SFPUC updates LAFCO on Clean Power SF rollout; commissioners demand faster response to union-funded mailers

San Francisco's Local Agency Formation Commission on Jan. 25 heard an update from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission staff on Clean Power SF and pressed the PUC to accelerate public outreach after what commissioners described as a union-funded negative mail campaign.

Barbara Hale, assistant general manager for power at the SFPUC, told commissioners the agency remains "on time according to our time schedule," with the commission scheduled to consider proposed not-to-exceed rates on March 12 after Rate Fairness Board briefings and customer-survey results. Hale said the SFPUC plans a customer-education program this spring, a June procurement decision and a mandatory opt-out period prior to an October launch.

The SFPUC described how Clean Power SF's opt-out model is expected to enroll 50,00090,000 residential accounts on day one, compared with PG&E's proposed opt-in green tariff, which staff estimated would enroll about 30,000 accounts over three years. "We're on time according to our time schedule," Hale said. She noted a key difference: PG&E proposes to rely in part on Green-e certificates, while the SFPUC intends to offer products that meet California's Renewable Portfolio Standard criteria.

Radhika Fox, who briefed commissioners on state policy, also highlighted broader funding and legislative issues that could affect Clean Power SF. "The first auction in November generated about $280,000,000 in revenue," Fox said, and a subsequent auction generated roughly $230,000,000, funds that the Air Resources Board and Department of Finance are now planning how to invest.

Commissioners raised alarm at mailers and email campaigns they said were circulating in San Francisco neighborhoods under the "San Francisco Shellshock" label and tied in part to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Chair Avalos said constituents had received flyers and emails that appeared to mischaracterize the program. "I believe there was a mailer that went out last week that people picked up," Avalos said, urging staff to respond quickly.

PUC staff said they had received a letter from an IBEW representative and provided written rebuttals; they also described an education plan that includes a poll to create a precinct heat map, targeted door-to-door and phone outreach to roughly 10,000 residents in high-propensity precincts in April90June, partnerships with community nonprofits, and broader broadcast media during the mandatory opt-out period.

Commissioners pressed for more immediate action: several asked the PUC to produce a myth-vs-fact sheet, revive social-media outreach and coordinate with supervisors' offices to get accurate information into neighborhood newsletters. "We're being caught flat footed," one commissioner said, arguing the PUC should "step up" communications now rather than wait until April.

Public commenters, including representatives of the Sierra Club and San Francisco Green Party, urged the PUC to publish concrete numbers that advocates can use to counter negative messaging: projected jobs, megawatts of local renewables and timing for build-out. "We need facts and we need them now," Jessica Durbin Ackerman of the Sierra Club said during public comment.

Next steps the PUC gave to LAFCO and commissioners included delivering customer-survey results to the Rate Fairness Board in early March, a staff briefing to the SFPUC commission on March 12 and a joint PUC'LAFCO meeting March 25 to discuss outreach during the 30-day rate-notice period. The SFPUC committed to follow up with LAFCO staff and supervisors' offices to discuss stepped-up communications and legal questions about third-party mailers.