Mission Focused: Making the Case for Expanding Public Power

“Whose electricity bill was over $100?” was the moderator’s question.

Hands shot up in the audience at Manny’s, a café and event space in San Francisco’s Mission District that focuses on topical public policy conversations.

“Can I get $200?” asked Precious Green, the Director of Community & Partnerships and house moderator at Manny's, doing her best impersonation of an auctioneer.

“Now you sound like PG&E,” quipped Barbara Hale, the SFPUC’s Assistant General Manager for Power.

Heads nodded. Knowing murmurs rippled through the audience. And the stage was set for a thoughtful public discussion with Hale this week about where San Francisco gets its electricity from and the challenges our city faces as a shambling PG&E throws up roadblocks to affordable housing and other public projects while wringing customers with rate increases to line its investors’ pockets.

In the fireside-chat-style conversation with Green, Hale explained to the dozens of people in attendance where San Francisco gets its electricity from, why our power rates are cheaper than PG&E’s, and why we want to buy the investor-owned utility’s grid in San Francisco so that all of our residents and business will get the benefits of public power.

As Hale explained, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission already provides more than 70% of the electricity used in San Francisco through a combination of power that we generate ourselves with our Hetch Hetchy Power system and power that we buy through our CleanPowerSF community choice aggregation program.

Both sources are renewable and notably cleaner than PG&E’s.

“The water that you drink creates electricity,” Hale noted. “We put our water to work for you.”

Additionally, San Francisco’s community choice aggregation program, which allows cities and other municipalities in the state to source their own electricity, is “recognized as one of the cleanest ones in the nation,” Hale noted.

We have long-term contracts with solar and wind energy providers, and we’ve finalized a long-term geothermal energy deal as well. Battery storage to hold renewable energy for times when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing is a growing part of our energy portfolio.

CleanPowerSF serves about 385,000 customer accounts in San Francisco and offers 60% and 100% renewable electricity service options. Over the past eight years, CleanPowerSF has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity use by 93% from 1990 levels.  

Along with CleanPowerSF, the SFPUC operates Hetch Hetchy Power, which generates and delivers 100% greenhouse gas-free energy to more than 6,500 customer accounts, including municipal facilities, such as City Hall, San Francisco International Airport, schools, libraries and the Muni transit system. Hetch Hetchy Power also provides electricity to some commercial and residential developments, including at the Ferry Building and Transbay Transit Center, as well new neighborhoods being built along the eastern waterfront, like Pier 70 and Mission Rock.

$120 Million Saved

Our power is cleaner than PG&E’s, we are more reliable, and our rates are cheaper. In fact, our Hetch Hetchy customers alone saved $120 million last year compared to what they would have been paying if they were with PG&E, Hale noted.  

Part of the reason is that we are a not-for-profit public utility. We don’t have to pay the taxes that for-profit utilities like PG&E do, and we don’t have to make a profit to pay off investors or provide executives with multi-million-dollar pay packages. Instead, our earnings are used to keep rates lower and to reinvest in the system to ensure safety and reliability, Hale said.

“I think the individuals here would love to have you running our power,” Green said.

While the SFPUC already produces and buys clean and more affordable power, the problem is PG&E owns the electric grid in San Francisco. It effectively has a monopoly on that last-mile connection for most San Francisco homes and businesses.

“Right now, we don’t have enough control to bring (those benefits) to all San Franciscans,” Hale said.

That is why the City, including the SFPUC, City Attorney’s Office, Planning Department and others, are working hard to purchase PG&E’s electric grid in San Francisco.

We have already made an offer of $2.5 billion, which PG&E claims is too low.

So, San Francisco is now before the state utility regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, to get an independent determination of the fair market value of PG&E’s grid that serves the City.

“Our ideal outcome is to have a business-like transaction with PG&E” to ensure the smoothest transition, Hale said.

Simultaneously, the SFPUC is also conducting environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act for that public power expansion project.

How Do You Pay for It?

One audience member asked where the money would come from, suggesting it could affect other city priorities.

Hale, though, explained that the money to purchase the electric grid would not come from existing money in City coffers like the General Fund. Instead, the City would borrow the money for the acquisition using revenue bonds. Those bonds would be paid back over time from the money that comes in from people paying their electrical bills.

So the acquisition wouldn’t affect any other City spending. The money for the purchase is money the City would get only for that purpose, and it couldn’t be used on anything else.

The SFPUC has crunched the numbers, including how much we would have to borrow, how much we would need to keep in reserve, the amount needed for continuing operations and maintenance, and funds for investments in capital improvements.

All of that can be done for less than what PG&E is charging customers.

“We’ve done the math,” Hale said. “If we didn’t see a pathway to charging San Franciscans less (than PG&E), we wouldn’t have recommended (this). … We see a pathway for San Franciscans to pay less. Paying their electric bill pays back all of those costs.”

Hale encouraged people seeking more information about the public power expansion work to sign up for updates at publicpowersf.org.

Free Webinar: Expanding Public Power in San Francisco

What’s the difference between the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), you ask? The SFPUC is a publicly owned utility that has been providing clean, safe, reliable power to San Francisco for more than 100 years. PG&E is an investor-owned utility more focused on enriching Wall Street investors than meeting the needs of its customers. That’s where Our City. Our Power. comes in.

Our City. Our Power. is San Francisco’s effort to purchase the local electricity grid from PG&E to provide San Franciscans with affordable electric rates, cleaner energy, and greater investment in the local community. Join us on Thursday, April 25 at 10 a.m. for a free, one-hour webinar as we walk you through the City’s efforts to acquire PG&E’s local electric assets, the benefits of public power, and how to get involved in shaping our city’s energy future.

What to expect during the webinar:

• San Francisco’s efforts to acquire PG&E’s local electric assets

• Challenges posed by PG&E obstruction and delays to local public projects

• Benefits of public power

• How to get involved with our campaign

• Q&A session: get your questions answered by our subject matter experts!

Know neighbors or friends who could benefit from attending this webinar? Share information about this webinar with them today!

