Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Choice Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SF LAFCO hears Clean Power SF update as CPUC rate changes reshape comparisons
Summary
San Francisco LAFCO received a status report on Clean Power SF June 3: contract talks with Shell are progressing, the CPUC's May 26 rate decision will flatten generation rates (simplifying CCA comparisons) and SB 970 cleared the Senate 24-12; SFPUC described its position on AB 976 as neutral but said it will monitor further amendments.
San Francisco's Local Agency Formation Commission on June 3 received an update on the city's Community Choice Aggregation program, Clean Power SF, including contract negotiations, state regulatory changes and pending legislation.
Mike Campbell, director of the city's CCA program at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, said negotiations with Shell on energy supply are "very good progress" and that the team is preparing to accelerate talks with Noble on customer services and electronic data interchange with PG&E. "We continue to make very good progress with our negotiations with Shell," Campbell said.
Campbell told commissioners that a California Public Utilities Commission decision issued May 26 will alter how certain residential charges appear on customer bills. Under the change, the per-kilowatt-hour generation charge for residential customers would be flat, while a separate conservation incentive charge would appear elsewhere on the bill. "We will have a flat generation rate that we'll be able to compare from PG and E," Campbell said, adding that the change should make an "apples-to-apples" comparison easier for customers considering CCA service.
On legislation, Campbell reviewed AB 976 and SB 970. He said AB 976 was initially drafted with broad language that could have constrained CCAs' ability to hire consultants involved in a feasibility study, but the bill had been narrowed. By contrast, SB 970 (a bill the SFPUC sponsored with the Sierra Club and Marin Clean Energy Authority to clarify the state's AB 117 CCA law) passed the Senate 24-12 and was moving to the Assembly.
When asked about the SFPUC's stance, Campbell said the agency had opposed the earlier, broader draft of AB 976 but that the revised language meant the SFPUC's position was currently neutral. "Our current position is neutral," he said, but he added the SFPUC was watching the bill closely and would change its position if later amendments threatened CCA operations.
Several commissioners urged the SFPUC to coordinate with Marin and other jurisdictions where opposition remains, and staff offered to return with an intent motion or recommendation if the commission wanted the executive officer to pursue an interjurisdictional response. Chair David Campos then moved to continue discussion of the CCA item to the call of the chair so that staff and SFPUC could pursue scheduling for further joint meetings.
The item was deferred for later action; commissioners and staff emphasized timing and noted a target to begin broader RFP or contract decisions in July 2011 as the program advances toward implementation in 2012.
What happens next: LAFCO members asked staff to coordinate target dates for a joint SFPUC/LAFCO session in July to review draft contracts and to continue monitoring AB 976 and SB 970 as they move through the Legislature.
