22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County The results shown above reflect the RPS Compliance supply scenario. MRW additionally evaluated each sensitivity scenario under the two alternative supply scenarios: (1)Accelerated RPS and(2) 80%RPS by 2021. Figure 22 depicts the average rate differentials for 2017-2030 for each sensitivity case under the three supply scenarios. Figure 22. Difference Between PG&E Customer Rates and CCA Customer Rates Under Each Sensitivity Case and Supply Scenario, 2017-2030 Average ■Scenario 1 •Scenario 2 ■Scenario 3 4 3 2 0 s Diablo Canyon Base High High PCIA High Natural Low PG&E rates St io Relicensed Renewables Gas prices 1 Prices -2 Scenario 1 (RPS Compliance) is the least costly scenario for the CCA and therefore has the highest rate differential under most of the sensitivity cases considered. Scenario 2 (Accelerated RPS), though still quite competitive with PG&E, fares slightly worse, with a rate differential approximately 8% lower than in Scenario 1 for most of the sensitivity cases considered. The one exception is the "High Natural Gas Price" sensitivity case, in which Scenarios 1 and 2 have about the same results. This is due to the higher renewable content in Scenario 2, which makes the supply portfolio less susceptible to volatility in natural gas prices than Scenario 1. Scenario 3 (80% RPS by 2021)has the highest renewable content and is the costliest scenario, with rate differentials much lower than those in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Scenario 3 is anticipated to be competitive with PG&E in most cases (on average); however, the margins are much lower, particularly in the "High Renewable Prices" sensitivity case, and they become negative in the "Low PG&E rates" sensitivity case (i.e., CCA customer rates are higher than PG&E rates). On July,2016 31 MRW&Associates,LLC