HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncilmember Item - Councilmembers Delgleize and Carr - Com ipp"VAIN b- 1
l p� saN-Jvo)
City of Huntington Beach
1
File #: 19-825 MEETING DATE: 8/5/2019
Submitted by Councilmembers Delgleize and Carr - Community Choice Energy Feasibility
Study
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The concept of community choice aggregation (CCA) has gained a lot of momentum since the
enactment of California's CCA enabling legislation - Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 838, Statutes of
2002). Under the CCA model (also known as a community choice energy model), cities and counties
buy and/or generate electricity for local government, residents, and businesses and make key
decisions about rates, what types of electricity to purchase, and which programs to offer customers.
Though reducing electricity costs for residents, businesses, and the City are initial drivers, many
cities are now also looking at it as a means of economic opportunity and job creation for their
communities. Currently there are 19 operational CCAs in California (nearly 4 million customer
accounts) with 9 more set to launch in 2020. Additionally, 12 cities and 7 counties are currently in the
exploratory phase.
In August of 2017, then Mayor Barbara Delgleize was authorized by City Council to sign a Non-
Disclosure Agreement with Southern California Edison (SCE) so that the City could obtain customer
class energy usage data to analyze and conduct a Community Choice Energy (CCE) feasibility study
to see if a CCE would be economically feasible for the city's customers (residential, industrial,
governmental, and commercial). At that time, the Public Works Department issued a Request for
Qualifications and firms submitted proposals, but the effort did not proceed from there. This Council
Member Item requests that the Study be completed and the analysis reported back to the City
Council, as it would be prudent for the City to at least study the feasibility of a CCE. A study that in
no way means the City would leave the electric utility and form its own CCE but the City Council
should at least be presented with the pros and cons.
Direct the City Manager and the Public Works Director to complete a Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study and report back to the City Council within six (6) months.
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/1/2019
powered by LegistarT11
Work Order: #192178 00925/2019 Closed:
By Diane Bentley
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Email dfgbentley@gmail.com
Phone
SUBTYPE
Device
City Council Meeting
STREET ADDRESS Media Submitted
None
3
i
i
i
33
3
33
3
COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES
I support efforts to develop Community Choice Energy for Huntington Beach residents.
Notes Added By staff:09/25/2019 3:38 PM Robin Estanislau
j?
Diane,Thank you for providing comments.They will be included as part of the Council record on
Community Choice Energy.Robin Estanislau City Clerk
Share with Citizen:YES
Status Changed:09/25/2019 2:16 PM Johanna Dombo
Work Order#192178 status has changed from new to assigned.
Share with Citizen:YES
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:09/25/2019 2:16 PM Johanna Dombo
Workorder#192178 Issue type changed from Other Questions to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments
and subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
City Council Interoffice Communication
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Barbara Delgleize, City Council Member,o
Kim Carr, City Council Member!.c',%'
Date: July 23, 2019
Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR THE AUGUST 5, 2019, CITY
COUNCIL MEETING — COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY
FEASIBILITY STUDY
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The concept of community choice aggregation (CCA) has gained a lot of momentum since the
enactment of California's CCA enabling legislation -Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 838, Statutes of
2002). Under the CCA model (also known as a community choice energy model), cities and
counties buy and/or generate electricity for local government, residents, and businesses and
make key decisions about rates, what types of electricity to purchase, and which programs to
offer customers. Though reducing electricity costs for residents, businesses, and the City are
initial drivers, many cities are now also looking at it as a means of economic opportunity and job
creation for their communities. Currently there are 19 operational CCAs in California (nearly 4
million customer accounts') with 9 more set to launch in 2020. Additionally, 12 cities and 7
counties are currently in the exploratory phase.
In August of 2017, then Mayor Barbara Delgleize was authorized by City Council to sign a Non-
Disclosure Agreement with Southern California Edison (SCE) so that the City could obtain
customer class energy usage data to analyze and conduct a Community Choice Energy (CCE)
feasibility study to see if a CCE would be economically feasible for the city's customers
(residential, industrial, governmental, and commercial). At that time, the Public Works
Department issued a Request for Qualifications and firms submitted proposals, but the effort did
not proceed from there. This Council Member Item requests that the Study be completed and
the analysis reported back to the City Council, as it would be prudent for the City to at least
study the feasibility of a CCE. A study that in no way means the City would leave the electric
utility and form its own CCE but the City Council should at least be presented with the pros and
cons.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct the City Manager and the Public Works Director to complete a Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study and report back to the City Council within six (6) months.
xc: Dave Kiff, Interim City Manager
Travis Hopkins, Interim Assistant City Manager
Robin Estanislau, City Clerk
Michael Gates, City Attorney
https://cal-cca.org/cca-iinpact/#toggle-id-I 1-closed
Esparza, Patty
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study
Name Rachel Mireles
Email rsampang@gmail.com
Comments
I would like to urge all council members to move forward with the Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study proposed by Council Members Carr and Delgleize. I think this is very beneficial
option that will allow for more local control of a critical utility, including rates, investments,
infrastructure, and other issues related to electrical utilities. Not only local control, but a CCE
would give us a choice for residents and businesses to decide what is right for our own needs.
As noted in the interoffice communication from Council members Carr and Delgleize dated July
23, 2019, this study is not a commitment or change or any kind, but only an investigation to the
benefits and downfalls of such a program for HB.
Thank you for considering this, Rachel Mireles Nashville Ave., HB 92648
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
" Deb:— 7 -s —�9
Agenda Rem No.;�1 _ �s�
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:Community Choice Energy-A Bit of Background
Attachments: Irvine_CCE_Feasibility_study.PDF
AGENDA COMMENT
From:Steven C. Shepherd,Architect<steve@shepherdarchitects.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:08 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Community Choice Energy-A Bit of Background
Hello City Council Members -
Perhaps in preparation for today's City Council meeting, you might want to review a copy of the Final Draft for
the City of Irvine's CCE Feasibility Study. Please see the attached.
Irvine is a city not too unlike Huntington Beach in terms of the number of residents, locality, and SCE service
area. Given these similarities as well as others, one would guess that the findings outlined in the Irvine
Feasibility Study -both risks and benefits- would be somewhat similar.
I know you are all very busy, but it only takes a minute to read the Executive Summary, Findings, and
Conclusions portions of this document.
See you tonight.
Regards,
Steven C. Shepherd, Architect
P: 714 785 9404
www.ShepherdArchitects.com
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
McWng Date: F151/g
Agenda 1%M W.; ar --
City of Irvine, California
Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment
Prepared for:
The City of Irvine, California
FINAL DRAFT
June 18, 2019
Consulting, Inc.
570 Kirkland Way, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
A registered professional engineering and management
consulting firm with offices in Kirkland, WA, Portland, OR and La Quinta, CA
Telephone: (425) 889-2700 Facsimile: (425) 889-2725
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
www.eesconsulting.com
Meeting Date: ��J`'/
Agenda ftem No.- ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT
Consulting, Inc.
June 13, 2019
Ms. Sona Coffee
City of Irvine
P.O. Box 19575
Irvine, CA 92623-9575
SUBJECT: Draft Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment
Dear Ms. Coffee:
Please find attached the Final Draft Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical
Assessment (Study) for City of Irvine, California (the City).
It has been a pleasure working for the City and we very much appreciate all the effort this working
team has spent on the Study.
We look forward to receiving all stakeholder comments after which we will finalize this Study.
