My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
10A Action Items 2016 1121
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2016
>
Packet 2016 1121
>
10A Action Items 2016 1121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2016 5:08:45 PM
Creation date
11/16/2016 5:08:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
11/21/2016
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
Reso 2016-160
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County <br />June 2016 x MRW & Associates, LLC <br />In the stress case,7 Alameda CCA customer rates exceed PG&E customer rates on average over the 2017-2030 period for all three scenarios, with the rate differential being highest in Scenario 3 <br />at -1.5¢/kWh. This is double the Scenario 2 stress case rate differential of -0.75¢/kWh. <br /> <br />Figure ES-7. Difference Between PG&E Customer Rates and CCA Customer Rates Under Each Sensitivity Case and Supply Scenario, 2017-2030 Average (i.e., positive vertical axis means PG&E rates higher than CCA rates). <br /> <br />Macroeconomic and Job Impacts <br />The local economic development and jobs impacts for the three scenarios were analyzed using the dynamic input-output macroeconomic model developed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The model accounts for not only the impact of direct CCA activities (e.g., construction <br />jobs at a new solar power plant or energy efficiency device installers), but also how the rate <br />savings that County households and businesses might experience with a CCA ripple through the <br />local economy, creating more jobs and regional economic growth. <br />Table ES-3 and Figure ES-8 illustrate this through high-level results expressed as average annual job changes for the three CCA scenarios. While Scenarios 1 and 2 create nearly identical direct <br />jobs (due to comparable investment in local renewable projects), Scenario 1 creates far more <br />TOTAL jobs. This is due to the higher bill savings under Scenario 1. Scenario 3 creates a few <br />more direct jobs, but far fewer total jobs, due to decreased bill savings as compared to the other two scenarios. As a result, its total job impact is 55 percent of the Scenario 1 total job impact. <br /> <br />7 Stress Scenario assumes the risk cases no favorable to the CCA: High Renewable Prices, High PCIA, High Natural Gas Prices, and Low PG&E rates.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.