PG&E just added over $400 to your electric bill. There’s a better way: Public power.

Talk about getting the new year off on the wrong foot. After a year of lobbying state regulators, PG&E has raised your electric and gas bill by more than $400 a year as of January 1st.

This latest rate hike, only a few years after PG&E exited bankruptcy in 2020, is more than a 50% increase in PG&E’s charges over the last four years alone.

Consumer advocates say this could just be the beginning as PG&E continues to overspend and mismanage operations—anticipating the total bill could increase by an additional $800 per year by the end of 2024. PG&E has also announced that it plans to start issuing cash dividends to shareholders again in 2024 – boosting Wall Street profits while raising rates on the rest of us.

In case you missed the recent headlines:

• PG&E becomes California's most expensive power provider (NBC News)

• Historic PG&E rate increases will hit hard in 2024 (KQED)

• PG&E announces yet another increase to utility bills (San Francisco Chronicle)

It doesn’t have to be like this: Public power is a better option—and the only way to end PG&E price gouging.

San Franciscans are paying PG&E too much for too little, and it’s only getting worse. But there’s a better option, right here in the City.

Even before PG&E’s latest rate hike, San Francisco’s public power utility was already offering the lowest rates for electricity service in San Francisco while providing consistently higher customer-service ratings. The City’s customers have seen firsthand all the benefits of public power:

• Safe and Reliable: Public power electric utilities across California have proven track records of providing safer, more reliable power than PG&E. The City has been providing clean power to San Francisco for over 100 years.

• More Affordable: Public power means lower rates—because unlike PG&E, the City doesn’t need to pay executives tens of millions of dollars or dole out dividends to Wall Street shareholders.

• Clean and Green: Locally controlled public power is 100% clean and the fastest way for San Francisco to reach its climate goals. Together, Hetch Hetchy Power and CleanPowerSF meet over 75% of San Francisco’s electricity supply needs – and those supplies are cleaner than PG&E’s.

PG&E isn’t giving San Franciscans any reasons to stay. That’s why the City offered the utility $2.5 billion to purchase the local grid—and continues to make progress in expanding public power.

The movement is growing. It’s Our City. It’s Our Power.

Learn more about what you can do to support the shift to a safer, cleaner, and more affordable power system: publicpowersf.org.

Dennis Herrera: With PG&E rates going up (again), San Francisco deserves better

With PG&E getting ready to raise rates (again!) by as much as $400 per year—on top of a 50% rate increase since 2020—there has never been a better time for San Francisco to accelerate its transition to full public power, a proven, higher-quality, lower-cost alternative to PG&E.

In a new San Francisco Examiner op-ed, SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera lays out the case for buying out PG&E so they are no longer the corporate monopoly grid owner in San Francisco.

Noting that San Francisco public power customers already pay 30% less than PG&E customers, while receiving more reliable service, Herrera catalogs PG&E’s disturbing history of mismanagement and incompetence—from billions of dollars of wildfire liabilities and excessive executive salaries to its ongoing attempts to make San Francisco residents pay for its mistakes. 

“PG&E customers deserve better,” says Herrera. “It doesn’t have to be this way. It’s time for a change. It’s time to expand public power in San Francisco.”

Read the full Herrera op-ed here: 

• It's high time for San Francisco to break ties with PG&E
  

And join your fellow San Franciscans in the growing public power movement! Sign up for regular updates at: publicpowersf.org/join

EXPERT TESTIMONY BACKS SAN FRANCISCO'S $2.5 BILLION PUBLIC POWER OFFER

PG&E is using the same old playbook to try to stop San Francisco from serving critical City projects—raising rates, delaying local projects, and dragging its feet to obstruct the process wherever it can. And PG&E’s delays and high rates are a problem throughout its service area.

But that has only made the City more determined to make progress in its efforts to shift to full public power.

Last month, San Francisco took the next step in public power expansion when it formally provided the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with 126 pages of testimony from a panel of independent experts backing the City’s standing offer to purchase PG&E’s San Francisco electric facilities.

PG&E claimed in 2019 and 2020 that San Francisco’s offer to buy the power grid is “too low.” So, in 2021, the City asked the CPUC, the state energy regulator, to determine what a fair price would be. Last year, the CPUC asked for written testimony from both sides that will inform formal hearings next year.

The City’s filing includes testimony from a panel of respected, third-party experts whose detailed estimates of the value confirm that the City’s original offer of $2.5 billion was reasonable for PG&E’s San Francisco-based assets.

This professional assessment includes:

• Utility systems engineers conducted a complete inventory and estimated cost of all of the electrical equipment the City seeks to acquire.

• Real property appraisers provided an assessment of the value of the land and buildings the City seeks to acquire.

• Certified utility appraisers conducted their own estimate—valuing the purchase at $2.4 billion based on industry-wide appraisal standards.

• Investment bankers then provided an updated market price—projecting a sale of between $2.5 billion and $3 billion to a corporate buyer.

San Francisco has been providing safe, clean, affordable power to its residents for more than 100 years. We know we can do this job better than PG&E—and we know we’ve made a fair offer to take over the rest of the local grid.

We look forward to a full hearing before the CPUC next year, where we will have a chance to remind PG&E of one important fact:

It’s Our City. It’s Our Power.

And we’re committed to taking it back.

Learn more about what you can do to support the shift to a safer, cleaner, and more affordable power system: publicpowersf.org.

Read the City’s full CPUC testimony here.

CITY OFFICIALS CALL ON PG&E TO RESPOND TO RECENT OUTAGES, ALLOW PUBLIC POWER ACQUISITION TO MOVE FORWARD

Letter to PG&E submitted this week requests explanation for lack of “timely information” on a range of recent power outages — highlights opportunity for PG&E to reconsider City’s offer to acquire local grid

Signatories include Mayor London Breed, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, City Attorney David Chiu, and SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera

San Francisco, CA — The City of San Francisco’s top elected officials sent a formal request to PG&E CEO Patricia Poppe this week asking for an explanation for recent power outages that have created “significant public health and safety risks and economic disruption” — including the temporary closure of the city’s 9-1-1 emergency system and the loss of power at Zuckerberg SF General Hospital, the city’s only Trauma 1 center.

