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 10 MRW & Associates, LLC <br />and $80/MWh for geothermal.22 We used these prices as the starting point for our forecast of CCA renewable energy procurement costs. For geothermal, which is a relatively mature <br />technology, we assumed that new contract prices would simply escalate with inflation. Solar and <br />wind prices are a function of technology costs, which have generally been declining over time; <br />financing costs, which have been very low in recent years; and tax incentives, which significantly reduce project costs, but phase out over time. In the near-term we would not expect prices to increase as technology costs and continued tax incentives provide downward pressure <br />and likely offset any increase in financing costs or other competitive pressure from an increasing <br />demand for renewable energy in California. Thus we have held solar and wind prices constant in <br />nominal dollars through 2020. Beyond 2020, with increasing competitive pressure associated with the drive to a 50% RPS and the anticipated phase-out of federal tax incentives (offset in part by continued declining technology costs), we would expect prices to increase somewhat and <br />have assumed they escalate at the rate of inflation. In addition to this base case price outlook, we <br />also consider a high solar cost scenario based on work performed by Lawrence Berkeley <br />Laboratory on the value of tax incentives. In the high scenario we assume that costs increase with the phase-out of federal tax incentives, without being offset by declining technology costs. Figure 11 shows the resulting solar price forecasts for the two scenarios. <br /> <br />Figure 11. Solar Price Forecast <br /> <br /> <br />22 MRW relied exclusively on prices from municipal utilities and CCAs because investor-owned utility contract <br />prices from this period are not yet public. We included all reported wind and solar power purchase agreements, excluding local builds (which generally come at a price premium), as reported in California Energy Markets, an <br />independent news service from Energy Newsdata, from January 2015-January 2016 (see issues dated July 31, August 14, October 16, October 30, 2015, and January 15, 2016).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.