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 41 MRW & Associates, LLC <br />proposed CCA renewable capacity in any of the scenarios would indeed be public-funded (as opposed to power purchase agreements with third party private project developers). The straight- <br />time44 prevailing hourly “covered” wage rate for FY2016 in the northern counties (including <br />Alameda County) for Group 3 construction laborers is $49.74 which is 21 percent higher than the <br />market rate (indicative of the aforementioned 20:80 blend) of $40.96 in the REMI model. <br />A sensitivity run (Table 21) was conducted just for the macroeconomic impacts that considers 100 percent union or “covered” labor for the direct effect only. This did not require MRW to <br />inflate the renewable project costs and then recalculate forecasted CCA electric rates as would be <br />warranted. Instead – for scenario 1- the fixed (NREL JEDI model derived) labor share on <br />MRW’s initial annual renewable investment would hire fewer but better paid (by 21 percent) construction laborers. As Table 20 shows the prevailing wage sensitivity has 13 fewer average annual direct (Construction) jobs but the gain in direct “covered” jobs means 51 construction <br />laborers would be paid more. <br /> <br />Table 21. Scenario 1 Sensitivity on Direct Construction Requirements <br /> Market Wage <br />(20% covered: 80% not covered) <br />Prevailing Wage <br />(100% covered) <br />Scenario Direct Jobs 165 152 <br />As Construction 80 67 <br />UNION (Covered) 16 67 <br />Non‐UNION 64 0 <br /> Market Wage <br />(20% covered: 80% not covered) <br />Prevailing Wage <br />(100% covered) <br />Scenario Total Jobs 1343 1321 <br />As Construction 235 221 <br />UNION (Covered) 47 98 <br />Non‐UNION 188 123 <br /> <br />The other approach to testing this sensitivity would entail inflating the annual investment cost on renewable projects by the 21 percent labor premium, restating a higher set of CCA electric rate <br />projections (from these renewable capacity additions) than the current report is based upon, <br />leading to a reduced ‘rate savings’ effect. This would more drastically dampen the <br />macroeconomic impacts than shown in Table 22 since the net rate savings have been shown to account for 76 percent of the county’s positive job impacts. <br /> <br />44 Current Employer Statistics data for 2014 show on average a 40-hour work week in the Construction sector.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.