Very truly yours,
Gary Saleba
President/CEO
570 Kirkland Way,Suite 100
Kirkland,Washington 98033
Telephone:425 889-2700 Facsimile:425 889-2725
A registered professional engineering corporation with offices in
Kirkland,WA,Portland,OR and La Quinta,CA
2
DRAFT
Contents
CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................................................I
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................1
KEYSTUDY FINDINGS...........................................................................................................................................................1
RISKSAND MITIGATION MEASURES........................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................................................4
1.INTRODUCTION-SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.......................................................................................................5
1.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................5
1.2 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY..................................................................................................................5
1.3 MECHANICS OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY.........................................................................................................................6
1.4 EXPECTED COSTS OF LAUNCHING A CCE PROGRAM.........................................................................................................6
1.5 FINDINGS................................................................................................................................................................7
1.6 STUDY METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................................8
1.7 CCE GOVERNANCE OPTIONS.......................................................................................................................................8
1.8 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN IRVINE(LOAD REQUIREMENTS)..........................................................................................9
1.9 POWER SUPPLY SCENARIOS.........................................................................................................................................9
1.10 COST OF SERVICE:OPERATING COSTS FOR BASE SCENARIO.........................................................................................10
1.11 RATE COMPARISON............................................................................................................................................12
1.12 ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................................................................................................15
1.13 SENSITIVITY AND RISK ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................16
1.14 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................16
2.STUDY METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................18
2.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................18
2.2 PRO FORMA ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................................18
3.CCE GOVERNANCE OPTIONS............................................................................................................................20
3.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................20
3.2 CCE GOVERNANCE OPTIONS.....................................................................................................................................20
3.3 CCE ORGANIZATIONAL STAFFING OPTIONS..................................................................................................................24
3.4 CCE PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA.................................................................................................................................24
3.5 RECOMMENDATION.................................................................................................................................................27
4.LOAD REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................................................................29
4.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................29
4.2 HISTORICAL CONSUMPTION......................................................................................................................................29
4.3 CCE PARTICIPATION AND OPT-OUT RATES..................................................................................................................30
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment I
3
DRAFT
4.4 CONCEPTUAL CCE LAUNCH PHASING..........................................................................................................................31
4.5 FORECAST CONSUMPTION AND CUSTOMERS................................................................................................................32
S.POWER SUPPLY STRATEGY AND COSTS............................................................................................................34
5.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................34
5.2 RESOURCE STRATEGY...............................................................................................................................................34
5.3 PROJECTED POWER SUPPLY COSTS.............................................................................................................................35
5.4 RESOURCE PORTFOLIOS............................................................................................................................................42
5.5 RESOURCE STRATEGY...............................................................................................................................................48
6.COST OF SERVICE:OPERATING COSTS FOR BASE SCENARIO.............................................................................SO
6.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................50
6.2 COST OF SERVICE FOR CCE`BASE CASE"OPERATIONS...................................................................................................50
6.3 POWER SUPPLY COSTS.............................................................................................................................................50
6.4 NON-POWER SUPPLY COSTS.....................................................................................................................................51
6.5 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS...........................................................................................................................................52
6.6 OUTSIDE CONSULTANT COSTS...................................................................................................................................53
6.7 SCE BILLING&METERING COSTS..............................................................................................................................54
6.8 UNCOLLECTIBLE COSTS.............................................................................................................................................54
6.9 FINANCIAL RESERVES...............................................................................................................................................55
6.10 FINANCING COSTS..............................................................................................................................................56
7.RATE COMPARISON.........................................................................................................................................61
7.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................61
7.2 RATES PAID BY SCE BUNDLED CUSTOMERS..................................................................................................................61
7.3 RATES PAID BY CCE CUSTOMERS...............................................................................................................................62
7.4 RETAIL RATE COMPARISON.......................................................................................................................................63
8.ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..................................................................................................66
8.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................66
8.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN THE COMMUNITY....................................................................................................................66
8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RESOURCE PLAN ON GREENHOUSE GAS(GHG)EMISSIONS...................................................69
8.4 LOCAL RESOURCES/BEHIND THE METER CCE PROGRAMS...............................................................................................70
9.SENSITIVITY AND RISK ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................74
9.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................74
9.2 RISK FACTORS........................................................................................................................................................74
9.3 SCE RATES AND SURCHARGES...................................................................................................................................77
9.4 WORKING WITH SCE...............................................................................................................................................78
9.5 GRID RELIABILITY....................................................................................................................................................78
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment ii
4
DRAFT
9.6 REGULATORY RISKS.................................................................................................................................................79
9.7 POWER SUPPLY COSTS.............................................................................................................................................79
9.8 SCE RPS PORTFOLIO...............................................................................................................................................81
9.9 AVAILABILITY OF RENEWABLE AND GHG-FREE RESOURCES.............................................................................................82
9.10 FINANCIAL RISKS................................................................................................................................................83
9.11 LOADS AND CUSTOMER PARTICIPATION RATES.........................................................................................................84
9.12 SENSITIVITY RESULTS...........................................................................................................................................84
10.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................87
10.1 RATE CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................87
10.2 RENEWABLE ENERGY CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................87
10.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................88
10.4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................88
10.5 GREENHOUSE GAS(GHG)EMISSIONS CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................89
10.6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................89
10.7 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................................90
10.8 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................90
APPENDIX A-PROJECTED SCHEDULE..................................................................................................................91
APPENDIX B-PRO FORMA ANALYSES.................................................................................................................92
APPENDIX C-STAFFING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DETAIL.....................................................................................93
APPENDIX D-CCE CASH FLOW ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................94
APPENDIX E-GLOSSARY.....................................................................................................................................95
APPENDIX F-POWER SUPPLY DETAIL...............................................................................................................101
WHOLESALEMARKET PRICES...........................................................................................................................................101
ANCILLARY AND CONGESTION COSTS.................................................................................................................................101
SCHEDULING COORDINATOR SERVICES...............................................................................................................................103
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment
5
DRAFT
Executive Summary
As part of preparations for future energy demands, the City of Irvine's City Council approved
funding for two initiatives which will help define an energy vision for Irvine (City): a Strategic
Energy Plan and a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Feasibility Study. Commonly referred to
as Community Choice Energy (CCE), these programs have grown significantly in California since
the State's first CCE program was launched in Marin County in 2010. There are currently 19
operating CCEs in California with potentially another dozen planning to launch between now and
2021. CCEs currently serve over 10 million customers who were previously covered by investor-
owned utilities (IOUs).
The City's CCE Feasibility Study efforts are one of the first to be conducted by a jurisdiction within
Orange County and will be the most comprehensive. This Study's results show that even though
a CCE in Irvine is financially possible, there are risks that need to be mitigated. The Study
estimates that a CCE can provide a 2% discount on electricity rates to Irvine customers when
compared to Southern California Edison (SCE) while matching SCE's projected renewable energy
portfolio.This discounted rate translates to an estimated $7.7 million in electricity savings to the
community each year. Further, a CCE can provide other local benefits to the City and its
constituents such as rebates to incentivize energy efficiency and economic development
opportunities. Lastly, this study assumes that the CCE will meet all known state environmental
goals and mandates' and shows that a CCE program is a viable method for the City to utilize in
meeting City-initiated environmental goals related to clean energy programs, renewable energy
utilization, and City-wide greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Key Study Findings
CCEs and utilities must meet State-mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements.
Therefore, the base case scenario presented in the financial results of this Study illustrate a
renewable portfolio option equivalent to SCE's portfolio which meets the State's RPS mandate.
Other, higher renewable energy content portfolios are also evaluated in the Study. Based on the
Study's analysis of the City's electricity demands, power procurement costs, forecast of SCE rates
and stranded costs, the formation of a CCE by the City is financially feasible and would yield
considerable benefits for all participating residents and businesses. This Study assumed that the
City would form its own CCE program, and as discussed in the Governance section of the Study,
potential benefits and drawbacks are described if the City were to join other CCE programs or
partner with other jurisdictions in creating a regional CCE.
The following key findings and conclusions are made based on the City operating its own CCE
program:
'Included under SB 100 and SB 350.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 1
6
DRAFT
■ Electric retail rates are predicted to be at least 2% lower than current SCE rates using
extremely conservative modeling parameters and assuming participation rates for residential
customers of 95% and non-residential customers participation rates of 90%. These
assumptions on customer participation are conservative compared with recent CCE program
participation.
■ City-wide electricity cost savings are estimated to average about $7.7 million per year for
Irvine residents and businesses. Annual City municipal utility account cost savings are
estimated at$112,000.
■ CCE start-up and working capital costs (estimated at $10.05 million, and assumed to be
financed) could be fully recovered within the first three years of CCE operations while still
achieving a 2% rate discount compared to SCE's current rates. The City could also choose to
recoup costs associated with the Study development and Implementation Plan.
■ The Study analyzed CCE rate results under scenarios with high and low participation rates,
high and low market power costs, and high and low stranded costs. The findings identify key
risks with regard to stranded cost recovery (via SCE) and power supply. The Study's section
on Risks and Sensitivity Analysis describes the magnitude of those risks and measures for
mitigating risks.
■ The CCE is estimated to have an average, annual $3.4 million revenue stream after start-up
and working capital are repaid, as well as financial reserves being met, that can be used for
electric customer-related programs such as:
• Funding for customer energy efficiency programs.
