My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
100416
>
22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 2:23:44 PM
Creation date
9/29/2016 2:50:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/4/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
164
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County <br /> Locally-Sited and Developed Renewables <br /> As discussed above, the CCA may choose to contract with or develop renewable projects in the <br /> local area to promote economic development or other benefits. For the purpose of this study, we <br /> assume that incremental local development resulting from the CCA would be largely solar. Since <br /> the solar resource in Alameda County is not as strong as in the desert and inland areas where new <br /> utility-scale projects are typically developed (and upon which the above solar price forecast was <br /> developed), solar generation costs in Alameda County are expected to be somewhat higher than <br /> our price forecast. Based on renewable energy supply curves developed for the CPUC, we <br /> assume a 15%premium for projects located in Alameda County.25 <br /> Given the limited open space for very large solar projects in the County, we expect a portion of <br /> the local projects included in a hypothetical CCA portfolio to be smaller in size (e.g., < 3 MW). <br /> Smaller solar projects tend to have higher generation costs since they don't have the same <br /> economies of scale as the larger projects upon which our estimates of market prices are based. <br /> We have assumed a 55% generation cost premium for smaller projects,based on the same supply <br /> curve study referenced above. Future price changes and economies of scale might lower this <br /> value. <br /> In developing the hypothetical portfolios depicted in Figure 7 through Figure 9, we made <br /> conservative assumptions about how much local solar development may occur as a result of the <br /> CCA. The supply curve study performed for the CPUC estimated roughly 300 MW of solar <br /> supply in Alameda County, based on an assessment that five percent of the estimated 6,000 MW <br /> of technical potential could be developed, largely as a result of land use conflicts or slope issues <br /> that would make solar development infeasible in certain areas. We assume that over the forecast <br /> period through 2030, about 1/3 of the estimated 300 MW large solar supply potential in Alameda <br /> County is developed as a result of commitments by the CCA. <br /> A discussion of the impacts and implications of greater local renewables can be found in Chapter <br /> 7. <br /> Greenhouse Gas Costs <br /> MRW based its forecast of the prices for GHG allowances on the results of the California Air <br /> Resources Board's (ARB's) auctions for Vintage 2015 allowances.26 The Vintage 2015 <br /> Allowances were increased annually in proportion to the auction floor price increases stipulated <br /> by the ARB's cap-and-trade regulation.27 <br /> Table 3 GHG Allowances price <br /> 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 <br /> $/tonne 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.2 18.4 19.6 21.0 22.4 24.0 25.6 27.4 29.3 31.3 33.5 <br /> 25 CPUC RPS calculator(RETI 2.0) <br /> 26 Auction results available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/results summary.pdf. <br /> 27 California Code of Regulations,Title 17,Article 5,Section 95911. <br /> July,2016 11 MRW&Associates,LLC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.