Signed by Mayor London Breed, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, City Attorney David Chiu, and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Dennis Herrera, the letter details PG&E’s failure to provide crucial, timely information to emergency professionals and first responders, residents, and City officials during recent power outages.

The letter also reminds PG&E of the City's standing offer to purchase the local electric grid. “These calls went largely unanswered under previous PG&E leadership, so the City has moved forward under state law. But we continue to hope you will reconsider the company’s position and realize that a cooperative process leading to an agreement would provide significant value to PG&E’s customers and shareholders….After many decades, it is time for the City to gain the energy independence that comes from owning its local grid.”

As the City’s public power efforts move forward, city officials expressed their frustration with PG&E for failing to keep the power on — or provide timely information about its status, even as thousands of San Franciscans have gone days without electricity. The letter also notes several other noteworthy outages that knocked out power to the City’s 9-1-1 center and left Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital without power for 15 hours.

“The safety and wellbeing of our residents and businesses is our first priority, and as a fundamental principle of good government, it’s our duty to deliver services San Franciscans expect and deserve,” said Mayor London Breed. “Timely information, especially when unforeseen events arise like recent power outages, is critical to how we respond in emergency situations. It is absolutely unacceptable for PG&E to withhold or delay any communication that would help inform the City’s emergency response and management.”

"The most recent PG&E electrical fires and five-day power outage that impacted every aspect of life in San Francisco’s northeast quadrant could have been avoided with a reasonable state of good repair,” said Board President Aaron Peskin, who also represents the district where the latest power outage occurred. “From essential traffic signalization that was out for days to patients who had to throw out their insulin or couldn’t access dialysis treatment, the impact was dramatic and widespread. I had monolingual SRO residents and seniors who couldn’t flush their toilets, take showers or charge their cell phones. Candidly, it was all exacerbated by a frustrating lack of communication or accountability from PG&E, which will be the subject of a hearing at the Government Audit and Oversight Committee later this month.”

“PG&E has continually failed to meet its obligations to provide the City and residents with information during power outages,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “This is basic common sense—first responders and emergency management staff need timely information during an emergency. Gatekeeping information during a power outage only puts the public in harm’s way. We are calling on PG&E to work with us during these outages for the safety of all San Franciscans.”

San Francisco leaders have expressed their willingness for years to relieve PG&E of the responsibility for managing the local grid, especially given the utility’s inability to provide safe, reliable service. San Francisco already supplies more than 70% of the energy used by its residents, but its existing power programs continue to rely on PG&E’s local distribution grid. “This arrangement is unusual, a source of friction for both the City and PG&E, and inconsistent with the City’s goals and objectives,” the letter notes.

“The reality is, PG&E continues to fail to meet its basic obligations to California customers," said SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera. "Right now, PG&E is too big and too dysfunctional to effectively prioritize what needs to get done. They are too big to succeed. This most recent outage only underscores the need for San Francisco to buy PG&E’s electric grid in the City so we can reinvest in the system to ensure that electricity is safe, reliable, and affordable for all San Franciscans. Unlike PG&E, we are a not-for-profit utility. That allows us to keep our rates lower than PG&E’s. Rather than paying a CEO $51 million, as PG&E did in 2021, that’s money that we would reinvest into the safety and reliability of our system.” 

More information about recent power outages is available here:
https://sf.gov/news/city-leaders-call-pge-address-recent-power-outages-impacting-thousands-residents

The City’s letter to PG&E is here.

City Leaders Call on PG&E to Address Recent Power Outages Impacting Thousands of Residents

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 3, 2023

City Leaders Call on PG&E to Address Recent Power Outages Impacting Thousands of Residents

Issues were communicated in a letter sent to Pacific Gas and Electric's CEO noting a lack of critical information to residents and City officials during recent power outages, raising safety concerns

SAN FRANCISCO — Mayor London N. Breed joined City leaders to request information on recent power outages that created significant public health and safety risks, as well as economic disruption, in a letter sent today to Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) CEO, Patricia Poppe.

Signed by Mayor Breed, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, City Attorney David Chiu, and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) General Manager Dennis Herrera, the letter details PG&E’s failure to provide crucial, timely information to emergency professionals and first responders, residents, and City officials during recent power outages.

“The safety and wellbeing of our residents and businesses is our first priority, and as a fundamental principle of good government, it’s our duty to deliver services San Franciscans expect and deserve,” said Mayor London Breed. “Timely information, especially when unforeseen events arise like recent power outages, is critical to how we respond in emergency situations. It is absolutely unacceptable for PG&E to withhold or delay any communication that would help inform the City’s emergency response and management.”

"The most recent PG&E electrical fires and five-day power outage that impacted every aspect of life in San Francisco’s northeast quadrant could have been avoided with a reasonable state of good repair,” said Board President Aaron Peskin, who also represents the district where the power outage occurred. “From essential traffic signalization that was out for days to patients who had to throw out their insulin or couldn’t access dialysis treatment, the impact was dramatic and widespread. I had monolingual SRO residents and seniors who couldn’t flush their toilets, take showers or charge their cell phones. Candidly, it was all exacerbated by a frustrating lack of communication or accountability from PG&E, which will be the subject of a hearing at the Government Audit and Oversight Committee later this month.”

“PG&E has continually failed to meet its obligations to provide the City and residents with information during power outages,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “This is basic common sense—first responders and emergency management staff need timely information during an emergency. Gatekeeping information during a power outage only puts the public in harm’s way. We are calling on PG&E to work with us during these outages for the safety of all San Franciscans.”

