22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County report, is typically 55% more costly than central solar. This increased cost will narrow the difference between the rates that the CCA can offer and PG&E. Still, as the analysis has shown, there is significant financial "headroom"to allow for this. To explore this, we ran Scenario 2 with the assumption that 50%of the renewables were locally sourced. This implies that in 2025, there would be about 925 MW small solar(less than 3MW, including rooftop) and 888 MW large solar in the county(assuming that it can be phased in that quickly). As shown in Figure 30, the margin between the CCA's costs (bars) and the projected PG&E generation rates is much closer than in the standard Scenario 2. This is not unexpected, as local renewables are assumed to be costlier than large-scale ones located in lower-cost areas of the state. Figure 30. Scenario 2 with 50% of the Renewables Met Using In-County Generation 12 10 PCIA L PA■GHG v � 6 Y 0/M Non-Renewable 4 8 Renewable —PG&E 2 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 The impacts on the macroeconomics are more complex. Additional local solar would increase local direct jobs by employing more workers to install and maintain solar arrays. On the other hand, the greater driver of jobs, the bill savings from reduced rates, would go down with the increased CCA costs. While this scenario was not explicitly modeled, the results of the three scenarios at were model strongly suggest that total economic activity and jobs would decrease with the inclusion of more local renewables in the CCA's supply portfolio. July,2016 54 MRW&Associates,LLC