Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Energy Act Public Power topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lengthy public debate as supervisors advance study and amendments on Clean Energy Act and municipal power goals
Summary
Supervisors debated a proposed Clean Energy Act that would codify aggressive renewable targets and support municipal control or community choice aggregation. Supporters cited climate urgency and local jobs; opponents warned of fiscal risk, bonding authority and uncertain takeover costs. Sponsor accepted amendments and continued the item.
The Rules Committee held an extended hearing on June 27 on a proposed San Francisco Clean Energy Act that would set aggressive renewable electricity goals (51% by 2017, 75% by 2030, with higher ambitions thereafter), codify community choice aggregation (CCA) and authorize steps toward a municipal energy enterprise.
Sponsor remarks framed the measure as complementary to existing CCA work and as a vehicle for municipal revenue bonding to fund a publicly managed distribution or generation program and an Office of Ratepayer Advocate. The City Attorney and sponsor removed earlier language about electing PUC commissioners and instead refined implementation language; the City Attorney also read an amendment changing the office language from "establish" to "fund."
Public comment filled much of the hearing. Supporters, including Sierra Club, community groups, labor and many residents, urged municipal action to accelerate renewables, create green jobs and reduce dependence on investor‑owned utilities. Opponents — including a PG&E representative, the Bay Area Council and the Chamber of Commerce — warned that acquisition or municipalization would require multi‑billion‑dollar financing, could place large debt and rate risk on taxpayers and ratepayers, and that timelines in the draft were ambitious.
Speakers debated cost estimates (witnesses cited a range of valuation and bond scenarios), bonding authority, the impact on non‑profit funding historically supported by PG&E, and the need for an independent, peer‑reviewed cost study. Supervisors discussed regional coordination and legal constraints; several said a formal study and additional drafting were necessary before a ballot measure. The sponsor accepted amendments and continued the item to July 9 for further work.
The committee did not vote on an acquisition or ballot placement; the hearing generated substantial public record and an instruction to refine implementation language and financial safeguards.