“The reality is, PG&E continues to fail to meet its basic obligations to California customers," said SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera. "Right now, PG&E is too big and too dysfunctional to effectively prioritize what needs to get done. They are too big to succeed. This most recent outage only underscores the need for San Francisco to buy PG&E’s electric grid in the City so we can reinvest in the system to ensure that electricity is safe, reliable, and affordable for all San Franciscans. Unlike PG&E, we are a not-for-profit utility. That allows us to keep our rates lower than PG&E’s. Rather than paying a CEO $51 million, as PG&E did in 2021, that’s money that we would reinvest into the safety and reliability of our system.”

Recent Power Outages

On April 26, the City’s northeastern neighborhoods experienced a prolonged power outage with many residents and businesses without power for up to five days. PG&E has cited the outages were caused by an underground explosion and fire but did not provide adequate details and information for the cause of the explosion, or an accurate timeline for restoring power in impacted residences and businesses. During the outages last week, City emergency professionals and first responders lacked crucial information to manage the impact on residents, raising safety concerns for San Francisco residents and businesses.

In an emergency situation such as significant power outages, San Francisco emergency management staff, first responders, and medical professionals require a range of critical information, including timely and accurate information about the cause and duration of an outage in order to keep critical infrastructure running and ensure the safety of residents and the public.

Additionally, many parts of the City experienced power outages earlier this year. In one such instance, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital went without power for 15 hours, and PG&E failed to communicate to the City – despite repeated requests - the reason for the outage and when service would be restored. Leaving the City’s only Level 1 Trauma Center without power and without an explanation, raises serious public safety concerns.

City officials are seeking more information about the recent events and a commitment from PG&E to provide timely and accurate information to residents and City officials during future outages.

The City’s letter to PG&E is here.

PG&E is raising rates again while… blocking our housing?!

Housing and affordability are two of the biggest challenges facing San Francisco, and it’s now clear that on both issues, PG&E is making the problem even worse. Exacerbating both crises, PG&E is trying to raise rates yet again while delaying critically needed new housing.

Housing

The San Francisco Chronicle summed up PG&E’s role in the housing crisis in a blockbuster story, aptly headlined: “Big holdup for new Northern California housing? PG&E.”

Hundreds of newly constructed apartment buildings and businesses in Northern California are sitting empty at any given time because the projects must wait on one entity, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to turn on the lights.

PG&E, the state’s largest utility, has long had a bad reputation among builders for the pace at which it connects buildings to the electrical grid, a process known as interconnection that occurs before a finished building can be occupied. But housing advocates and developers say those delays have grown increasingly worse in recent years, forcing many to leave buildings vacant for months amid the state’s worsening housing shortage.

Senator Scott Wiener is introducing legislation to get PG&E to do its job more quickly:

“It’s completely unacceptable for completed projects to just sit there gathering dust because PG&E can’t get it together to turn on the power,” Wiener, D-San Francisco, told The Chronicle. “We’re in the middle of a housing crisis.”

Affordability

PG&E’s role in the housing crisis was detailed shortly after the corporation announced plans for massive rate hikes for residential customers. You probably saw the headlines about their attempt to raise rates by over $400 a year:

• "Feeling sticker shock from your latest PG&E bill? It could only get worse from here.” PG&E To Hike Energy Bills—on Top of Already Sky-High Rates (The San Francisco Standard)

• "Pacific Gas and Electric wants to increase charges for its average residential customers—retroactive to Jan. 1—with steep climbs over the next three years.” PG&E could raise your bill significantly this year (San Francisco Examiner)

• "Customers who aren't enrolled in PG&E's public assistance programs may see [even bigger increases].” The average PG&E bill may soon be going up a shocking $35 a month (SF Gate)

Enough is Enough!

San Franciscans are fed up paying skyrocketing rates for poor service to a corporation that blocks much-needed housing. It’s time to take matters into our own hands and complete the shift to full public power.

• Safe and Reliable: The City has been providing clean power for over 100 years—and San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy and CleanPowerSF programs already provide over 70% of the electricity consumed in the City.

• Affordable: Public power means lower rates—because unlike PG&E, the City doesn’t need ratepayers to fund Wall Street profits or bonuses for corporate executives.

• Clean and Green: Locally controlled public power is 100% clean—aligned with San Francisco values in order to meet the city’s climate goals

After two bankruptcies in the last two decades, PG&E keeps giving San Francisco more and more reasons to make a change. San Francisco has offered PG&E $2.5 billion to purchase the local grid, and we’re ready to take the next step toward full public power. It’s time for San Francisco to control its energy destiny.

It’s Our City. It’s Our Power.

Join us and support the shift to a safer, cleaner, and more affordable power system. Sign up for updates, follow us on social media, and learn more at publicpowersf.org.

Check out how much PG&E is raising your rates—and what you can do about it!

You’ve probably seen the headlines about PG&E’s massive proposed rate hikes—estimated at more than $35 every month for the typical customer, or over $400 a year!

Check out these recent headlines:

• "Feeling sticker shock from your latest PG&E bill? It could only get worse from here” PG&E To Hike Energy Bills—on Top of Already Sky-High Rates (The San Francisco Standard)

• "Pacific Gas and Electric wants to increase charges for its average residential customers—retroactive to Jan. 1—with steep climbs over the next three years.” PG&E could raise your bill significantly this year (San Francisco Examiner)

• "Customers who aren't enrolled in PG&E's public assistance programs may see [even bigger increases].” The average PG&E bill may soon be going up a shocking $35 a month (SF Gate)

San Franciscans are already paying PG&E too much for too little. And after two bankruptcies in the last two decades, PG&E is getting ready to put even more of their costs on the backs of ratepayers.

The Good News: There’s a better way! Shifting to public power is better for San Francisco, better for PG&E, and better for ratepayers:

• Safe and Reliable: The City has been providing clean power for over 100 years—and San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy and CleanPowerSF programs already provide over 70% of the electricity consumed in the City.

• Affordable: Public power means lower rates—because unlike PG&E, the City doesn’t need ratepayers to fund Wall Street profits or bonuses for corporate executives.

• Clean and Green: Locally controlled public power is 100% clean—aligned with San Francisco values in order to meet the city’s climate goals.

