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