• Local renewable energy resource programs, such as renewable energy net-metering.
• Customer rate savings beyond the 2%target.
■ The savings to customers under the CCE's rates would drive additional local economic
development benefits, such as 85 new jobs and an a total of$10 million in annual economic
output.
The City will need to fund some of the upfront costs of developing a City CCE. These are expenses
that would need to be paid prior to obtaining financing including: staffing expenses prior to
program launch, payment of various bonds to the CPUC and SCE, and consultant costs. Staffing
costs assume City staff are required to manage the Implementation Plan development,
consultant costs in support of pre-launch activities, developing joint power authority (JPA), if
applicable; and meeting with SCE and stakeholders. Consultant costs would include support to
City staff on these tasks and updating the program's technical and financial Study forecasts.
These costs are estimated at $600,000 based on the experience of other operating CCEs. The
City could recoup these expenses after program launch; typically CCE's consider these costs as
part of the startup loan. Depending on the governance structure selected, these costs may vary.
Key Operating Figures for a City-CCE as modeled against SCE's current power portfolio are shown
in Exhibit ES-1 below:
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 2
DRAFT
Exhibit ES-1 I
CCE Key Operating Figures
First Year Operating Budget $82.9 Million
First Year Revenues $86.9 Million
First Year Net Income $4 Million
First Year Load Served 1,466 GWh
Average Operating Budget (2021-2030) $130.5 Million
Average Revenues (2021-2030) $141.1 Million
Average Net Revenue (2021-2030) $10.6 Million
Average Annual Municipal Cost Savings $112,000
Average Load Served (2021-2030) 1,910 GWh
Startup Loan (Including Pre-Startup Costs and $10.05 Million
Working Capital)
Startup Loan Term 60 Months
Early Repayment of Startup Loan 36 Months
Economic Impacts: Orange County 85 New Jobs/year
$10 million in output/year
Greenhouse Gas Reductions,tons CO2/year SCE Equivalent Portfolio: 0
100% Renewable by 2035: 191,000
100% Renewable: 360,000
Risks and Mitigation Measures
While the study shows that forming a CCE is financially feasible under a wide range of scenarios,
doing so is not without risk. The feasibility of the CCE, that is maintaining customer rates
competitive with SCE, primarily depends on power supply costs (which make up approximately
90% of the overall CCE operating budget) and how those costs compare to SCE's power supply
costs, and ultimately their customer rates. Other factors impacting the financial viability of the
CCE include: costs that SCE directly passes through to all customers(including the Power Charge
Indifference Adjustment or PCIA), market supply of renewable power, availability and cost of
financing CCE operations, and legislative and regulatory actions.
To assess the magnitude of the risks imposed on the CCE by these factors, the Study includes a
Sensitivity and Risk Analysis section which established a range of high and low scenarios for:
prices for CCE-procured market power, SCE's customer rates, CCE financing costs, and the level
of SCE's PCIA. As a result of the impact on CCE rates of these risk scenarios, the Sensitivity and
Risk Analysis section also assumed a worst case CCE customer retention level and its impact on
CCE rates.
The results of the Sensitivity and Risk Analysis indicate under what scenarios the CCE's rates may
exceed SCE's customer rates, and also suggest actions the CCE may take to manage those risks.
The risk mitigation actions consist of industry standard best operating practices and strategies
employed by other operating CCEs including: conservative power procurement strategies
employing market risk management policies, developing a cash reserve fund from annual net
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 3
8
DRAFT
revenues, and engaging in regulatory and legislative issues through the Statewide CCE
organization—the California Community Choice Association (CaICCA).
Conclusions
The Study results suggest that CCE implementation is financially feasible, and the risks are
manageable, should the City wish to further pursue it. The City CCE is expected to offer
customers lower rates than both SCE's base rate and 100% renewable rate. The City CCE is
estimated to generate average, annual net revenues of $10.6 million which can be used for
multiple CCE-related purposes; including building CCE operations financial reserves, lowering
customer rates, or offering customer programs. The savings to City ratepayers can drive
additional economic output and create new jobs in the region.
The positive impacts on the City and its constituents of forming a CCE documented in this Study
were determined under a very conservative set of technical and financial assumptions.
Particularly, power supply costs are estimated at rates above current prices for long-term
renewable contracts; customer participation rates are lower than recent Statewide CCE
experiences; and the forecasted growth in SCE generation rates is lower than the historic
average. The CCE could collect sufficient net revenues and operating cash reserves and continue
to operate even if power prices are higher than forecasted, participation rates are as low as 80%,
or SCE's stranded cost recovery rate is higher than forecast. Even under extreme conservative
risk scenarios on these factors which impact CCE financial viability, the risks are manageable
through what is developing as industry standard, CCE best operating practices, such as
conservative power procurement strategies and development of a cash reserve fund.
Suggested next steps for the City include: complete an internal review of this Study, conduct
public outreach activities to share the results of the Study with City constituents and other
stakeholders and receive their input, adopt the Study results through City Council action and
determine whether to move forward with CCE implementation.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 4
9
DRAFT
1. Introduction — Summary of Findings
1.1 Introduction
Since the State's first CCE program was launched in Marin County in 2010, many communities
across the State have benefitted from reduced electricity costs and community-specific activities
and programs associated with Community Choice Energy (CCE) operations. To date, 19 CCEs
comprising multiple counties and cities are operating with more scheduled to commence
operations in 2020 and 2021. To better understand the benefits and risks associated with CCE
programs, the City of Irvine selected EES Consulting to prepare a report that assesses the
feasibility of CCE operations as a mechanism to lower electricity rates to customers and
potentially increase the utilization of renewable energy in the region. In this report, EES examines
the technical and financial viability of a CCE program to serve City of Irvine constituents. The
City's Feasibility Study efforts are one of the first to be conducted by a jurisdiction within Orange
County and will be the most comprehensive.
Exploring a CCE program for City constituents is an important part of evaluating the City's clean
energy future. A CCE program would give the City local control over power supply and revenue
to fund energy-related programs. The Study models power supply and operating expenses
against the alternative service from SCE and finds that a CCE can provide lower electric rates
while meeting or exceeding State mandates for renewable power utilization. The Sensitivity and
Risk Analysis confirms these findings under likely combinations of conservative ranges of factors
impacting financial viability for a City-operated CCE.
While the primary analysis provides the feasibility results for the case where the City operates its
own CCE, other options are available such as joining an existing CCE Joint Powers Authority(JPA)
or teaming with other jurisdictions. These other options could result in additional cost savings
but might also impact local (City) decision-making authority. These trade-offs are introduced in
the Governance Section of the Study.
Finally,as requested by the City,the Study includes discussion on working with SCE and addresses
potential impacts on the utility-operated distribution grid by CCE operations.
1.2 Overview of Community Choice Energy
California Assembly Bill 117 allowed local governments to form Community Choice Aggregations
(CCAs, referred to as Community Choice Energy programs in this study or CCE) that offer an
alternative electric power supply option to constituents currently served by investor owned
utilities (IOUs). CCEs in California are "opt-out" programs, meaning that customers are
automatically placed into CCE service, unless they proactively choose to continue receiving
service from the IOU. Under the CCE model, local governments purchase and manage their
community's electric power supply; sourcing power from a preferred mix of traditional and
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 5
10
DRAFT
renewable generation sources, while the incumbent IOU continues to provide distribution
service. This gives CCEs the opportunity to design and potentially reduce retail rates for their
constituents, promote local economic development and offer a cleaner power supply, all while
satisfying the CCE's goals and community priorities. Specifically, local energy programs can be
tailored to meet the community's goals and needs. The remainder of this introduction briefly
describes the mechanics of the study and provides a brief description of key findings in each
section of the report.
1.3 Mechanics of the Feasibility Study
■ Acquire the City's annual energy consumption data for all customers and develop
consumption profiles across all time periods.
■ Develop energy portfolio options (similar to existing CCEs) which include differing amounts
of renewable power to be supplied that meet or exceed State mandates.
■ Determine the cost of acquiring energy to meet the consumption profiles and other load
serving requirements, and determine the cost to operate the CCE.
■ Develop CCE customer rates which would cover all CCE operating costs and financial
considerations.
■ Forecast future SCE rates based on materials filed at the CA Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) and compare CCE rates against forecasted SCE rates.
■ Run a sensitivity analysis to compare CCE and SCE rates under a range of varying operating
and market conditions.
■ Analyze and describe the financial and other benefits of a viable CCE.
