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 8: Conclusions <br /> Overall, a CCA in Alameda County appears favorable. Given current and expected market and <br /> regulatory conditions, an Alameda County CCA should be able to offer its residents and business <br /> electric rates that are a cent or more per kilowatt-hour less than that available from PG&E. <br /> Sensitivity analyses suggest that these results are relatively robust. Only when very high <br /> amounts of renewable energy are assumed in the CCA portfolio (Scenario 3), combined with <br /> other negative factors, do PG&E's rates become consistently more favorable than the CCAs. <br /> An Alameda County CCA would also be well positioned to help facilitate greater amounts <br /> renewable generation to be installed in the County. While the study assumed a relatively modest <br /> amount for its analysis—about 175 MW, other studies suggest that greater amounts are possible. <br /> Because the CCA would have a much greater interest in developing local solar than PG&E, it is <br /> much more likely that such development would actually occur with a CCA in the County than <br /> without it. <br /> The CCA can also reduce the amount greenhouse gases emitted by the County,but only under <br /> certain circumstances. Because PG&E's supply portfolio has significant carbon-free generation <br /> (large hydroelectric and nuclear generators), the CCA must contract for significant amounts of <br /> carbon-fee power above and beyond the required qualifying renewables in order to actually <br /> reduce the county's electric carbon footprint. For example, even assuming that the CCA <br /> implements a portfolio with 50%qualifying renewables and contracts with carbon-free <br /> hydropower 50% of the remaining power(i.e., 50%renewable, 25%hydro, 25% fossil/market), <br /> it would only then just barely result in net carbon reductions. However,the extent to which GHG <br /> emissions reductions occur is also a function of the amount of hydroelectric power that PG&E is <br /> able to use. If hydro output(continues) to be below historic normal levels, then the CCA should <br /> be able to achieve GHG savings, (as long as it is also contracting for significant amounts of <br /> carbon-free(likely hydroelectric)power). Therefore, if carbon reductions are a high priority for <br /> the CCA, a concerted effort to contract with hydroelectric or other carbon-free generators would <br /> be needed. <br /> A CCA can also offer positive economic development and employment benefits to the County. <br /> At the peak, the CCA would create approximately 2300 new jobs in the region. The large amount <br /> for be for construction trades,totaling 440 jobs. What may be surprising is that much for the <br /> jobs and economic benefit come from reduced rates; residents, and more importantly businesses, <br /> can spend and reinvest their bill savings, and thus generate greater economic impacts. <br /> July,2016 55 MRW&Associates,LLC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.