PG&E keeps giving San Francisco reasons to make a change. San Francisco has offered PG&E $2.5 billion to purchase the local grid, and we’re ready to take the next step toward public power. It’s time for San Francisco to control its energy destiny.

It’s Our City. It’s Our Power.

Join us and support the shift to a safer, cleaner, and more affordable power system. Sign up for updates, follow us on Twitter and Facebook, and learn more at publicpowersf.org

City Files Legal Brief to Advance Acquisition of PG&E Assets in San Francisco

San Francisco is progressing in its fight to achieve full public power for all residents and businesses by acquiring PG&E’s electric grid in the City.

San Francisco recently filed a legal brief outlining the City’s position for how state regulators should determine a fair price for PG&E’s electric grid that serves San Francisco. The City is asking the California Public Utilities Commission to provide an independent appraisal of PG&E’s electric assets in the City – a process known as a valuation proceeding – so that the City can buy that portion of PG&E’s grid and provide the benefits of full public power to its residents and businesses.

“This action and our recent legal victories bring San Francisco that much closer to achieving full public power,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “I look forward to continuing our successful partnership with the SFPUC to reach this goal in San Francisco.”

The brief filed with the California Public Utilities Commission lays out the City’s analysis around the rules governing how much PG&E’s grid is worth and how to establish compensation for PG&E.

“The commission must fix compensation for PG&E’s assets based on their fair market value,” The City’s lawyers wrote in the brief.

The filing is the latest step in San Francisco’s work to acquire PG&E’s grid in the City, a move that has broad support in San Francisco. PG&E has a long history of placing unjust and unreasonable demands on public projects in San Francisco, creating long delays and unfairly driving up costs in an attempt to pry customers away from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the local public power provider.

In fact, over the past four years alone, PG&E’s obstruction of public projects like schools, rec centers, and affordable housing has cost the City more than $28 million in additional equipment costs, delay costs, redesign costs, lost revenue when projects are forced to become PG&E customers, and higher energy costs due to PG&E’s higher rates. Recently, the San Francisco Standard reported that an SFMTA train system upgrade project was yet another victim of PG&E’s spiraling costs and years of delays.

And it’s not just in San Francisco.

Fresno city leaders recently voiced their frustration with PG&E over delays in providing power to new developments.

The Mayor of Rocklin also recently put his Placer County city’s support behind San Francisco’s efforts, telling state utility regulators that:

“PG&E’s refusal to participate in valuation discussions with the City and County of San Francisco mirrors struggles other municipalities have when attempting to have discussions with PG&E. This refusal to provide information to municipalities harms residents and prevents local governments from making informed decisions about the services they provide. Local governments are best situated to make decisions that impact their residents. This case before you will set a standard for PG&E to comply with local governments’ requests for information.”

“Rocklin and other municipalities have explored what it would take to shift from an investor-owned utility to a municipal-owned utility. Unfortunately, what should be a clear path that would fairly compensate PG&E and control their own power destiny is not clear at all. PG&E has used every tool to delay and stop government entities from making the switch.”

Read Rocklin Mayor Bill Halldin’s full letter to the CPUC here.

Public power is more affordable, more reliable, cleaner, and safer than PG&E. It’s time for San Francisco to control its energy future.

Learn more at “Our City. Our Power.”

Another victory against PG&E as we start the new year

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) once again ruled against PG&E in San Francisco’s ongoing fight for public power.

This particular dispute centered around PG&E’s demand that San Francisco provide power to customers at unnecessarily high voltage levels – known as primary service – even though the customers are only using relatively small amounts of electricity. Forcing these small customers to receive primary service requires the installation of bulky, expensive equipment that is not needed for safety or any other purpose. For years, San Francisco has been safely and reliably providing electric service to these customers at the lower level known as secondary service.

San Francisco has argued that PG&E is making unreasonable demands to unfairly drive-up costs for public projects to pry customers away from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, a local public power provider.

In the decision in San Francisco’s favor, federal regulators noted that, “we determine that PG&E’s [wholesale distribution tariff] has not been shown to be just and reasonable, and may be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential. Accordingly, we grant San Francisco’s complaint.”

The FERC decision also took issue with PG&E’s move to create an unofficial and unwritten voltage threshold that the utility arbitrarily set to determine when customers had to receive primary service rather than secondary:

“First, we find that PG&E’s application of an unofficial and unwritten 75 kW threshold for providing secondary service for San Francisco customers violates the filed rate doctrine, and that the criteria by which PG&E determines service level must be included in its (wholesale distribution tariff). Second, we conclude that there is insufficient support in the record for the Commission to find that a 75 kW threshold is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential … We therefore grant San Francisco’s complaint and set this matter for hearing and settlement judge procedures.”

While this decision is favorable for San Francisco, PG&E has a long history of placing unjust and unreasonable demands, conditions, and limitations on the City’s public power services. In fact, over the past four years alone, PG&E’s obstruction has cost the City more than $28 million in additional equipment costs, delay costs, redesign costs, lost revenue when projects are forced to become PG&E customers, and higher energy costs due to PG&E’s higher rates. Recently, the San Francisco Standard reported that an SFMTA train system upgrade project was yet another victim of PG&E’s spiraling costs and years of delays.

And it’s not just in San Francisco. Fresno city leaders recently voiced their frustration with PG&E over delays in providing power to new developments. The Fresno City Council is scheduled to discuss hiring a consultant to study breaking from PG&E and providing its own power.

We have known for a long time that full public power is the best option for San Francisco, especially as PG&E’s unreasonable actions have grown. Today we have reached the point where pursuing public ownership of the grid is our only option to ensure that all San Franciscans receive safe, reliable, and affordable electric service today and for the decades to come.

As we start 2023, our fight for public power continues. We are advancing a valuation of PG&E’s San Francisco electricity assets at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) so the state power regulator can provide an independent appraisal of their worth. San Francisco is prepared to pay a fair price to buy PG&E’s grid in the City. We will continue to conduct environmental review of public power expansion to understand the environmental impacts of transferring PG&E’s assets to City ownership. And we will continue to build support for “Our City. Our Power.” through increased community outreach, education, and awareness.

