Laserfiche WebLink
Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County <br />June 2016 xii MRW & Associates, LLC <br />Figure ES-9. Occupational Impacts Scenario 1, 2023 <br /> <br />Energy Efficiency <br />The three cases each assumed approximately 6 GWh of annual incremental energy efficiency <br />savings directly attributable to CCA efficiency program administration. This value is based on forecasts from the California Energy Commission, and take into account the savings being <br />achieved/allocated to PG&E as well as the mandates from Senate Bill 350. <br />A CCA has a number of options with respect to administering energy efficiency programs. First, <br />it can rely upon PG&E to continue to all energy efficiency activities in its area, with some input <br />to insure that monies collected from CCA customers flow back to the area. This is the path that two of the four active California CCAs have chosen (Sonoma Clean Power and Lancaster Choice <br />Energy). Second, the CCA can apply to the CPUC to use monies collected in PG&E rates for <br />energy efficiency programs and administration. These CCA efficiency programs can be for CCA <br />customers only or for all customers in the CCA region, no matter their power provider. If the <br />CCA chose the latter path, greater funds are available (including for natural gas efficiency programs). MCE Clean Energy has chosen this latter path. Our modeling assumed the more <br />conservative former one (i.e., offer efficiency programs to only CCA-served residents and <br />businesses). Third, the CCA supplement or supplant these funds though revenues collected by <br />the CCA.