Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LAFCO hears SFPUC budget shortfall, advances draft RFP to study local energy buildout
Summary
LAFCO members heard that SFPUC staff expect a multiyear budget imbalance and that roughly $19 million is held in reserve; commissioners and advocates urged a joint PUC–LAFCO review and supported an RFP to hire a consultant to craft a manageable local energy buildout plan with options that include and exclude Shell.
San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission members pressed the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on Jan. 24 for verification of budget shortfalls affecting the Clean Power SF community choice aggregation (CCA) program and advanced a draft request for proposals to study local energy buildout.
Barbara Hale, assistant general manager for power at the SFPUC, told the commission the power enterprise is facing unanticipated capital needs and higher-than-expected transmission and distribution costs and said the utility was "presently projecting to be out of balance by fiscal year 'sixteen-'seventeen." Hale also stated that roughly $19 million (later referenced as $19.5 million in discussion) is "on reserve and unexpendable by the PUC." She said SFPUC staff have been directed to focus on restoring the utility's financial position.
LAFCO commissioners and staff responded by requesting independent analysis and transparency. Chair Avalos asked that the city controller and budget analysts review the SFPUC materials and proposed a joint PUC–LAFCO meeting to examine the financial picture. Commissioner Breed asked that all materials be provided in advance and made public.
Alisa Miller, LAFCO staff, presented a draft RFP seeking an independent consultant to craft a local buildout strategy that would "maintain energy efficiency, increase local control, maximize job creation, maintain affordable electric rates, [and] support environmental justice." Miller said the draft assumes the existing Shell contract unless the commission directs otherwise, but commissioners proposed writing the RFP to compare options both with and without Shell.
Jason Fried, LAFCO staff, suggested operational savings might be achievable if some scheduling and procurement tasks currently contracted to Shell were brought in-house, and noted state CPUC funds might be available. "If you were to rearrange the CCA program so you no longer had Shell doing all of the work ... but brought some of that stuff in house, that perhaps there could be some savings," Fried said.
Public commenters including Eric Brooks (San Francisco Green Party/Our City) and Jed Holtzman (350 San Francisco) urged LAFCO to keep driving the program, requested clarification of the Shell contract (which had been put on hold since August, they said), and pointed commissioners to PUC budget materials presented on Jan. 14.
On procedural timing, Vice Chair Breed urged that LAFCO not wait until the next commission meeting to publish the RFP once feedback is incorporated. Commissioners agreed the chair could give final approval after staff makes edits and the RFP could allow flexibility to model scenarios both including and excluding Shell, although staff cautioned that broader scope could increase consultant costs.
An MOU extension with SFPUC listed on the agenda was dropped because the existing MOU runs through fiscal year 2014–15 and did not require action at this meeting. LAFCO directed staff to compile the PUC materials, pursue a joint meeting, and return with public and interagency input before taking further formal actions on program implementation.
Next steps recorded in discussion included scheduling a joint PUC–LAFCO meeting, providing SFPUC presentation materials in advance to commissioners and the public, and circulating a revised RFP that includes options with and without the Shell contract for commissioner review and chair sign-off.
