metrics and opt-out targets. He also told commissioners that staff had shortened the minimum contract term to three years while allowing extensions up to 20 years, and that some programs may be CEQA-exempt.

The revisions aim to make written responses and oral interviews comparable and to provide clearer sections on energy efficiency and demand response. "You should have a new, revised RFP draft for your packets," Kimball said, summarizing changes since the July 9 meeting.

Why it matters: The RFP sets the procurement rules that prospective suppliers will use to bid on the program that could reshape how electricity is bought and delivered in San Francisco. Early choices about scoring, REC use and contract length will affect price, local project development and bidders' ability to propose in‑city renewable projects.

Public commenters and some advocates urged more study, not immediate issuance. Eric Brooks of the San Francisco Green Party argued the RFO should not be separated from the RFP and said the city needs a comprehensive assessment of in-city renewable and efficiency assets before it issues procurement documents: "We do not want an RFO process to be separated out of this RFP." Brooks and other commenters said bidders need an inventory of assets so they can make informed offers.

Commissioners and staff responded by acknowledging the value of an asset inventory while stressing the urgency of moving the program forward. A commissioner summarized the trade-off: consultants including Local Power prefer a longer asset-identification phase, but staff argued the city can proceed with contracting while identifying in‑city resources and that a supplier partner might help fund site identification.

Staff timeline: Kimball described the near-term schedule as issuing the RFP next week, providing two months for responses, scoring in October and beginning oral interviews so negotiations could conclude and a contract be in place "by the conclusion of this calendar year." He also said he would check with the city attorney about how to circulate the final edited draft to commissioners before public posting.

Key details reported by staff (not an exhaustive list): - Evaluation steps: minimum qualification screen, scored written proposals, oral interviews tied to the same scoring elements. - LBE outreach points: included to encourage local business participation. - REC limit: RECs may be used to reach targets beyond state RPS-compliant amounts but are limited per the draft’s formula. - Contract term: minimum three years (shortened from five) with potential extensions up to 20 years. - Timeline: RFP issue next week, two months to respond, October scoring, goal of a contract by year-end.

What happens next: Commissioners asked staff to circulate the final RFP text as it will appear publicly so commissioners can review the precise language (including added local-hiring/community-benefits language) before it is posted. Staff agreed to confirm publication mechanics with the city attorney and to provide the final document to commissioners.

The commission did not take formal action on the item; commissioners signaled support for issuing the RFP on the SFPUC timeline while requesting that final edits and any consultant minority views be memorialized in writing for the record.