01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr Kelly displayed a PowerPoint presentation addressing the CCE Refresher, existing programs in California, Alameda County Phase 1 Activities, CDA's Project Approach, the East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) Program Goals, Staff Recommendations, the Tech Study Methodology and an Overview of Tech Study Results He reviewed how the EBCE would be the largest in the State and addressed the County's Energy Load, Load by Jurisdiction, Minimum Size for Viability, Potential Rate Savings, Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Local Power Potential and Potential Job Impacts under Scenario 3, the JPA Agreement, Recent Activity, and he results of a recent special meeting Mr Kelly provided information regarding Project Funding, the Proposed Phase 2 and 3 Budget, the Project Timeline and Requests from City Councils In response to Mayor Thorne's regarding the JPA requiring project labor agreements, Mr Kelly reported that it has been written into the JPA and for the first several years, the program will purchase power from the wholesale markets He reported that everyone must reach a clean energy content of 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 Mayor Thorne expressed concerns regarding the load-related voting scenario Mr Kelly addressed the size of cities relative to the number of customers and referenced other community energy programs that are up and running Councilmember Pentin commented on Alameda County having more rural cities and not having as many people and asked regarding requirements for cities to produce their own renewable energy Mr Kelly reported that Scenario 4 addresses that topic and even if the Board decided to go with that scenario, it will still be buying power from someone Until the program develops enough revenue and a track record so they can attract financing and bonding, they will not be able to build their own projects In terms of required wind power, Councilmember Pentin expressed concerns with getting what is required, within six years and stated it doesn't seem feasible that cities will install large solar facilities in their cities Mr Kelly stated such projects would not necessarily be owned by the program, but would get developed as a result of a greater demand for local generation of power He added that program, itself, incentivizes the development of local distributor generation by increasing the net energy metering and tariffs to solar producers, and commented on the extension of the investment tax credit Councilmember Pentin asked for the definition of "renewable energy" under the subject program and Mr Kelly stated that it is mostly, wind and solar He added that it would include small hydro-electric and there will be no nuclear Mr Jensen referenced the Scenario 3 Local Power Potential graph and noted it shows all of the renewable energy that can be invested in by the CCE over time Councilmember Pentin opined the graph is misleading as there is little land available to generate 1,000 megawatts of solar and wind power in Alameda County Mr Kelly reported there is approximately 6,000 megawatts of potential on Brownfield sites in Alameda County Councilmember Pentin noted it is considered maxed out at 175 megawatts within a certain number of years Discussion followed regarding what it will take to build a 10 megawatt facility in Richmond, the number of existing CCAs, whether that will drive the price on what is available and PCIA fees Councilmember Olson stated that the draft JPA cautions agencies to be careful with the JPA and ensure member agencies are not jointly obligated on behalf of the CCA He stated he is troubled by the statement that the Board can't determine what a business plan is and noted the need to have some understanding of the financial aspects of this program Mr Kelly reported on a different approach in terms of feasibility but that pro forma assessment was done for this program and stated the JPA is responsible for its own debts and that member agencies are not responsible for the debts of the JPA There is a protection for cities City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 October 4, 2016