Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Choice Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance framework for Community Choice Aggregation; city analyst flags possible higher bills from high renewable target
Summary
The committee advanced several governance sections of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) implementation plan but continued implementation details. The controller's economist warned a 51% renewable target and CPUC cost‑responsibility surcharge could raise bills without rate design safeguards.
The Budget & Finance Committee moved to advance governance provisions for San Francisco’s Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program while continuing parts of the implementation plan that require further financial and legal detail.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano, sponsor of the implementation plan, framed the vote as approving a framework for negotiations with potential suppliers and creating oversight and implementing entities. He said the plan does not bind the city to contracts but establishes parameters — including an ambitious 51% renewable portfolio standard (RPS) target — to guide procurement and bonding approaches.
The controller’s Office of Economic Analysis presented a review that flagged two main economic risks: first, higher generation costs associated with a 51% renewable mix compared with PG&E’s current generation mix; second, the California Public Utilities Commission’s cost responsibility surcharge (CRS) for customers who switch to a CCA. Controller staff presented an illustrative sample bill (300 kWh residential usage) showing a combined effect of generation premium and CRS that could make a CCA bill roughly 24% higher in that example unless mitigations are required.
Ted Egan of the controller recommended two mitigation strategies: require bidders to offer a default indexed service that cannot exceed PG&E’s rates and an optional fixed‑rate green product for customers who actively choose it; or set a modest opt‑out penalty and periodic free opt‑out windows so customers can revert if CCA prices later prove higher.
City attorneys advised that the document before the committee must be designated a "draft" implementation plan because state law (AB 117 and Public Utilities Code provisions) requires certain supplier and compliance details that remain unresolved; supervisors accepted that legal view and instructed staff to continue parts of the plan requiring a final IP and to forward governance sections and the RFI authorization framework to the full board with recommendations.
Public comment included presentations by Paul Fenn (Local Power), Sean Randolph (Bay Area Economic Forum), Sierra Club, SPUR and business groups. Comments ranged from urging rapid RFP issuance to caution about rate risk; advocates emphasized the project’s climate and local ownership goals while some business groups urged additional vetting of cost implications.
Next steps: the committee forwarded governance‑related ordinances with recommended amendments and continued the statement of intent and other sections until a final implementation plan and RFP/RFI results provide supplier and financing details.
Representative quotes are drawn from the hearing transcript.
