Laserfiche WebLink
Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Analysis Alameda County <br />June, 2016 52 MRW & Associates, LLC <br />different rate schedule than a customer in a different CCA community. This may or may not be an issue. <br />Competition with a PG&E Community Solar Program <br />PG&E has been offering a solar choice program known as Green Tariff Shared Renewable <br />Program since February 2015.51 The program was established under Senate Bill 43, and pursuant <br />to Decision 15-01-051 from the CPUC, to extend access to renewable energy to ratepayers that <br />are currently unable to install onsite generation.52 It offers homes and businesses the option to purchase 50% or 100% of their energy use from solar resources. The program provides those <br />with homes or apartments or businesses that cannot support rooftop solar the opportunity to meet <br />their electricity requirements through renewable energy and support the growth of renewable <br />energy resources. <br />PG&E’s current Solar Choice program costs residential customers an additional 3.58¢/kWh. Given that MRW projects that the CCA can offer 100% green power at ~1.5¢/kWh over its own <br />Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 rate (which is projected to be less than PG&E’s), we do not see <br />PG&E’s Community Solar Program as an immediate threat. <br />The program is open for enrollment until subscriptions reach 272 MW or January 1, 2019, <br />whichever comes first.53 While this does limit the ability for PG&E to provide a 100% renewable option in the long-run, at the start of the CCA this program it provides an opportunity for <br />customers who desire 100% renewable power to remain with PG&E. <br />Additional Local Renewables <br />As noted in Chapter 2, relatively conservative penetrations of locally-sited renewable generation <br />(solar) was included in the quantitative analysis. Even in scenario 3, the most aggressive with <br />respect to renewables, the modeling assumed only 175 MW of in-county solar. Other individuals and studies have placed the potential for solar in the Alameda County at much higher levels. For example, a 2012 study conducted for Pacific Environment, a San Francisco-Based environmental <br />non-governmental agency, placed the “technical potential” for rooftop and parking lot PC at over <br />3,700 MW.54 However, it must be noted that technical potential is different than economic or <br />achievable potentials; it represented the absolute ceiling on this kind of PV in the county. <br />Assuming that greater amounts of this solar potential can in practice be tapped has a number of <br />implications for the results of this study. First, greater local solar will increase CCA costs. As <br />noted in the supply section of Chapter 2, in-county solar costs about 15% more than solar located <br />in lower cost, inland counties, and small solar, such as is quantified in the Pacific Environment <br />report, is typically 55% more costly than central solar. This increased cost will narrow the <br /> <br />51 PG&E website <br />http://www.pge.com/en/b2b/energysupply/wholesaleelectricsuppliersolicitation/RFO/CommunitySolarChoice.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_communitysolarchoice . Accessed 5/16/2016 <br />52 California Public Utilities Commission, Decision 15-01-051, p.3 53 Solar Choice Program FAQs website, <br />https://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/faq/index.page Accessed, 5/16/2016 54 Powers, Bill, “Bay Area Smart Energy 2020,” March 2012.