SFPUC, LAFCO advance Clean Power SF RFP after edits, GAO delays final vote for one week

San Francisco's push to issue a request for proposals for its Clean Power SF community choice aggregation program moved forward Thursday after a lengthy joint session of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the Board of Supervisors'Government Audits and Oversight Committee (GAO). Staff presented a near-final draft RFP and outlined a timeline that would have issued the solicitation later in October, but commissioners won a commitment to additional edits and a short delay in the GAO process.

"What we have before you represents are pretty close to a final draft of what this document will look like," Nancy Miller, interim LAFCO executive officer, told the joint committee, while acknowledging remaining wordsmithing and consultant comments. Mike Campbell, director of the SFPUC's Clean Power SF program, described the initiative as one that would replace PG&E generation charges with a city-administered, lower-polluting supply: "the energy would be significantly less polluting than what you could otherwise get from PG and E."

Why it matters: Clean Power SF aims to deliver a substantially more renewable portfolio for San Francisco customers and to spur in‑city renewable development. The RFP sets interim and long-range targets and establishes scoring that gives the greatest weight to renewable generation while retaining price and other qualifications in evaluation.

Key details: Campbell said the draft RFP follows two-stage procurement rules: an initial minimum-qualification screen followed by scored written proposals and oral interviews for top scorers. The draft embeds program targets including an interim target (described in the draft as a 40% mix of RPS‑compliant and city-specified resources for an early milestone) and a long-term goal of 51% RPS‑compliant resources by 2017. The draft also calls for multi-year contracts ("five years or longer") but allows phased or shorter initial terms tied to project financing.

Commissioners pressed staff on three main points: whether a more flexible scoring approach will attract a robust field of bidders; how the RFP rewards specific technology types (in‑city photovoltaic and distributed generation versus out‑of‑city wind); and how to preserve a LAFCO/Board review role if PUC staff makes revisions. Commissioner Michael Borenstein said he feared expanded hydro or other non‑preferred technologies could displace the city's solar goals; others responded that the RFP already awards extra points to bidders who meet the specific implementation‑plan targets.

Public commenters urged more time for review: John Rizzo of the Sierra Club said the latest draft was posted only 48 hours earlier and asked that the item be tabled "in the spirit of the Brown Act." Eric Brooks of the San Francisco Green Party warned that the "final 10% is a huge 10%" and urged that LAFCO and Local Power act as a substantive backstop on final language.

Outcome and next steps: LAFCO approved an amended resolution and asked staff to incorporate community‑benefit language into the RFP and to change ordinance language so that the PUC general manager issues the RFP "in consultation with the executive officer and the chair of LAFCO." The GAO portion of the joint session recessed to Oct. 22 to review a near‑final draft before the Board of Supervisors votes, giving staff one additional week to address public and commissioner edits. Staff also received and filed the Navigant risk assessment and Local Power peer review, and commissioners authorized a one‑month, not‑to‑exceed extension for consultant contracts to support final RFP work.

What remains unresolved: Commissioners withdrew a motion to explicitly exclude "expanded hydro" from counting toward the renewable targets after legal and technical discussion about state RPS definitions and small in‑pipe hydro options; staff will refine scoring language and document clarifications. Staff committed to further wordsmithing to correct errors flagged by commenters (for example, clarifying state statute versus administrative roles in the RPS process) and to provide GAO a near‑final draft on Oct. 22.

The committee recessed the GAO portion until Oct. 22. No final award decisions were made at Thursday's meeting.