22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County Chapter 7: Other Issues Investigated Funding, Costs, and Impacts of the Energy Efficiency Program Scenario Having established that both adequate economic and market potential exist beyond what is currently being targeted through PG&E programs, the MRW Team estimated how much efficiency could reasonably be captured by assessing the availability of funding for energy efficiency, and the cost of to acquire it through various programs. Understanding available funding options and costs allowed the MRW team to determine the amount of energy efficiency that could be acquired in various funding options and use this to calculate the economic inputs for the REMI model. To assess funding, CCA's have several funding options, including; • Funds from Non-bypassable Electric Charges—CPUC Ruling R.09-11-014 defined various funding options for CCAs that are administrators of energy efficiency programs, and also outlined some of the funding authorities available to CCA's that elect to not administer programs • Funds from Non-bypassable Gas Charges—CPUC Decision D.14-10-046 allows CCA's to administer programs that include funds collected from natural gas customer. This analysis did not estimate the value of these funds. • Income from CCA Operations. Income generated through CCA operations may be used to fund customer programs. • Funding secured by aligned organizations, such as StopWaste's Energy Council, on behalf of a CCA. • Increased funding through the expansion of the CCA territory. Under current regulations it is allowed for a CCA to define its service territory more broadly than a city or county. As such, the rules that define the funding for Alameda County residents would apply to new participants in a CCA and so provide incremental program funding. For example, in 2015 Mann Clean Energy began serving customer in Contra Costa County and has increased its available program funding as a result of this enrollment. This analysis only considered the impact of Non-bypassable Electric Charges. Using rules defined in CPUC Ruling R.09-11-014 and various cost reports52, Table 21 shows that approximately$3.9M would be available for programs administered by a CCA to Alameda County residents, including both CCA and PG&E customers, or$3.5M if these programs serve only CCA customers, assuming a 15% opt-out rate. 52 Electric and Gas Utility Cost Report. Public Utilities Code Section 913 Report to the Governor and Legislature, April 2016. July,2016 48 MRW&Associates,LLC