Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Risk Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Navigant draft flags PG&E opposition, supplier credit and customer retention as top risks for Clean Power SF
Summary
Navigate Consulting presented a draft risk assessment identifying supplier selection and creditworthiness, PG&E opposition and opt‑out campaigns, customer retention and billing/collections, and the need for branding, supplier performance milestones and contingency plans; it recommended engaging financial advisers ahead of bond issuance.
John D'Alessi of Navigate Consulting presented a draft risk assessment and mitigation recommendations for Clean Power SF. He emphasized three primary risk areas: attracting and contracting with a qualified energy services provider (ESP) and monitoring creditworthiness over time; opposition from PG&E, which he said has shifted from initial neutrality to active opposition as PG&E pursues generation opportunities; and customer retention during and after an expected opt‑out process.
D'Alessi recommended an early outreach program to clarify what appealed to potential bidders and to probe why many did not respond to the RFQ, a robust branding and messaging campaign to reduce opt‑outs, contractual performance milestones and penalties for ESPs, contingency plans in case of supplier default, and retaining financial advisers to structure potential bond financing and program credit terms. "We think CCSF ought to at least consider legislation or action at the CPUC to, really just to prevent PG and E from actively trying to undermine a CCA program," D'Alessi said.
Commissioners and staff said the draft would be taken to the SFPUC's public energy stewards meeting for comment and returned to LAFCO in the next month for further discussion. The commission did not adopt any risk mitigation measures during the session and will consider public feedback in subsequent meetings.