■ Assess risks to City of operating or participating in a CCE program, and identify mitigation
measures.
■ Describe options for governance of a City CCE or a multiple jurisdiction CCE.
1.4 Expected Costs of Launching a CCE Program
CCE start-up and working capital costs of$10.05 million are estimated to launch a CCE in Irvine,
including obtaining services to procure energy for the CCE program, provide pre-launch opt-out
notices, financial and technical consultant costs, and legal and regulatory support. Power supply
costs make up the largest operating costs for the CCE. In the City's case, power supply costs
represent 93% of the initial operating year budget. Non-power supply costs (including billing,
staffing, consultants and other administration and general costs) make up 7% of the initial
operating year budget.
Operational and administrative costs may vary depending on the proportion of City internal staff
to be used by the CCE versus contracted consulting services. Typically, California CCEs have
initially kept City/County internal staffing to a minimum and relied primarily on consultants with
expertise in technical, financial, regulatory and legal responsibilities of the CCE. Debt service
payments for an assumed initial loan of$10.05 million are included and are required to pay back
loans needed to provide start-up capital and initial operations working capital.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 5
11
DRAFT
Exhibit 1 provides a summary of the annual operating budget and net income for the CCE.
Exhibit 1
CCE Key Operating
First Year Operating Budget $82.9 Million
First Year Revenues $86.9 Million
First Year Net Income $4 Million
First Year Load Served 1,466 GWh
Average Operating Budget (2021-2030) $130.5 Million
Average Revenues (2021-2030) $141.1 Million
Average Net Revenue (2021-2030) $10.6 Million
Average Municipal Annual Savings $112,000
Average Load Served (2021-2030) 1,910 GWh
Startup Loan (Pre-Startup Costs+Working Capital) $10.05 Million
Startup Loan Term 60 Months
Early Repayment of Startup Loan 36 Months
Economic Impacts: Orange County 85 New Jobs/year
$10 million in output/year
Greenhouse Gas Reductions,tons CO2/year SCE Equivalent Portfolio:0
100% Renewable by 2035: 191,000
100% Renewable: 360,000
1.5 Findings
Based on the analysis conducted in this Study,the following findings and conclusions are made:
■ The formation of a CCE by the City is financially feasible and could yield considerable benefits
for all participating residents and businesses.
■ Electric retail rates are predicted to be at least 2% lower compared with current SCE rates
using extremely conservative modeling parameters, assuming participation rates for
residential customers of 95%and non-residential customers participation rates of 90%.These
are discussed in more detail in the Load Requirements section of the Study(Section 4). These
savings are estimated at$7.7 million per year for Irvine residents and businesses. The annual
City municipal utility account cost savings are estimated at$112,000.
■ Power supply options studied for the CCE include: matching SCE's renewables resource mix,
providing a higher-than-SCE renewable resource mix, and providing 100% renewable power
to all customers—if the City decides to provide higher amounts of renewables than required.
■ Financed CCE start-up costs could be fully recovered within the first three years of CCE
operations while still achieving a 2% rate discount compared to SCE's forecast rates.
■ A CCE could design and offer their own customer programs using energy efficiency funds
available to CCEs, revenues from the collection of retail rates, other funding sources available
to local governments, and through the design of retail rates which could spur specific
customer behaviors to conserve energy.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 7
12
DRAFT
■ The savings to customers under the CCE's rates would drive additional local economic
development benefits, such as 85 additional jobs and a total of $10 million in economic
output.
■ An assessment of the impacts of potential development of local renewable power generation
projects within the City to provide power to the CCE is provided.
■ Given the variety of CCE operations models that exist in the State, the City has options on
how it may wish to further pursue CCE; including operating as City only, inviting other cities
to join a City CCE, or joining other operating CCEs. These options are described in this Study.
Additional information about specific elements of the Study are described below.
1.6 Study Methodology
SCE provided data on the City's power consumption. This historic data is forecast using state
energy consumption growth figures. The Study then estimates future power supply costs, under
one scenario similar to the SCE portfolio and two scenarios which involve higher renewable
power portfolio levels — including a 100% renewables option to provide customer choice. The
power prices in the Study are based on the abundant recent utility and CCE solicitation
experience in power procurement.
An assessment of additional, non-power supply costs under CCE operations is provided including:
personnel, consultants, financing, administrative and other operating costs. CCE rates are
developed to determine revenue requirements which cover all CCE operating costs and other
items such as funds for customer programs, CCE operations reserve funds, and financing costs.
If these rates are then lower than SCE rates, the CCE may be determined financially feasible.
Finally, the Study predicts the CCE's rates against a range of high and low scenarios for variables
such as: power supply costs, SCE rates, customer participation, and stranded costs. This
sensitivity analyses predicts that there is no reasonable set of scenarios under which the CCE will
not be financially viable. In addition, the analysis confirms none of the extreme scenarios
analyzed has yet been observed under past CCEs' operating histories.
1.7 CCE Governance Options
This Study evaluates the feasibility of operating a CCE as a single jurisdiction as this option
provides the most conservative scenario for power supply and operating costs, and provides the
greatest level of local control. Because the City of Irvine is relatively large, it is recommended that
the City review other options, but focus its efforts on forming its own CCE program. Other options
for the City to participate in a CCE program include:
• Joining an existing CCE;
• Creating a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and allowing other jurisdictions to join the
City CCE; or
• Partnering with other CCEs to share operating costs under another formal agreement.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 8
13
DRAFT
If the City joins an existing JPA, the start-up activities are simpler as the organization is already
operating and programs have been developed. However, the overall governance issues would
have to be established prior to joining an existing CCE. And the existing JPA may require the City
to make a payment towards the initial start-up and operating costs of that CCE. Before moving
forward with CCE implementation, it is recommended that the City evaluate the governance
options in more detail. For example, the cities of Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Del Mar have
committed to moving forward with CCE formation. However, the cities are currently reviewing
governance options before making final decisions on forming a new JPA or joining an existing
organization. Due to the sizes of some of these cities (i.e., Del Mar), they would need to join an
existing CCE or partner with neighboring jurisdictions to make CCE viable for their city.
1.8 Electricity Consumption in Irvine (Load Requirements)
The City's energy load is comprised of 100,600 residential accounts and 15,900 commercial
accounts. Exhibit 2 shows the 2016 energy usage within the City by SCE rate class. Residential
and commercial customers make up the majority of energy use, 27%and 71% respectively. The
"Other" category in Exhibit 2 includes street lighting and agriculture rates.z For 2016, Irvine
consumed 1,975 GWh, which is similar in size to Sonoma Clean Power and would be one of the
larger CCEs in California.
Exhibit 2
2016 City Load'
2,500
2,000 Total: 1,975 GWh
Other
1,500
_ -Commercial
71%
(D ■Residential
1,000
500
Load
1.9 Power Supply Scenarios
The Study analyzed the City CCE rate under different scenarios for renewable power content in
the power supply mix. At a minimum, the CCE would need to meet State mandated Renewable
z Commercial category includes all commercial customers plus industrial customers.
' 1 Gigawatt hour (GWh) is 1 million kilowatt-hours. The typical California home uses 400-600 kWh/month. The
average home in Irvine uses 450 kWh/month.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 9
14
DRAFT
Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements, current RPS targets are 33% by 2020, 40% by 2024, 52%
by 2027 and 60% by 2030. The CCE SCE-Equivalent Renewable Portfolio option meets the
minimum RPS mandate; therefore, the CCE SCE-Equivalent Renewable Portfolio represents the
base case scenario for this Study. The CCE's program operating costs are described in Exhibit 3
and earlier are from this base case scenario; the other two portfolios are evaluated as well and
the program operating costs are provided later in the report(Section 6 Cost of Service: Operating
Cost for Base Scenario). The three scenarios are described below.
The first scenario (SCE-Equivalent Renewables Portfolio which matches SCE's current and
forecast renewables content) program operating costs are illustrated below in Exhibit 3. The
second and third scenarios described below are: CCE 100% Renewable by 2035 and CCE 100%
Renewable in all years. These scenarios align with the power supply mix of existing CCE
programs. The CCE's financial viability was examined under all three of these scenarios.
1) SCE-Equivalent Renewable Portfolio: Achieves between 33% and 60% of power supply
from Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)-qualifying resources in 2021 through 2029,
based on SCE's planned renewable energy procurement. Achieves 60% RPS beginning in
2030.
