Rules Committee sends charter amendment to create independent ratepayer advocate to full Board with recommendation

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee voted to recommend a charter amendment that would create an independent Ratepayer Advocate to represent and analyze San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) rate proposals.

Supervisor (sponsor identified in the hearing) and PUC staff said the new office would be funded by the SFPUC rather than the General Fund and would provide technical review of rate proposals, contracts, capital projects and program expenditures. The sponsor told the Committee the advocate would be a specialized office with required expertise in rate-making and utility operations and would be authorized to obtain PUC information, hold public meetings and advise the SFPUC and Board of Supervisors.

The hearing drew broad public support from neighborhood coalitions, community associations and ratepayer advocates. Speakers pointed to multi-billion-dollar capital programs (including the Water System Improvement Program and wastewater projects) and argued that an independent advocate could improve transparency and explain rate components to ratepayers. One supporter estimated the new office would cost roughly $125,000 annually — a negligible share of PUC budgets — and called the position “a drop in the bucket” compared with the scale of capital spending.

During committee discussion, the PUC and the comptroller’s office provided technical context: the Rate Fairness Board already exists as a multi-member review body but meets only when rates are under consideration, while a chartered advocate would operate continuously. The comptroller’s office said it could perform the required tax/projection work for any financing options discussed elsewhere in the meeting but noted it would be an added task. Committee members questioned whether the new office would create duplicate review layers, observed there are existing oversight mechanisms, and flagged practical implementation questions such as filling existing Rate Fairness Board vacancies.

After public testimony and deliberation, the Committee took a roll-call vote on the motion to move the charter amendment with recommendation to the full Board. The roll call recorded Supervisors Duffy and Amiano voting "aye" and Chair Daly voting "no." The motion carried and the measure will go to the full Board with the committee's recommendation.

Next steps: the charter amendment will appear before the full Board of Supervisors for consideration and placement on a ballot or further committee review as required by Board procedures.