Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Choice Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC Presents 'Clean Power SF' Term Sheet, Seeks $19.5M Collateral for Initial Phase
Summary
SFPUC presented a phased Community Choice Aggregation plan: a conservative initial enrollment (50,000–75,000 residential accounts), a 4.5‑year supplier contract to deliver 100% renewable power, and a proposed $19.5 million appropriation (including $15M escrow) to secure supplier obligations and a $4M reserve.
The committee received a structured presentation from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on the proposed Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, branded Clean Power San Francisco.
General Manager Harrington and SFPUC staff explained the program goals, market context and the proposed term sheet. SFPUC said the program will initially enroll 50,000–75,000 residential accounts (an estimated 20–30 megawatts), offer a 100% renewable generation product from day one, and rely on an initial 4.5‑year contract with Shell Energy North America for supply and Noble for customer service management. SFPUC staff said the approach reflects marketplace constraints and is intended to be phased so the program can scale as competitive supply and local build‑out opportunities mature.
Staff outlined startup funding needs and risk mitigation. The term sheet proposes an initial appropriation of roughly $19.5 million: a $15 million escrow fund to secure the city’s obligation to the supplier if the city defaults during the initial term, and a $4 million reserve for rate stabilization and program cash flow. Staff emphasized these funds are collateral to cover limited downside scenarios and that the city’s uncapped liability would apply only if the city terminated a successful program for policy reasons.
SFPUC and finance staff explained cost and customer impacts: because the product is 100% renewable, an average small user would see a modest monthly premium (staff estimated about $6–$7 a month for small users under the proposed rates). Staff stressed that phasing and conservative participation assumptions reduce market risk and that program revenues, not profit, will be reinvested into renewables and local build‑out over time.
Supervisors raised questions about local hiring, prevailing wage guarantees, local build‑out timelines, the probability of using the escrow collateral and whether the startup funds could come from the Hetch Hetchy fund or city general fund. Advocates speaking in public comment supported the program but urged stronger parallel commitments on local generation, job creation and a longer‑term plan for reaching the program’s original goals.
Chair Campos and members requested follow‑up briefings and a timeline for decisions; the committee continued the item to the call of the chair so staff can return with additional detail before the matter goes to the full Board.