2) 100% Renewable by 2035 Portfolio: 50% of retail loads are served with RPS-qualifying
beginning in 2021 ramping up to 80% in 2025, 90% in 2030 and 100% by 2035.
3) 100% Renewables Portfolio: 100% of retail loads are served with RPS-qualifying
renewable resources in all years.
SB 100 sets a target for 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. The SCE-Equivalent
Renewable Portfolio reaches 60% renewable energy by 2030. In order to achieve the SB 100
target, the CCE would need to purchase renewable or greenhouse gas free energy for the
remaining 40%of the portfolio over the next 15 years. Portfolios 2 and 3 meet the SB 100 target
early, by 2035.
1.10 Cost of Service: Operating Costs for Base Scenario
Exhibit 3 shows CCE program costs where the percentage of renewable power is equal to SCE's
current levels (base case). The Cost of Energy shows all power supply expenses estimated to
serve all City loads including 34% renewable energy and an additional 6% greenhouse gas free
energy. Greenhouse gas (GHG) free energy costs are included to meet the equivalent share of
GHG free energy in SCE's portfolio. The Power Charge Indifference Adjustment(PCIA or exit fee),
is not included in the operating costs since this is not a cost to the CCE, but a rate paid by CCE
customers. The PCIA is an important consideration for CCE feasibility studies since ratepayers
will be comparing the total cost of generation via the CCE versus the incumbent IOU. The PCIA
scenarios are assessed and discussed in the Cost of Service: Operating Costs for Base Scenario
section of the detailed Study (Section 6).
Non-power supply costs (Operating & Administrative) are also shown in Exhibit 3. Billing and
data management includes services provided by a third party for collecting and providing billing
information and data to SCE. These costs are generally billed on a $/customer basis. Scheduling
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 10
15
DRAFT
fees include the cost of hiring a third party to schedule CCE power deliveries to the electric grids.
SCE set-up and start-up fees are the costs SCE incurs to set up billing for CCE service plus the
ongoing cost for billing and managing customer accounts. Consulting services cover assistance
from consultants during launch and after to assist in meeting regulatory requirements, rate
setting, and other operating functions.
RenewableExhibit 3
2021 CCE Costs, SCE-Equivalent Portfolio
Willions
Cost of Energy $77.45
Operating&Administrative
Billing& Data Management $1.20
Scheduling Fees $0.47
SCE Setup and Start-up Fees $0.15
Consulting Services $0.40
Staffing $1.26
General&Administrative Expenses $0.42
Debt Service $1.59
Total O&A Costs $5.48
Total Cost $82.94
The operational and administrative costs for the CCE are estimated based on costs incurred by
other CCEs launched in California in recent years. The CCE's first year of operation assumes
customers begin taking service in April 2021. Assuming the City submits an Implementation Plan
to the CPUC by the end of 2019, the earliest the program can launch is January of 2021. April
2021 was selected as the CCE start date based on current CCE practices relative to utilities' rate
structures. SCE's current seasonal rates collect significantly higher revenue in the summer
months, as would the CCE's. However, it is recommended that the CCE launch prior to the
seasonal rate change taking effect to minimize bill confusion on the transition to CCE service.
Specifically, higher opt-out rates might be expected if the first power bill from the CCE includes
the higher summer rates.
Exhibit 4 illustrates the 10-year financial comparison of the rates paid by CCE customers for the
generation portion of their bills. This Exhibit shows the comparison for the base case described
earlier. Under the base case assumptions, the CCE can provide a rate discount of 2%,
approximately $7.7 million annually, compared with the base case SCE rate. In addition to the
rate discount, the Study recommends the CCE will retain a portion of retail rate revenues
(estimated at $3.4 million per year on average) for future local incentive programs and building
cash reserves.
SCE generation rates are forecast to escalate at approximately 3% per year. This cost escalation
is consistent with historic generation rate increases averaging from 2 to 4% per year. The
escalation of the SCE generation rate contributes to the CCE's ability to offer a rate discount due
to the forecast increase in power supply costs. The average SCE generation rate over the study
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 11
16
DRAFT
period is $0.0922/kWh compared with the average CCE rate forecast at $0.0819/kWh (including
the exit fee, paid to SCE).
Exhibit 4
Bundled Load and Accounts in 2016
11
10
9
8
s 7
6
c 5
v
v 4
3
2
1
0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate+Exit Fee SCE Rate
1.11 Rate Comparison
Based on the CCE's projected power supply costs, PCIA, operating costs, and SCE's power supply
and delivery costs, forecasts of CCE and SCE total rates are developed. The analysis balances the
rate discount, collection of reserves and the share of renewable and GHG-free resources
purchased. If the discount is too high,the CCE will not be able to collect enough reserves to meet
reserve targets within the first 5 years.
The rate forecasts are illustrated below in Exhibit 5.
• A rate discount of 2% is targeted for the SCE-Equivalent Renewable Portfolio.
• The 100% Renewable by 2035 portfolio is at parity with SCE rates.
• The 100% Renewable Portfolio rates are calibrated to be as close to SCE rates as possible
while collecting the reserves needed for CCE operation; due to the additional costs of a
100%renewable portfolio, these rates are at a premium to SCE rates of 2%.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 12
17
DRAFT
Exhibit 5
Average Total Retail Rate Comparison—With Savings Targets
$0.240
$0.230
$0.220 .*
00
i
$0.210
$0.200 Po�
s
$0.190
$0.180
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
SCE Rate SCE Equivelant 100%Renewable by 2035 100%Renewable
The CCE rates calculated in this Study are for comparison purposes only. Under formal
operations, the CCE policymakers would determine the actual rates offered to its customers.
An analysis of existing, operational CCE rates in SCE territory is provided as a check against the
findings of the Study.
1.11.1 Comparison to Local CCE Programs Rates
Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, (CPA) launched in the LA County area in 2018 by first
serving non-residential customers. Currently CPA offers a 1%to 2%discount off SCE rates for its
default product (Lean Power) which is the SCE-Renewable Equivalent Portfolio, currently 36%
renewable energy. Their Clean Power product is offered at a 0%to 1% rate discount (compared
to the SCE-Renewable Portfolio base rate)for energy that is 50%renewable. Finally,Green Power
is 100% renewable and costs 8%to 9% more than SCE base rates.4 In February 2019, CPA began
serving 1 million residential customers. Ventura County, and certain cities within that County,
joined CPA in 2018 and launched service to their customers in 2019. Some cities within Ventura
County and LA County opted to have Green Power (100% renewable) as the default (or only
initial) offering to their customers. Customers could proactively opt back to the Lean or Clean
Power rates.
°https://cleanpoweraIliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/CPA-2019-Proposed-Residential-Rates.pdf
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 13
18
DRAFT
This Study estimates that the City's CCE could offer power portfolios with the same levels of
mandated renewable energy as SCE, at rates that are at least 2% lower than current SCE-
Renewable Portfolio. These estimates are consistent with what CPA has experienced and could
even become more favorable. Greater rate discounts could be achieved for the City CCE given
that the PCIA impacts to the City's CCE rates could be lower than the impacts to CPA's rates. The
City's CCE is more likely to enter into longer-term power supply contracts at lower rates than
what is available to CPA when they executed power contracts. More on power supply costs can
be found in the balance of this Study.
California Clean Choice Energy Authority(CalChoice),formerly California Choice Energy Authority,
was created by the Lancaster Clean Energy (LCE) CCE and the San Jacinto Power CCE. The City
of Lancaster and the City of San Jacinto joined forces to create CalChoice, a JPA designed to offer
cities that elect to become a CCE centralized services through CalChoice. CalChoice is governed
by the Lancaster City Council with each member city joining as an associate member of the
JPA. Each associate City Council would set rates for their City, purchase their energy and contract
their CCA services through existing CalChoice contracts. Current member CCEs include:
Lancaster Clean Energy, Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy(Prime), San Jacinto Power(SJP),
Apple Valley Choice Energy (AVCE), and Rancho Mirage Energy Authority (RMEA). Exhibit 6
illustrates their rates compared to SCE and confirms the Study's estimates that the City's CCE
rates can be lower than SCE's. All of these CCEs operate as individual city CCEs and all have much
smaller populations than the City of Irvine. These rates were taken from the websites of each
individual CCE. The variance in rates versus SCE, especially in the 100% renewable comparison is
likely explained as a combination of their power supply portfolios and individual CCE design of
their rates reflective of their perception of their ratepayer desires.
