My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100416
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
CCMIN100416
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2017 1:47:52 PM
Creation date
12/7/2016 4:09:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/4/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Mr Kelly displayed a PowerPoint presentation addressing the CCE Refresher; existing programs in <br /> California, Alameda County Phase 1 Activities, CDA's Project Approach; the East Bay Community <br /> Energy (EBCE) Program Goals, Staff Recommendations, the Tech Study Methodology and an <br /> Overview of Tech Study Results He reviewed how the EBCE would be the largest in the State and <br /> addressed the County's Energy Load, Load by Jurisdiction, Minimum Size for Viability, Potential Rate <br /> Savings, Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Local Power Potential and Potential Job Impacts under <br /> Scenario 3; the JPA Agreement, Recent Activity, and he results of a recent special meeting Mr. Kelly <br /> provided information regarding Project Funding; the Proposed Phase 2 and 3 Budget, the Project <br /> Timeline and Requests from City Councils <br /> In response to Mayor Thorne's regarding the JPA requiring project labor agreements, Mr. Kelly reported <br /> that it has been written into the JPA and for the first several years, the program will purchase power <br /> from the wholesale markets. He reported that everyone must reach a clean energy content of 30% by <br /> 2020 and 50% by 2030 Mayor Thorne expressed concerns regarding the load-related voting scenario <br /> Mr Kelly addressed the size of cities relative to the number of customers and referenced other <br /> community energy programs that are up and running. <br /> Councilmember Pentin expressed concern in comparing Alameda County with a population of 600,000 <br /> to Mann and Sonoma Counties which are more rural, have less people and smaller cities He asked <br /> what the requirements are for cities in Alameda County to produce their own renewable energy Mr. <br /> Kelly reported that Scenario 4 addresses that topic and even if the Board decided to go with that <br /> scenario, it will still be buying power from someone. Until the program develops enough revenue and a <br /> track record so they can attract financing and bonding, they will not be able to build their own projects <br /> In terms of required wind power, Councilmember Pentin expressed concerns with getting what is <br /> required, within six years and stated it doesn't seem feasible that cities will install large solar facilities in <br /> their cities Mr. Kelly stated such projects would not necessarily be owned by the program, but would <br /> get developed as a result of a greater demand for local generation of power He added that program, <br /> itself, incentivizes the development of local distributor generation by increasing the net energy metering <br /> and tariffs to solar producers, and commented on the extension of the investment tax credit <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked for the definition of "renewable energy" under the subject program and <br /> Mr. Kelly stated that it is mostly, wind and solar He added that it would include small hydro-electric <br /> and there will be no nuclear <br /> Mr Jensen referenced the Scenario 3 Local Power Potential graph and noted it shows all of the <br /> renewable energy that can be invested in by the CCE over time Councilmember Pentin opined the <br /> graph is misleading as there is little land available to generate 1,000 megawatts of solar and wind <br /> power in Alameda County Mr Kelly agreed and reported there is approximately 6,000 megawatts of <br /> potential on Brownfield sites in Alameda County. Councilmember Pentin noted it is considered maxed <br /> out at 175 within a certain number of years <br /> Discussion followed regarding what it will take to build a 10 megawatt facility in Richmond, the number <br /> of existing CCAs, whether that will drive the price on what is available and PCIA fees. <br /> Councilmember Olson stated that the draft JPA cautions agencies to be careful with the JPA and <br /> ensure member agencies are not jointly obligated on behalf of the CCA. He stated he is troubled by the <br /> statement that the Board can't determine what a business plan is and noted the need to have some <br /> understanding of the financial aspects of this program. Mr. Kelly reported on a different approach in <br /> terms of feasibility but that pro forma assessment was done for this program and stated the JPA is <br /> responsible for its own debts and that member agencies are not responsible for the debts of the JPA. <br /> There is a protection for cities <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 October 4,2016 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.