San Diego Community Power committee reviews FY2027 budget and plans reserve buildup ahead of projected PCIA 'snapback'

San Diego Community Power presented its proposed fiscal year 2027 operating budget, capital budget and five‑year capital investment plan to the Finance and Risk Management Committee on May 21, 2026, focusing on affordability, program investment and a deliberate strategy to increase reserves against market volatility.

The agency’s senior finance staff told the committee they expect a revenue reduction of about $250 million — to roughly $918 million — and proposed matching expense reductions that would produce a smaller net margin in FY2027. Tim Manga, senior director of finance and risk, said staff are proposing to build reserves closer to the board’s upper target (225–270 days cash on hand) because of a projected PCIA “snapback” that could squeeze margins next year. Manga summarized the risk drivers as energy costs, renewable costs and resource adequacy, and said those metrics — particularly energy and renewable costs — have moved down since CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) October 2025 benchmarks, producing the snapback dynamic staff are preparing for.

Jeff Spangler, interim treasurer and associate director of strategic finance and procurement, reviewed the most recent unaudited financials and told the committee that year‑to‑date customer acquisitions were roughly $199 million (compared with a budgeted $152 million for the same period), participation across jurisdictions remained stable at about 95.5%, and total reserves were reported at approximately $635 million (with about $447 million unrestricted cash, $85 million current investments and $104 million non‑current investments). Spangler also noted a $223 million revolving line of credit available for emergency purposes.

Staff framed the proposed budget around three priorities: protect affordability, maintain reliable service and make targeted investments. The FY2027 capital budget totals were presented at about $71.4 million, including $63.4 million in externally funded programs (notably funding for the San Diego Regional Energy Network), an $8 million internal contribution to the capital investment plan, and carry‑forward funding from prior years. Program highlights included continued funding for a solar‑battery savings program and new pilot programs to support peak‑load shifting and commercial, multifamily and renter segments, with a stated aim to direct 50% of program funds to low‑income and priority communities.

On staffing and non‑energy costs, staff described five additional proposed full‑time positions (bringing the proposed total to 108 FTEs), with personnel spend in the non‑energy budget discussed as part of the agency’s discretionary choices. Christopher Go, senior finance analyst, walked through the non‑energy allocations and said personnel remains the largest component of that discretionary spend.

Operations and technology investments drew committee attention. Lucas Otus, senior director of IT, data analytics and customer operations, described investments in billing accuracy, cybersecurity and an AI managed‑services assessment intended to identify safe, high‑value uses of artificial intelligence. In response to questions from Vice Chair Genevib Suzuki, Otus said the agency has established an AI policy and intends to bring a vendor in to assess internal operations and recommend responsibly governed AI uses; staff committed to share the policy and follow up with the committee on the assessment outcomes.

Procurement and power‑services updates emphasized risk management and tools to capture value from battery storage and improved forecasting. Gordon Samuel, chief commercial officer, noted a January scheduling‑coordinator change that yielded roughly $130,000 in savings and described contracts coming online that support storage optimization and load forecasting.

Several public commenters raised transparency questions about non‑energy contract expenditures and grants. A commenter identified in the record as Mr. Robert questioned specific contract amounts listed in staff materials (for example a $78,000 listing associated in the materials with an organization referenced during public comment) and asked what metrics staff use to judge outreach and program effectiveness. The committee did not take formal action on contracts at the meeting; staff said contract amounts and scopes appear in the meeting packet and committed to follow up where appropriate.

Procedural items included a consent motion to approve the March 19, 2026 minutes; committee members moved and seconded the consent item and the secretary called the roll for approval.

What happens next: staff will incorporate FRMC feedback and present the proposed budget to the full board the following week, with additional Community Advisory Committee and FRMC reviews anticipated in June and a goal of board adoption in June. Staff said they will return with updated PCIA/market data after CPUC benchmarks are published in October to inform any rate‑stabilization decisions.

Quotes used in this report are drawn from committee remarks: "Community power matters. It matters to the community, to the region, to the environment, and the people we serve," said James Burke, the newly introduced chief financial officer. Tim Manga summarized the fiscal risk drivers and rationale for reserve building when advising the committee on the FY2027 outlook.