Exhibit 6
CalChoice Rates
Base Rate vs. SCE 100%Renewable vs. SCE
Lancaster Community Energy
Residential* 2.1% lower 1.3% lower
Commercial** 1.6%lower 1.7% lower
Pico Rivera(PRIME)
PRIME default rate is 50% renewable
Residential 2.6% lower 1.4% lower
Commercial 6.1% lower* 4.8% lower
San Jacinto Power
Residential* 1.3%lower 14.3% lower
Commercial** 1.4%lower 3.5% lower
Apple Valley Choice Energy
Residential* 1.4%lower 14.1% lower
Commercial** 1.4%lower 9.3% lower
Rancho Mirage Energy Authority 3.5%lower 13.3% lower
Residential* 1.4%lower 13.3% lower
Commercial** 3.5%lower 8.7% lower
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 14
19
DRAFT
Exhibit 6
CalChoice Rates
Base Rate vs.SCE 100%Renewable vs.SCE
*Domestic D Rate
**GS 1 TOU Rate
1.12 Economic and Environmental Impacts
1.12.1 Economic Development
The macroeconomic impacts anticipated from the 2% rate savings are estimated in the study.
Under the CCE's lower electric rates, residents and businesses can reallocate those savings for
other purposes increasing economic activity as predicted using standard economic modeling.The
average annual rate savings of $7.7 million is modeled in an Orange County economic model.
The total additional economic output for one year of rate savings is estimated at nearly $10
million. These figures include the value estimated for creating an additional 85 full time jobs each
year.
1.12.2 Environmental Impacts
Two of the power portfolios analyzed in the Study would lower GHG emissions for the City
compared with SCE's forecast resource mix. The SCE Renewable Equivalent Portfolio is not
expected to reduce GHG emissions compared with service from SCE; however, the CCE program
allows for more local control that could result in locally-focused or targeted programs to achieve
a greater level of environmental sustainability. As noted below, a City CCE has the potential to
create and fund local energy programs that would positively contribute to the overall
environmental benefit of the community. If the City pursued a renewable energy portfolio
greater than SCE, GHG reductions could amount to 360,000 metric tons of CO2e per year
compared with SCE's forecast portfolio.
1.12.3 Local Energy Programs
The financial analysis showed that a City CCE would be able to collect revenue in excess of costs
and reserve requirements that can be used for other programs. These programs could include
attractive compensation rates for excess energy purchased through net energy metering or feed-
in tariffs; funding for local renewable energy projects; investments in vehicle electrification such
as charging stations; or additional support for low income families through electric bill discounts
or energy efficiency programs.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 15
20
DRAFT
1.13 Sensitivity and Risk Analysis
In addition to the base case assumptions, uncertainties which could impact CCE rates were
evaluated under different best- and worst-case scenarios. Uncertainties analyzed included:
higher or lower PCIA costs, higher market power costs, and higher or lower loads served by the
CCE. Exhibit 7 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis; in most cases, the CCE could continue
to offer rate discounts under the scenarios described. Note that a negative rate discount means
that rates for the CCE would be higher than SCE rates. Also note that the CCE 100% Renewable
by 2035 and CCE 100% Renewable (all years), under the Base Assumptions, are equal to and 2%
higher, respectively than the SCE-Expected Renewable Portfolio due to offering a higher
renewable portfolio content.
If a high PCIA and high power costs are in place simultaneously, the CCE would no longer be
financially feasible due to rates that are higher than SCE. In the cases where high power costs
result in CCE rates greater than SCE rates, the impact could likely be mitigated by offsets in both
the PCIA and SCE generation rates due to SCE power costs likely increasing as well. Under this
scenario, the CCE needs to avoid making power supply decisions that would increase their costs
versus SCE's costs. There are several strategies the CCE may use to mitigate possible rate impacts
including flexibility in its power supply. For example, the City may adjust its renewable energy
goals to respond to potential changes in market conditions for renewable energy that would
lower the rate discount that can be offered.
CCE Rate Sensitivity
Exhibit 7
SCE-Equivalent 100%Renewable by
Renewable Portfolio 2035 100%Renewable
Rate Rate Rate
Sensitivity C/kWh Discount C/kWh Discount C/kWh Discount
Base Assumptions $0.22 2.00% $0.23 0.00% $0.23 -2.00%
High PCIA $0.23 -1.50% $0.23 -3.48% $0.24 -5.48%
Low PCIA $0.22 2.00% $0.23 0.54% $0.23 -1.46%
High Power Costs' $0.23 -2.96% $0.24 -6.13% $0.25 -8.25%
Low Load $0.22 2.00% $0.23 0.00% $0.23 -2.00%
High Load $0.22 2.00% $0.23 0.00% $0.23 -2.00%
'The CCE purchases power supply at costs higher than SCE.
1.14 Conclusions
Based on the analysis conducted in this Study, the following findings and conclusions are made:
■ The formation of a City CCE is financially feasible and could yield considerable benefits for all
participating residents and businesses.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 16
21
DRAFT
■ Benefits could include electric retail rates that are estimated at least 2%lower compared with
SCE rates, assuming participation rates for residential customers of 95% and non-residential
customers participation rates of 90%.
■ Other benefits include local control over power supply, economic development incentives,
and targeted energy efficiency programs.
■ CCE start-up costs could be fully recovered within the first three years of CCE operations while
still achieving a 2% rate discount. The cost of this Study and Implementation Plan can be
recovered as well.
■ After this cost recovery, revenues that exceed costs could be used to finance a rate
stabilization fund, new local renewable resources, customer incentive programs, economic
development projects and/or lower customer electric rates.
■ The sensitivity analysis shows that the ranges of prices for different market conditions will for
the most part not negatively impact CCE rates compared to SCE rates. Where negative
impacts may exist, those risks can be mitigated through planning, organization structure, and
preemptive strategies.
■ Local electric rate savings are expected to stimulate economic development within the City
and surrounding region.
The positive impacts on the City and its constituents of forming a CCE are documented in this
Study under a very conservative set of technical and financial assumptions. The Study includes a
sensitivity analysis around a range of values for these assumptions and concludes that no likely
combination of sensitivities would change the recommendation that CCE is financially feasible
based on the detailed analysis contained in the balance of this Study.
The Study results suggest that CCE implementation is feasible and should be considered further
by the City. Suggested next steps for the City include: complete an internal review of this Study,
conduct public outreach activities to share the results of the Study with City constituents and
other stakeholders and receive their input, adopt the Study results through Council action and
determine whether to move forward with CCE implementation.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 17
22
DRAFT
2. Study Methodology
2.1 Introduction
The Study assumes that a CCE would provide information, which would support analyses and
assessment of Citywide energy objectives under the forthcoming City Strategic Energy Plan. The
Study also addresses the following objectives:
■ Assess options for increasing the renewable energy content in the CCE power mix to exceed
the renewable energy baseline offered by SCE;
■ Quantify potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions throughout the City from
electricity consumption of higher amounts of renewable energy;
■ Provide competitive or lower rates compared to SCE's rates;
■ Provide local control and decision-making over renewable energy content and in retail
customer rate setting;
■ Provide choices to customers (residents and businesses) on amount of renewable energy
power supply options;
■ Assess the impacts to CCE operations and the local economy of supporting development of
local renewable power generation projects;
■ Assess the viability of developing and supporting CCE customer incentive programs like
energy efficiency and others.
While the City has not yet officially adopted these goals, they serve as the foundation for this
Study. Once the City's goals are refined, adopted, and prioritized; modifications to this Study
may be appropriate.
