10A Action Items 2016 1121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County June, 2016 28 MRW & Associates, LLC Table 12. Higher Natural Gas Prices Sensitivity Results, 2017-2030 Average Natural Gas Price ($/MMBtu) Average Rate Differential (¢/kWh) Base Case 4.85 2.1 Higher Natural Gas Prices 7.67 1.2 Lower PG&E Portfolio Cost Sensitivity While changes to natural gas prices and renewable power prices affect both the CCA and PG&E, dampening the impact on the CCA’s cost competitiveness, reductions to the costs to operate and maintain PG&E’s nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would provide cost savings to PG&E that would not be offset by cost savings to the CCA. MRW considered a case in which PG&E’s overall generation rates are 10% below the base case, driven by reductions to PG&E’s nuclear and hydroelectric portfolio costs. Under such a scenario, the 2017-2030 average rate differential would be reduced by 1 cent per kWh relative to the base case scenario. Table 13. Lower PG&E Portfolio Sensitivity Results, 2017-2030 Average PG&E Rate (¢/kWh) Average Rate Differential (¢/kWh) Base Case 10.4 2.1 Lower PG&E Portfolio Costs 9.3 1.1 Stress Case and Sensitivity Comparisons For all but the Diablo Canyon relicensing case, rate differentials (i.e., the CCA’s competitive positions) are lower in the sensitivity cases than in the base case scenario, for all years from 2017 to 2030 (Figure 21). To evaluate a more extreme scenario, MRW developed a stress case that combines all the negative sensitivity cases: (1) higher renewable power prices, (2) lower PG&E portfolio costs, (3) higher PCIA exit fees, and (4) higher natural gas prices. The 2017-2030 average rate differential for this stress case is negative, at -0.7¢/kWh, meaning that CCA customer costs would exceed PG&E customer costs under this scenario.