22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County green community, the billing system would need to know to default them on a different rate schedule than a customer in a different CCA community. This may or may not be an issue. Competition with a PG&E Community Solar Program PG&E has been offering a solar choice program known as Green Tariff Shared Renewable Program since February 2015.55 The program was established under Senate Bill 43, and pursuant to Decision 15-01-051 from the CPUC, to extend access to renewable energy to ratepayers that are currently unable to install onsite generation.56 It offers homes and businesses the option to purchase 50% or 100% of their energy use from solar resources. The program provides those with homes or apartments or businesses that cannot support rooftop solar the opportunity to meet their electricity requirements through renewable energy and support the growth of renewable energy resources. PG&E's current Solar Choice program costs residential customers an additional 3.580/kWh. Given that MRW projects that the CCA can offer 100% green power at—1.50/kWh over its own Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 rate (which is projected to be less than PG&E's), we do not see PG&E's Community Solar Program as an immediate threat. The program is open for enrollment until subscriptions reach 272 MW or January 1, 2019, whichever comes first.57 While this does limit the ability for PG&E to provide a 100%renewable option in the long-run, at the start of the CCA this program it provides an opportunity for customers who desire 100% renewable power to remain with PG&E. Additional Local Renewables As noted in Chapter 2, relatively conservative penetrations of locally-sited renewable generation (solar)was included in the quantitative analysis. Even in scenario 3, the most aggressive with respect to renewables, the modeling assumed only 175 MW of in-county solar. Other individuals and studies have placed the potential for solar in the Alameda County at much higher levels. For example, a 2012 study conducted for Pacific Environment, a San Francisco-Based environmental non-governmental agency,placed the "technical potential" for rooftop and parking lot PC at over 3,700 MW.58 However, it must be noted that technical potential is different than economic or achievable potentials; it represented the absolute ceiling on this kind of PV in the county. Assuming that greater amounts of this solar potential can in practice be tapped has a number of implications for the results of this study. First, greater local solar will increase CCA costs. As noted in the supply section of Chapter 2, in-county solar costs about 15% more than solar located in lower cost, inland counties, and small solar, such as is quantified in the Pacific Environment 88 PG&E website http://www.pge.com/en/b2b/eneraysupply/wholesaleelectri csuppliersolic itation/RFO/Community SolarChoice.page? WT.me_id=Vanity_communitysolarchoice.Accessed 5/16/2016 56 California Public Utilities Commission,Decision 15-01-051,p.3 57 Solar Choice Program FAQs website, https://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/faq/index.page Accessed,5/16/2016 58 Powers,Bill,`Bay Area Smart Energy 2020,"March 2012. July,2016 53 MRW&Associates,LLC