2.2 Pro Forma Analysis
This Study evaluates the estimated costs and resulting rates of operating a CCE for the City and
compares these rates to a SCE rate forecast for the years 2021 through 2030. This pro forma
financial analysis models the following cost components:
■ Current and Future Power Supply Costs:
• Wholesale purchases
• Renewable purchases
• Procurement of Resource Adequacy (RA) power products which meet power supplier
reliability requirements for California (System Capacity, and Local and Flexible Capacity
products)
• Other power supply and charges
■ Current and Future Non-Power Supply Costs:
• Start-up costs
• CCE staffing and administration costs
• Technical consulting support
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 18
23
DRAFT
• Legal and regulatory support
• SCE and regulatory charges
• Costs of acquiring and paying back financing
■ Allowable Specific Charges to CCEs from SCE:
• Transmission and distribution charges
• Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) Charge
The information above is used to determine the projected retail rates for the CCE. The CCE rates
are then compared to the SCE projected rates for the City's CCE service area. Detailed
descriptions of the assumptions and methodologies used in the cost analysis above are described
later in this Study. Later in the Study, elements of the Sensitivity Analysis were conducted to
determine CCE rates against SCE rates using high and low case scenarios for changed rate model
inputs. A description of how the CCE may mitigate outcomes of the Sensitivity Analysis are
provided. Once the analysis determined that the CCE was financially viable; assessments of
possible Citywide GHG reductions, local renewable power generation potential, and CCE-funded
customer incentive programs potential was conducted. In addition, a discussion of CCE
governance options is included. The remainder of this report describes these parts of the Study
elements.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 19
24
DRAFT
3. CCE Governance Options
3.1 Introduction
There are several options for governance and organizational staffing to be considered when
deciding to pursue a CCE program. Exhibit 9, shown later in this section, provides some context
for other CCE programs in California so the City can get a better understanding of the various
governance and organizational structures utilized. It is recommended that the City further discuss
the governance options to clearly understand all the pros and cons. If the City Council provides
direction to move forward with CCE implementation, this work will be conducted in Task 2.2 of
the Feasibility Study.
This Study evaluates the feasibility of operating a CCE as a single jurisdiction as this option is the
most conservative option from a cost standpoint, and it provides the greatest level of local
control. Other CCEs in the State operate with multiple jurisdictions under a JPA with as many as
30 or more members. Without evaluating specific options, it would be difficult to rank the JPA
options in terms of most or least viable.
If the City joins an existing JPA, the start-up activities are simpler as the organization is already
operating and programs such as net energy metering and energy efficiency have been developed.
However,the City would need to understand the requirements for joining the JPA,the operations
terms and conditions, and any potential liabilities of being a member of the JPA before joining
an existing CCE.
In order for EES to evaluate the City joining an existing JPA,the City would need to issue a Request
for Proposals to obtain information about joining currently operating CCEs and what is required
to join. Generally,JPAs will vary in their size of membership and geographic coverage while their
governance around operations are somewhat similar. Overall, CCEs that operate under a JPA
are viable because they benefit from economies of scale in procurement and operating costs.
3.2 CCE Governance Options
This section describes the various options the City may explore for implementing a CCE program.
The governance options range from individual/single-City CCEs to joining existing CCEs or creating
a new JPA. The following criteria are used to describe strengths and weaknesses of each
governance option: Financial Viability, Governance, Local Control, and Other Attributes. Risks
and Key Benefits are also discussed.
3.2.1 The City Forms an Individual CCE
■ Financial Viability: This is viable for the City as confirmed by the results of the Study. EES has
analyzed this option as the base case assumption in the financial pro forma results and
confirmed it is financially viable for Irvine to launch an individual CCE program. To launch an
individual CCE program,the City can expect to invest$600,000 to cover costs associated with
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 20
25
DRAFT
pre-launch activities including consultant support for program and rate design, payment of
bonds to SCE and CPUC, hiring staff, and meetings with SCE and other stakeholders.
■ Governance: A single City CCE creates less complicated governance. The City Council serves
as the Board authorizing CCE structure and programs.
■ Local Control: Decision-making is more locally focused. The City would make all decisions
regarding power portfolio content, retail rate designs, utilization of local generation,
implementation of customer programs,and marketing and outreach. Under a single City CCE,
the City alone would determine the overall CCE objectives around: City-wide environmental
objectives, cost of operations, customer rate discounts, local economic development, and
design of customer programs.
■ Risks: Operating a City CCE requires special care to protect the City's General Fund from CCE
obligations. Specifically, if the CCE signs power purchase agreements and then fails to deliver
power, the General Fund will be liable to pay for any costs of the agreement not recovered
in the sale of the power on the wholesale market. While opt out rates are a concern for
smaller CCEs, the Study has concluded that the City's population is large enough that a City
CCE is viable up to an opt out rate of at least 20%. This level of opt out has not been
experienced historically with most CCEs operating with opt out rates around 5%.
■ Key Benefits: Operating as a single jurisdiction CCE provides for the greatest level of local
control for both program offerings, power supply choices, and rate designs.
■ Other Attributes: Solana Beach, Pico Rivera, San Jacinto, and King City are examples of
smaller City CCEs that are similar in size to Irvine and operating independently; although Pico
Rivera and San Jacinto participate in the California Clean Choice Energy Authority(Cal Choice
- described below) to share non-power costs with other individual City CCEs. Under this
scenario the City would need to apply to the CPUC directly for energy efficiency funds rather
than being able to rely on the JPA and share the costs.
3.2.2 Irvine Forms a JPA with Other Orange County Jurisdictions Joining
■ Financial Viability: This option is financially viable. If other Orange County cities or the County
wanted to join Irvine's CCE, the multiple jurisdiction CCE would remain viable and non-power
costs per jurisdiction would be lower.
■ Governance: Under a JPA, likely each city/jurisdiction would be a voting board member.
Having limited board membership keeps governance nimble and local/regional focused. The
City would have control over the JPA voting structure to the extent that other jurisdictions
would accept an offer to join. Each participating city would need to adopt the JPA. This type
of structure is similar to Clean Power Alliance in LA and Ventura counties.
■ Local Control: If other cities have similar energy management or other goals, decisions
around the CCE's operations should be less complicated. With similar goals, decisions about
wholesale power portfolio, rate designs, local distributed generation, and customer clean
energy programs should be easier to make. Depending on the voting structure established
by the JPA, and the number of participating cities, the amount of local control for Irvine will
be reduced accordingly.
■ Risks: The same risks would apply to the Irvine JPA model as the individual CCE model
regarding opt out rates. Whether other jurisdictions would join will be based on alternatives.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 21
26
DRAFT
Alternatives for large enough cities would include the single jurisdiction model, or joining
other CCE programs. The alternatives will evolve in the future as CCE feasibility studies are
conducted and other jurisdictions establish JPAs.
■ Key Benefits: A JPA could provide financial protection of the City's general funds from CCE
obligations; the City's attorney would need to verify impacts and risk to the general fund.
Also,a JPA could apply to the CPUC for energy efficiency program funds on behalf of the cities.
Finally, a JPA can mitigate power supply risk as a larger pool of customers will help build
operating reserves and stabilize the CCE program when faced with regulatory changes or
market conditions.
■ Other Attributes: A JPA like this is ideal for allowing other Orange County cities (or the
County) that don't create their own CCEs to join. Consideration of consistent goals, local
programs and operations design should be included as criteria for others who want to join.
Operational savings on non-power supply costs (administration, legal, regulatory, and other
services) would likely occur as more customers are added to the CCE program.
3.2.3 The City Joins Another CCE
■ Financial Viability: This option is financially viable and would benefit the net revenue margins
for the larger CCE organization under the assumption that economies of scale would be
realized, particularly for non-power costs. The City is likely large enough that joining a larger
CCE organization would not significantly impact power purchase costs for energy delivered
to City rate payers. It is not possible to determine the exact financial impacts of joining
another CCE as they are all of different load and customer sizes and different tenures of
operation. In addition, the existing CCEs may require new members to contribute a fee to
offset any loans that may have been utilized for start-up and initial operations. These impacts
can be determined through a formal inquiry to CCEs at a later date.
■ Governance: This option requires the City adopt a resolution tojoin a JPA. Governance would
be more complicated, especially if the City joins a CCE JPA with many members. However,
there are CCEs that operate with many members across contiguous and non-contiguous
borders despite having large governing boards (e.g. Clean Power Alliance of Southern CA,
Marin Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power).
■ Local Control: Local decision-making on operations (power portfolio contents, rates, local
generation, customer programs) would be diminished, especially under a CCE JPA with many
members (e.g., 20-30 or more).
■ Risks: Governing Boards of these types of JPAs must approve operations policies and program
decisions that could apply across differing community demographics. Financial and other
risks to the City of joining an existing CCE should be determined by the City's attorneys. For
example, if the City joins an operating CCE, they may be liable for contractual obligations
should they decide later to leave the CCE.
■ Key Benefits: A JPA might provide financial protection of city general funds from CCE
obligations, but this should be confirmed by the City's attorneys. Economies of scale would
apply for non-power supply costs in this scenario as well but as mentioned above they would
be impossible to predict absent a formal inquiry to the CCE.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 22
27
DRAFT
■ Other Attributes: Net revenue margins for the organization benefit from large memberships.
