10A Action Items 2016 1121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County June, 2016 49 MRW & Associates, LLC  The savings from energy efficiency during the forecast horizon would grow at a rate consistent with expected annual energy demand as defined in the 2015 CEC IEPR demand forecast.49  Demand savings would be consistent with the ratio of demand to energy savings achieved by the programs most likely to be offered by a CCA as presented in Table 24. Based on this methodology, Table 25 provides a summary of model energy and demand savings inputs. Note that these savings numbers are incremental to PG&E goals, which average about 42 GWh annually from 2021 through 2024, as defined in the CPUC potential model, which has a forecast horizon ending in 2024. Table 25. Model Energy and Demand Savings Inputs Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Annual incremental energy savings (GWh) 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 Annual incremental demand savings (MW) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 “Minimum” CCA Size? MRW’s analysis above assumed that all eligible Alameda County cities join the Alameda CCA program with a participation rate of 85% from each city, resulting in an anticipated CCA load of about 7 million MWh per year.50 If fewer customers join, CCA rates will generally be higher because about $8 million of annual CCA costs are invariant to the amount of CCA load. Along with the number of customers, the customer make-up is also important. For example, a higher share of residential customers would improve the competiveness of the CCA, while a higher share of commercial customers or industrial customers would weaken the competitiveness of the CCA. Since cities vary in their distribution of customers by rate class, a city opting out of the CCA could affect the competitiveness of the CCA due to both the reduction in CCA load and the shift in customer make-up. The “minimum” load needed for CCA customer rates to be no higher than PG&E customer rates is approximately 450,000 MWh per year, assuming the average customer portfolio for Alameda County and Supply Scenario 1. This value was estimated by assuming that the fixed costs remained the same (i.e., did not scale with sales) and then lowering the sales until the hypothetical reduced CCA’s rates were equal to PG&E’s. As shown in the Figure 29, this is roughly the load from each of the medium-sized cities (e.g., Pleasanton and San Leandro) and much smaller than the load from the larger cities (e.g., Berkeley, Oakland, and Fremont). As 49 Form 1.1 - PGE Planning Area California Energy Demand 2015 Revised - Mid Demand Case. Electricity Consumption by Sector (GWh) 50 In the alternate supply scenarios, the “minimum” annual load assuming the average customer portfolio for Alameda County and the base case is 550,000 MWh (Scenario 2) and 1,000,000 MWh (Scenario 3). These “minimum” loads are also far below the expected annual CCA load of 7 million MWh.