Thank you for being a part of our movement for public power in San Francisco. We wish you a happy new year!

The City of Rocklin has issued a letter in support of the City and County of San Francisco

December 1, 2022

Honorable Commissioners
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Letter of Support for File # P2107012 Petition of the City and County of San Francisco for a Valuation of Certain Pacific Gas & Electric Company Property Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 1401-1421

Dear President Busching Reynolds,

The City of Rocklin is writing in support of the City and County of San Francisco’s petition asking the California Public Utilities Commission to set a price for Pacific Gas & Electric’s assets in the City of San Francisco to facilitate their move to an electric utility that will be publicly owned.

PG&E’s refusal to participate in valuation discussions with the City and County of San Francisco mirrors struggles other municipalities have when attempting to have discussions with PG&E. This refusal to provide information to municipalities harms residents and prevents local governments from making informed decisions about the services they provide. Local governments are best situated to make decisions that impact their residents. This case before you will set a standard for PG&E to comply with local governments’ requests for information.

Rocklin and other municipalities have explored what it would take to shift from an investor-owned utility to a municipal-owned utility. Unfortunately, what should be a clear path that would fairly compensate PG&E and control their own power destiny is not clear at all. PG&E has used every tool to delay and stop government entities from making the switch. The South San Joaquin Irrigation District and the City and County of San Francisco have been the most persistent in their efforts to make the switch. And yet, despite years of trying and legal bills mounting in the tens of millions of dollars, neither entity has been successful in making the switch.

In the summer of 2020, the Rocklin City Council directed a two-person committee and staff to advocate on behalf of the city to state, federal and other parties to create a clear process should a municipality like Rocklin want to pay fair compensation to PG&E. San Francisco’s case before the CPUC is an opportunity for the CPUC to set a precedent that will be fair for communities seeking to shift to a municipal utility, PG&E as a corporation, and PG&E ratepayers.

For these reasons, the City of Rocklin supports the efforts of the City and County of San Francisco and respectfully requests that the Commission provide a valuation of the PG&E assets in question so they may move forward with their purchase of the assets.

Sincerely,

Bill Halldin
Mayor
City of Rocklin

Download the PDF version of the letter here.

San Francisco Wins Public Power Service Dispute With PG&E

The decision rebuts PG&E’s attempt to eliminate competition and confirms that the City can continue to serve municipal energy customers without building costly, unnecessary equipment

---

City Attorney David Chiu and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) General Manager Dennis Herrera released the following statements after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order in line with a January 2022 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the City’s favor. The decision diminishes PG&E’s attempts to obstruct the City’s public power efforts and ensures that the City can continue to provide public power to broad categories of municipal customers that it has been serving since 1992. The types of municipal customers that were grandfathered in include City departments and agencies as well as related entities that serve a civic purpose like schools, museums, and public housing.

“PG&E has spent years trying to eliminate competition and obstruct San Francisco’s efforts to power our own municipal services using our own clean power,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “Today’s FERC decision follows an appellate court opinion our Office won in January and helps ensure PG&E cannot use its monopoly to derail San Francisco’s efforts to provide affordable, public power. This victory would not be possible without the doggedness of our hardworking attorneys and former City Attorney Dennis Herrera and his staff at the SFPUC.”

“FERC’s decision makes clear that PG&E does not have monopoly control over San Francisco,” said Dennis Herrera, General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. “This ruling upholds the City’s rights as a local power provider and protects our ability to serve the electricity customers we have served for decades. Thanks to the leadership of City Attorney David Chiu and his team, we are continuing to take steps as a City to hold PG&E accountable for their ongoing obstruction. We are more committed today than ever to achieving full public power for all of San Francisco.”

Case Background

Since San Francisco began efforts to provide public power to municipal electric customers in the 1920s, PG&E has consistently refused to provide service to many municipal customers designated by the City and has delayed and obstructed City projects. Despite clear authority under the Federal Power Act, PG&E has also argued that the City does not have the right to serve new public facilities with public power without building extremely expensive and unnecessary equipment.

PG&E’s obstruction has cost the City more than $28 million since 2018 in additional equipment costs, delay costs, redesign costs, lost SFPUC revenue when projects are forced to become PG&E customers, and higher energy costs due to PG&E’s higher rates.

In order to push back on PG&E’s obvious attempt to eliminate competition, San Francisco filed a series of administrative appeals with FERC asserting its authority under the Federal Power Act to serve these categories of municipal customers without building unnecessary equipment.

FERC previously sided with PG&E in those appeals, but San Francisco appealed the decisions to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In January 2022, the Court found in the City’s favor and overturned the previous FERC orders siding with PG&E. The court found that FERC’s previous orders on grandfathering, which limited the City’s ability to continue to serve many of the municipal customers it was serving in 1992, were “arbitrary and capricious.” The D.C. Circuit sent the matter back to FERC for further proceedings, and today’s ruling is consistent with the

Court’s opinion allowing San Francisco to provide affordable, public power to these categories of municipal customers.

The case is City and County of San Francisco v. Pacific Gas and Electric, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. EL15-3-004. The order can be found here.

As PG&E wobbles, we can’t let the utility stop the growth of public power in California

Our relationship with PG&E is way past its expiration date, and the corporation needs to finally call it quits. San Francisco is tired of accepting an unreliable company with a history surrounded by bankruptcies, federal investigations, and overcharging customers. Public power is already proven to be a safe, reliable, affordable, and sustainable electrical service—and San Francisco is ready.

In an Op-Ed in the Sacramento Bee, California State Senators Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) tell the truth: It’s time we say goodbye to PG&E and hello to public power.

---

After emerging from bankruptcy for the second time in two decades, PG&E is defending itself in court over recent wildfires, fending off growing dissatisfaction with its service and trying to raise its already sky-high rates to stay afloat.

