LAFCO and SFPUC advance CCA planning as CPUC dispute with PG&E complicates rollout

San Francisco’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) staff updated commissioners on next steps for the city’s community choice aggregation (CCA) program and approved amendments to budget and RFQ language while noting a parallel complaint at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that could affect rollout.

Barbara Hale, assistant general manager for Power at the SFPUC, told LAFCO that questions to the RFI have been received and answers were posted; formal responses to the RFI are due Nov. 13. "The responses themselves are due on November 13," Hale said. SFPUC staff plans to summarize incoming responses and, if warranted by comments, issue a request for proposals after the RFI phase. Hale said the RFP issuance is expected at the end of this year or in early next year, depending on comment-driven changes.

On staffing, Hale said the SFPUC would post the CCA director position by Tuesday and expects candidate materials by Nov. 28; the director would then help recruit analysts to support program implementation. Commissioners recommended that LAFCO have a representative on the hiring panel; Hale agreed to take that recommendation back to PUC staff.

Stephen Morrison of the City Attorney’s Office briefed the commission on a related CPUC matter: the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority (SJVPA) filed a June complaint alleging Pacific Gas & Electric Co. used ratepayer funds to fund marketing aimed at stopping CCA formation. Morrison summarized the procedural posture: PG&E denied the allegations (asserting shareholder-funded activity and First Amendment protections) and the city's motion to intervene was denied without prejudice at a prehearing conference. "They have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want," Morrison said, summarizing PG&E’s defense as described in its CPUC response. The administrative law judge issued questions on Oct. 19 and a scoping memo is expected by the end of the month; Morrison advised LAFCO staff to report back after the scoping memo if the city should consider reasserting intervention.

On budget and procurement, Interim Executive Officer Nancy Miller presented proposed resolution changes that would acknowledge SFPUC has funds "on reserve for LAFCO" totaling $2,100,000 over a three-year period to conduct the project and would add language that LAFCO and SFPUC "will seek a release of reserves from the Board of Supervisors for the necessary funds." Commissioners debated whether the resolution should say "seek an appropriation" versus "seek release of reserves"; staff clarified that the funds are on full-board reserve and that releasing them requires a Board hearing and the appropriate vote.

The commission also debated whether LAFCO and SFPUC should issue a joint RFQ to attract and clarify bids or run separate RFQs to protect LAFCO’s independent advisory and monitoring role. Barbara Hale recommended collaboration to reduce duplication and suggested allowing some flexibility in the RFQ release so RFI comments (due Nov. 13) could be incorporated. Commissioners favored language that permits collaboration but preserves LAFCO’s independent oversight; Miller offered draft language authorizing joint issuance "so long as the November 21 date is met and the independent advisory and monitoring role is maintained by LAFCO." After discussion the commission amended the resolutions accordingly and moved both items as amended.

The meeting record contains some numeric ambiguity: SFPUC staff said there was a balance available for CCA implementation (stated verbally as about $1.2 million, then corrected to $1.8 million during the exchange), and Miller separately stated $2,100,000 on reserve for LAFCO over three years; the transcript does not resolve the $1.2M vs. $1.8M phrasing. The resolutions adopted at the meeting explicitly reference the SFPUC reserve of $2,100,000 pending release by the Board of Supervisors.

Commissioners asked staff to return after the CPUC issues its scoping memo and to report on whether the city should reassert intervention in the SJVPA complaint. No public comment was offered on the budget or RFQ items and the commission adjourned with routine future agenda housekeeping.