10A Action Items 2016 1121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County June, 2016 22 MRW & Associates, LLC Figure 18. Scenario 2 GHG Emissions by Year (“Normal” PG&E Hydro Conditions) Scenario 3 (80% RPS by 2021) Scenario 3 is the most aggressive scenario considered, in terms of renewable procurement. Under this scenario, the Alameda CCA starts with 50% of its load being served by renewable sources in 2017, and increases this at a quick pace to 80% of its load being served by renewable sources in 2021. In addition, 50% of its non-renewable supply is met through large hydro-electric sources. Rate Differentials Figure 19 summarizes the rates for the Alameda CCA under Scenario 3 from 2017 to 2030, and also shows PG&E’s expected generation rate for comparison. Under this scenario, the costs for renewables form the largest component of the CCA’s rates, and grows steadily to account for nearly 60% of the total CCA rate in 2019, and then nearly 70% of total CCA rate by 2030. Non- renewable generation is the next largest cost component of the rate, followed by the PCIA exit fee. The PCIA exit fee is expected to decrease in most years beginning in 2019, as it did in the case of Scenarios 1 and 2. As with Scenario 2, the costs associated with GHG allowance purchases are a lower portion of the total costs in this scenario because 50% of the non- renewable generation is expected to be met by hydro-electricity, which is a non-emitting resource. However, as the renewable content increases and the non-renewable content decreases, the need for purchase of GHG allowances is further lowered, making the GHG costs an even smaller component of the total rate. The differential between PG&E generation rates and Alameda CCA customer rates in Scenario 3 is the lowest of the three scenarios, as this scenario has the most expensive supply portfolio. However, the expected Alameda CCA rates continue to be lower than expected PG&E