PG&E is no longer the only option for electric service, and momentum is growing among diverse California communities, including our distinctly urban and rural districts, eager to ditch the utility’s for-profit model — and shift, once and for all, to locally controlled, public power.

There’s only one problem: PG&E, as it does on so many issues, appears to be doing everything it can to stop them.

The city of San Francisco began its recent push for public power two years ago, offering $2.5 billion to purchase the utility’s local electric equipment as part of its exit from bankruptcy. San Francisco has a public power operation that started more than 100 years ago, has grown over time, and now, through procurement and generation, supplies more than 70% of the electricity used in the city. What the city proposed is a relatively straightforward transaction that would allow it to take over the final piece of its electric system, while retaining local utility workers and shifting to a greener energy supply.

“We know we can do this job more safely, more reliably and more cost effectively than PG&E,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said, noting that 70% of San Franciscans support a shift to public power.

Still, PG&E dismissed the city’s offer out of hand. Since then, PG&E has actively worked to undermine San Francisco’s power operations. In the last year, the city has had to take PG&E to court over the utility’s efforts to impose more than $1 billion in unnecessary service charges on city customers. At the same time, PG&E is delaying basic power hookups on a range of public buildings, from community centers and water facilities to new public transit projects. Last week, a federal appeals court sided with San Francisco in the suit, urging federal agencies to consider the troubling “anti-competitive effects” of PG&E’s actions in the city.

San Francisco has now turned to PG&E’s state regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), to provide a neutral assessment of the value of PG&E assets within the city’s borders. California is home to 45 not-for-profit public power utilities serving customers with low-cost, highly reliable electric service. This isn’t a new concept or even a controversial one. But PG&E is trying to convince the CPUC to not even consider the idea.

There are some signs that it is possible to overcome PG&E’s delaying tactics. The South San Joaquin Irrigation District won a key court battle in December in its effort to provide power service to its customers — an effort begun in 2004. PG&E stalled for years, rejecting a $116 million offer to take over the local grid and filing lawsuits to delay the transaction. A recent federal appeals court ruling is putting an end to that, validating the irrigation district’s authority to provide its own electric service.

There’s no shortage of reasons for the state to let communities like San Francisco and South San Joaquin go their own way on public power. They have offered real money for PG&E’s assets — cash that can help PG&E compensate wildfire victims and focus resources on the many other upgrades needed throughout its service area.

These communities, like every other local power provider, will continue to be PG&E transmission customers, fully contributing their share of the costs of maintaining PG&E’s transmission system and hardening it against wildfire threats. San Francisco and South San Joaquin can also remain home for PG&E’s utility workers: Both utilities have a decades-long track record of supporting union jobs, hiring locally, and providing competitive salaries and benefits.

PG&E doesn’t have any good argument for stopping these transactions. It has a mountain of debt and its problems are only growing, with liabilities for this summer’s Dixie Fire alone expected to climb into the billions.

Local leaders in San Francisco and the San Joaquin Valley have one goal: to deliver power safely and reliably to their own customers. They have the experience and the resources they need to manage their own grids. The time has come for PG&E to let them go.

SF Examiner: S.F. leaders want to cut ties with PG&E—again

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors Met on January 31st to Hold PG&E Accountable for Obstruction to Streetlights, Parks, and Muni Facilities

On January 31st, Supervisor Hillary Ronen called for a hearing on PG&E’s continued obstruction at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee. 

The SF Recreation and Park Center presented on the ongoing obstruction to multiple sites, including the Gene Friend Rec Center in SoMa; and the SFMTA presented on their plans to transform the city’s entire bus fleet to become fully electric, citing the importance of having a reliable partner delivering clean energy to be successful.

In response, PG&E delivered the same baseless talking points they’ve been using for years to defend their unnecessary delays and obstruction to San Francisco energy priorities. Instead of taking responsibility, Aaron Johnson, Regional Vice President for PG&E pointed the finger and said, “It’s very challenging for PG&E to come to an agreement since every member of the city family thinks something different.”

But let’s make no mistake, when it comes to PG&E, 70% of San Franciscans agree that it’s time for public power, including the Board of Supervisors:

• District 9 Supervisor Hillary Ronen said, “When it comes to PG&E and the level of really below the belt actions you brought to the city, we are together more than we have ever been brought together before, and we speak with one voice when we say that your actions to delay these projects is unconscionable." 

• District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston said, “There are moments when the failure of the private sector and the absolute need for the public sector to step in are self-evident, and I would say that this is one of them.”

• District 7 Supervisor Myrna Melgar said, “In this instance, we totally agree, in terms of public utilities being a public good, and with a few other things like healthcare and childcare, I think it’s a foundation of a society that works well. We are on the same page with that.”

• District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin said, “I just want to reiterate for the record that the City and County of San Francisco has offered Pacific Gas and Electric $2.5 billion dollars, and if you would like there to be one entity and get rid of those complications, we have been willing to put our money where our mouth is, and you can get rid of that hassle and take our money and we’ll take over the PG&E portion of the system.”

Despite PG&E’s continued obstruction, San Francisco is united like never before in our mission to pursue full public power. 

You can find the recording of January 31st’s Board of Supervisors meeting here (beginning at the 1:27:27 mark), and to learn more about PG&E’s obstruction of over 70 public projects throughout San Francisco neighborhoods click here.

Major Victory Against PG&E

SF Chronicle: Court sides with S.F. in its claim that onerous PG&E requirements hold up projects

San Francisco has achieved a major victory in our ongoing legal battle with PG&E. An appeals court rejected a federal commission's approval of PG&E practices that, as we have been citing for years, has led to obstruction of projects across San Francisco and has blocked progress on our most critical priorities. This has culminated in years of delays and millions of dollars wasted, representing thousands of affordable housing units, closed schools, parks, unfinished community spaces, and more. 

The San Francisco Chronicle covered this victory against PG&E’s obstructionist ways here, and for more on the court’s decision, read the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) press release here.

