Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reentry Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LAFCO backs SFPUC effort opposing CPUC reentry‑fee/bond mechanism
Summary
LAFCO approved a resolution supporting SFPUC and city attorney actions at the CPUC opposing a proposed reentry-fee/bond mechanism under AB 117; staff warned a San Francisco-scale bond could exceed $200 million and could block a CCA launch.
The San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission approved a resolution supporting the SFPUC and city attorney in opposing a California Public Utilities Commission mechanism that would set a reentry-fee/bond requirement for community choice aggregation programs. Ms. Miller presented the resolution as an action item and explained the dispute: investor-owned utilities and some parties proposed a settlement to set bonding formulas intended to cover the costs of customers returning to the utility if a CCA failed. That mechanism would implement a statutory requirement in AB 117, but staff argued the proposed method could produce excessive bond levels.
Mike Campbell said the CPUC had pulled the draft decision from consideration and reopened the record after CCA parties raised concerns. "Our estimates for a San Francisco program ... need a bond capable of covering more than being greater than more than $200,000,000," Campbell said, adding that a requirement of that size would be a major impediment to launching a program. Commissioners asked about CPUC dynamics and whether the CPUC was considering parallel protections for investor-owned utilities; staff said the record has been reopened and CPUC workshops have been held.
Public comment echoed the need to engage new CPUC appointees and to press for fair exit-fee calculations. The commission moved and seconded the resolution (motion by Commissioner Mercurimi, seconded by Commissioner Schmelzer) and approved it without objection.
The resolution directs staff to continue coordination with the SFPUC and the city attorney’s office in filings and outreach before the CPUC. The action is procedural support for the city’s regulatory advocacy rather than a legal filing by LAFCO itself.
