Sonoma County CCA Feasibility Study Summary Cordel StillmanDeputy Chief Engineer www.sonomacountywater.org
What is Community Choice Aggregation? • AB 117 in 2002 • Counties/Cities Form Block to Purchase Electricity Generation on Open Market • Transmission, Distribution, and Billing Remain with Investor Owned Utility (PG&E) • Generation Rates and Power Supply Determined Locally • This is an opt-out program, all are included unless they specifically take action to remain with the local utility
Public Power • Oh no, not more government!! • 39 Public Power Providers in CA • 25% Receive Municipal Utilities Power • Average Municipal Rates 20% Lower
Feasibility Study • DMC was retained by SCWA to conduct a feasibility study for • the formation of a CCA program in Sonoma County. • The study examines the impacts on ratepayers, the • environment and the local economy from providing a public • alternative to PG&E for the supply of electric generation • services within the County. • Several potential scenarios were examined to understand • impacts using a range of potential energy sources and forecast • assumptions. • Objective of the study is to provide a conservative assessment • that can be used to determine if further analysis is warranted.
Steering Committee • Veronica Ferguson – County Administrator • Kathy Millison- City Manager, Santa Rosa • Grant Davis- General Manager, SCWA • Suzanne Smith- Executive Director, RCPA/SCTA • Rod Dole- former ACTTC • Donna Dunk- ACTTC • Bill Keene- Executive Director, Open Space District • Ann Hancock- Executive Director, Climate Protection Campaign • Dick Dowd – Private Developer • Jose Obregon- Sonoma County General Services • Suzanne Doyle – Sierra Club • County, City , and non-profit staff
Sonoma County Electric Customers and Consumption Service Accounts Electric Consumption 2008 PG&E data show 218,000 electric service accounts and annual consumption of 2,778 million kilowatt-hours of electricity.
Projected Customer Base (2013) Customers and Sales are adjusted for removal of direct access customers and assumed 20% opt-out rate.
Resource Planning Supply Scenarios • Four representative supply scenarios were developed for analysis with • input from the project Steering Committee. • - Status Quo renewable energy content (“Scenario 1”) • - Moderate renewable energy content (“Scenario 2”) • - High renewable energy content with local emphasis (“Scenario 3”) • - Very high renewable energy content with local emphasis and - • accelerated timelines (“Scenario 4”) • These scenarios were selected to define a range of potential outcomes • representing different supply choices that could be made during • program development and operations. • Specific goals for a Sonoma County program have not been determined yet.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions • The CCA program could reduce GHG emissions by increasing • the use of renewable energy resources. • Production from renewable resources would displace • production from fossil-fueled generation. • PG&E is required to supply at least 33% of its electricity from • renewable resources by 2020. • A CCA supply portfolio comprising more than 33% renewable • energy (Scenarios 2-4) will result in reduced GHG emissions.
Economic Development • Local economic development impacts accrue from job creation and • spending for: • - Labor • > Installation & construction (short-term) • > Operation & maintenance (long-term) • > Jobs induced by generator operation • - Land lease or purchase • - Taxes & permitting fees • - Construction materials for new renewable infrastructure • The US Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory • (NREL) has developed the Jobs & Economic Development Impact (JEDI) • models • - Estimates economic impacts of constructing and operating • different types of electric generators • - Results are focused on statewide impacts • - Output must be adjusted to reflect local benefits • - Best available model but results are inherently difficult to measure
Economic Development Benefits Notes: Two-year construction period. Operation period commences at commercial operation date and continues for duration of project life. Jobs and output impacts include direct and indirect effects.
Customer Rate Impacts • CCA rates were estimated on an annual basis over the twenty-year study period and compared to projected PG&E rates. • CCA rates recover all program related costs • - Power purchases • - Generation investment • - Other operating costs (e.g., staff and overhead) • - Scheduling and grid operations • - Billing and data management • - Financing • - Reserves • CCA customers would also pay PG&E for delivery (T&D) and other surcharges. • PG&E generation rates are estimated to increase by an average of 4% annually from 2011 to 2032
Conclusions • A CCA program could achieve significant reductions in GHG emissions for Sonoma County. • Development of renewable generation within the County by the CCA program would have positive economic development impacts and result in local job creation; however there are challenges to local development that may impede achievement of such benefits. • CCA program rates are likely to be somewhat higher than with PG&E in the near to mid term but should be more stable and less sensitive to rising fossil fuel prices over time. • Working with the Marin Energy Authority could reduce initial startup costs and ongoing operations costs, but the terms of such a relationship are not known, and there would likely be trade-offs in regards to autonomy and achievement of local priorities.
Next Steps • Present Feasibility Study Results to City Councils (get feedback) • Perform a poll of County residents • Set Goals for Sonoma Clean Power • Investigate partnerships with Marin Energy Authority • Determine costs of Implementation • Report back to Board within 6 months