“This is a clear victory for fairness,” SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera said. “For years, PG&E has been unlawfully trying to stymie competition by holding affordable housing, medical facilities, and other public projects hostage, denying them access to PG&E’s grid. This ruling sends a clear message that PG&E’s obstruction wasn’t justified. It also underscores why we should own our local electric distribution network rather than be subject to the whims of PG&E, a repeat convicted felon.”

“This ruling recognizes that PG&E has spent years obstructing San Francisco’s efforts to power our own municipal services using our own clean power,” said City Attorney David Chiu. “The Court requires FERC to ensure PG&E’s rules are actually needed for safety and reliability so that PG&E cannot use its monopoly to derail San Francisco’s efforts to provide affordable, public power.

The court decision comes as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee is set to hold a hearing on PG&E’s obstruction of public projects at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, January 31, 2022.

San Francisco is now moving full steam ahead for full public power. Join us and show your support on social media: Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. It’s #OurCityOurPower.

SF Chronicle: Court sides with S.F. in its claim that onerous PG&E requirements hold up projects

San Francisco Does its Due Diligence in Fight for Public Power

The City of San Francisco continues to move forward with its efforts to purchase the local electric grid and expand its public power service. The most recent action is public review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related to the proposed acquisition of PG&E’s local grid infrastructure. 

PG&E Continues to Obstruct San Francisco Public Power

As previously detailed, PG&E has taken an aggressive approach in obstructing San Francisco’s existing public power –– imposing millions, or even billions, of dollars in potential costs on the City by requiring expensive and unnecessary equipment to deliver public power, targeting City-owned infrastructure like streetlights, traffic signals, shotspotters, Muni stops, and more.

Through the power generated by the Hetch Hetchy System and provided by CleanPowerSF, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) already provides more than 70% of the electricity used in the City. Public power through full ownership of the power grid will bring additional benefits to consumers, the environment, and to public services that already rely on San Francisco’s existing public power.

San Francisco Continues Fight for Public Power

In July 2021, after PG&E refused to accept or engage with the City in response to its well-researched offer, the City filed a petition asking the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to assess the value of the local grid. PG&E asked the CPUC to dismiss the City’s petition, and the City opposed this request. The CPUC has not yet ruled on this motion or set a schedule for the case.

Now, the City is initiating a public environmental review under CEQA. The CEQA document will assess the reasonably foreseeable physical impacts of the proposed acquisition on the environment. This review will include assessing impacts associated with new equipment that would be needed at existing electric power facilities as well as other components needed to ensure the separation of City and PG&E infrastructure near the City’s southern border.

Questions About Public Power?

The City is diligently moving forward with expanding its public power role by purchasing the electric grid. Read this Q&A on the acquisition process to learn more about what the City has done so far –– and what’s next.

What San Francisco is doing next in its transition to public power

The City of San Francisco has continued to move diligently forward with its transition to public power since making its initial offer to purchase PG&E’s local electric grid in 2019. The latest step is the City’s initiation of public review of the acquisition under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Read more below about this process and how it fits into the City’s steady progress toward owning and operating our local power system.

Why is San Francisco conducting a CEQA review of local power assets?

After making several offers to purchase San Francisco’s local electric grid since 2019—only to have PG&E claim the price was “too low” or its assets were “not for sale”—the City has taken several steps to move ahead with its transition to public power, something it has full authority under the state Constitution to do.

In July 2021, the City filed a petition with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), asking the state to assess the value of the local grid and make a determination over the next year of what a fair price should be.

As the CPUC begins this process, the City has initiated public review of the acquisition under CEQA. This review will assess the environmental impacts of the City taking over PG&E’s electric infrastructure, and the work needed to separate City and PG&E infrastructure.

Does the City expect PG&E to fight the acquisition through CEQA as well?

Unfortunately, yes. PG&E has been a difficult partner for years. It’s one of the major reasons the City is making the move to public power.

After San Francisco began moving forward with plans to acquire the local grid, PG&E has only gotten more aggressive in obstructing the City’s local power system: As detailed recently by the San Francisco Chronicle, the utility is trying to impose billions of dollars in unnecessary service charges on the City, by requiring expensive, unneeded equipment to deliver power to a range of public services, from streetlights to Muni stops.

PG&E obstruction has also blocked progress on many other priority projects—causing years of delays and adding millions of dollars to the cost of affordable housing, school construction, public parks, and other community projects.

Are there environmental reasons for making the shift to public power?

Yes, there is no shortage of good reasons for making the shift to public power—and accelerating progress toward the City’s clean energy goals is definitely one of them.

First, public power will be more affordable than today’s PG&E’s system, with its shareholder payments, profits, corporate salaries, and bonuses—not to mention tens of billions of dollars in wildfire liabilities.

Second, public power will be safer and more reliable. At a time when PG&E has neglected electric facilities across the state—and is planning to raise rates to pay for all of the damage it has caused—San Francisco routinely makes investments in its Hetch Hetchy Power system and 380,000 local customers and growing have joined CleanPowerSF.

Ultimately, shifting to public power is also the best choice for the environment. San Francisco has set some of the country’s most aggressive climate goals—including a target of moving to 100% renewable energy by 2030—but PG&E’s obstruction and delays are likely to prevent the City from reaching these targets. This will have a real environmental cost, and it’s something San Francisco just can’t afford.

What can the City do to stop PG&E’s obstruction?

The best way forward is for the City to purchase the remainder of the local power system and operate it locally.

Once San Francisco provides all of its own power and operates its own grid, it will have much more control over modernizing the electric system and promoting programs that provide clean, green electricity for everything from decarbonized buildings to a carbon-free transportation system.

The City has a 100-year history of providing power safely, affordably, and reliably—in stark contrast to PG&E’s long record of safety failures, bankruptcy, and rising electric rates.

The time has come for the City to manage its own electric system—without PG&E interference—reinvest revenues back into the system and provide San Franciscans with the clean power and accountable energy service they deserve.

Read more about the Our City, Our Power campaign here: https://www.publicpowersf.org/en/faq