Laserfiche WebLink
Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County <br />June, 2016 30 MRW & Associates, LLC <br />The results shown above reflect the RPS Compliance supply scenario. MRW additionally evaluated each sensitivity scenario under the two alternative supply scenarios: (1) Accelerated <br />RPS and (2) 80% RPS by 2021. Figure 22 depicts the average rate differentials for 2017-2030 <br />for each sensitivity case under the three supply scenarios. <br /> <br />Figure 22. Difference Between PG&E Customer Rates and CCA Customer Rates Under Each Sensitivity Case and Supply Scenario, 2017-2030 Average <br /> <br /> <br />Scenario 1 (RPS Compliance) is the least costly scenario for the CCA and therefore has the <br />highest rate differential under most of the sensitivity cases considered. Scenario 2 (Accelerated RPS), though still quite competitive with PG&E, fares slightly worse, with a rate differential approximately 8% lower than in Scenario 1 for most of the sensitivity cases considered. The one <br />exception is the “High Natural Gas Price” sensitivity case, in which Scenarios 1 and 2 have <br />about the same results. This is due to the higher renewable content in Scenario 2, which makes <br />the supply portfolio less susceptible to volatility in natural gas prices than Scenario 1. Scenario 3 (80% RPS by 2021) has the highest renewable content and is the costliest scenario, with rate differentials much lower than those in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Scenario 3 is anticipated to be <br />competitive with PG&E in most cases (on average); however, the margins are much lower, <br />particularly in the “High Renewable Prices” sensitivity case, and they become negative in the <br />“Low PG&E rates” sensitivity case (i.e., CCA customer rates are higher than PG&E rates). On