How those revenues are utilized to benefit members must be determined by many cities,
likely with differing local goals regarding CCE operations. A larger JPA of CCEs could apply for
larger amounts of energy efficiency funds (because of population/load), but the design of the
programs becomes more complicated if local/city desires are to be individually addressed.
3.2.4 Irvine Joins a JPA of Individual CCEs or Creates an Orange County Region JPA of
Individual CCEs
■ Financial Viability: This option is financially viable.
■ Governance: Under this option, individual cities need to adopt resolutions to become a CCE.
For example, the California Clean Choice Energy Authority (CalChoice) is a JPA of individual
city CCEs (currently members are Lancaster, Pico Rivera, San Jacinto, and Rancho Mirage and
Apple Valley—they have 6 other cities in process of joining them including cities in Los Angeles
and Tulare Counties). The City could also create a CleanChoice-type JPA for Orange County-
region CCEs and provide similar, centralized services and benefits.
■ Local Control: CCEs that join Clean Choice CCEA (or create a similar, Orange County-region
organization) retain local decision-making control over CCE operations (power portfolio mix,
rates, local generation and programs)and will see net revenue benefits by sharing centralized
services. However, the details of how these shared services are utilized and paid for need to
be confirmed (in the case of Clean Choice) and developed (in the case of an Orange County-
region effort).
■ Risks: Each CCE member of this type of organization takes on the same risks as described
above for the City-only CCE option.
■ Key Benefits: This option provides centralized services such as: power procurement, power
scheduling and dispatching, bill data management and regulatory/legal services. Each CCE
city is a voting member of the CCE board but since each city is its own CCE, decisions on CCE
operations are made by each CCE.
■ Other Attributes: Creating an Orange County-region JPA of CCEs makes it easier for Orange
County cities (and the County) to become a CCE in that acquiring start-up and operational
services support would already be established under the JPA. A JPA provides financial
protection of cities general funds from CCE obligations that should be confirmed by City's
attorneys. Each city CCE in the JPA could apply for energy efficiency funding at the CPUC.
Currently there is an effort in Orange County by Sustain SoCal to implement a JPA of
neighboring jurisdictions including Orange County and its cities. The Sustain SoCal CCE
program would provide for groups of cities to determine the financial feasibility of creating a
CCE.
Exhibit 8 summarizes the estimated start-up costs the City may need to fund upfront (prior to
financing the start-up costs) for each governance option. Once the program has launched, the
City could recover these initial funds.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 23
28
DRAFT
Exhibit 8
Pre-Launch City-Funding Estimates by Governance Option
Estimated Pre-Launch
Funds from City Examples
1. City-Only CCE $600,000 CPUC bond: $100,000
SCE Bond: $100,000
Staffing/Consultant Costs for rate design,
financial analysis, obtain funding
2. Irvine Creates JPA with < $600,000 Less than City-only estimate assuming
Other Jurisdictions Joining other jurisdictions share in pre-launch
costs
3. Join Existing CCE $0-?? Clean Power Alliance offered $0 joining
fee during roll-out. Need to request
information to obtain cost estimates.
4. Joins with Other < $600,000 Less than City-only estimate assuming
Jurisdictions to Form JPA other jurisdictions share in pre-launch
costs
3.3 CCE Organizational Staffing Options
If the City operates as a single jurisdiction CCE,there are several staffing options available. These
costs are recovered through the CCE retail rates. One option is to operate the CCE with minimal
staff, such as a General Manager, Power Supply Manager and a Customer Service Manager, to
oversee consultants that would perform all necessary operations tasks. Another option is to
minimize the use of outside consultants and hire enough staff in-house to manage all necessary
tasks. Most operating CCEs have started with minimal staffing and then transitioned over time
to additional staff in-house. A third option is to have an independent third-party completely
operate the CCE.
For this Study, it is assumed that the CCE would begin with limited staff supported by consultants
experienced in power procurement, data management and utility operations. If the City decides
to transition some administrative and operational responsibilities to internally staffed positions,
the CCE could reach a full-time staff of approximately 10 employees to perform its responsibilities
primarily related to program and contract management, legal and regulatory, finance and
accounting, energy efficiency, marketing and customer service. The staff size level is based on
similarly sized CCEs currently operating. Technical functions associated with managing and
scheduling power suppliers and those related to retail customer billings would likely still be
performed by an experienced third-party consultant.
3.4 CCE Programs in California
Exhibit 9 below summarizes current and pending CCE programs in the State. Several neighboring
jurisdictions to the City are either currently operating or are conducting feasibility studies, or plan
to conduct feasibility studies for CCE implementation. The City could partner with other
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 24
29
DRAFT
jurisdictions to form a larger CCE and spread out administrative costs. As mentioned above,the
trade-off will be regarding local control depending on what type of partner the City finds would
best suit its goals.
Organization structures and financial positions are broadly defined in Exhibit 9. Most CCEs
operate utilizing in-house staff. Staffing levels vary widely and all CCEs utilize consultants to some
extent.
Exhibit 9
CCE Programs Across the State
latest
Financial
CCE/Entity Status Net Position'
PG&E Community Choice Programs
Multiple Jurisdictions That Are Part of a Single,
CCE Joint Power Authority(JPA)*
Marin Clean Marin and Napa Counties and cities within,cities Launched $50MM
Energy in Solano and Contra Costa Counties 2010 Baa2 Credit
Rating
Sonoma Clean Sonoma and Mendocino Counties and cities Launched $90 MM
Power within 2014
Peninsula Clean San Mateo County and cities within Launched $85 MM
Energy 2016 Baa2 Credit
Rating
Silicon Valley Santa Clara County and cities within (except San Launched $78 MM
Clean Energy Jose) 2017
Pioneer Clean Placer County and cities within Launched N/Az
Energy 2018
Monterey Bay Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties Launched $40MM
Community and cities within, cities of San Luis Obispo and 2018
Power Morro Bay
East Bay Alameda County and cities within Launched N/A
Community 2018
Energy
Valley Clean Yolo County,Cities of Davis and Woodland Launched $2.5 MM
Energy 1 2018
* all these CCEs are seeking expansion with other jurisdictions
Multiple Jurisdictions That are Part of a Single CCE Under a
Previously Existing JPA
Redwood Coast Humboldt County and cities within Launched $1.1 MM
Energy Authority 2017
Single Jurisdiction CCEs That Are Operated Under Their Local
Government
San Francisco City/County of San Francisco (SF Public Utilities Launched N/A(part of
Clean Energy Commission) 1 2017 SFPUC)
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 25
30
DRAFT
Exhibit 9
CCE Programs Across the State
Latest
Financial
CCE/Entity Status Net Position'
San Jose Clean City of San Jose Launched ($1.1 MM)
Energy 2018 partial year
operation
King City City of King City Launched N/A
Community 2018
Power
CCEs In Formation, Under Development
Butte County Butte County, other cities being approached Feasibility
Community Study
Choice Completed
SCE Community Choice Programs
Multiple Jurisdictions That are Part of a Single, CCE Joint Power
Authority(JPA)**
Clean Power Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and cities Launched ($2.6 MM)
Alliance of within 2018 partial year
Southern operation
California
Single Jurisdiction CCEs Operated by Local Governments and Under a
Joint Powers Authority for Shared Services**
Lancaster Clean City of Lancaster, Member of California Choice Launched in $2.5 MM
Energy Energy Authority(CalChoice) 2015
Apple Valley City of Apple Valley, Member of CalChoice Launched N/A
Clean Energy 2017
Pico Rivera City of Pico Rivera, Member of CalChoice Launched 0.45 MM
Innovative 2017
Municipal Energy
San Jacinto Power City of San Jacinto, Member of CalChoice Launched N/A
2018
Rancho Mirage City of Rancho Mirage, Member of CalChoice Launched2018 $0.76 MM
Energy Authority
**CPA and CalChoice are seeking expansion with other jurisdictions
CCEs in Formation, Under Development
Desert Coachella Valley Association of Governments Launching
Community cities 2019
Energy
Western Western Riverside Council of Governments cities Launching
Community 2020
Energy
Hanford City of Hanford Feasibility
Community Study
Choice Underway
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 26
31
DRAFT
Exhibit 9
CCE Programs Across the State
Latest
Financial
CCE/Entity Status Net Position'
Santa Barbara County, cities of Santa Barbara, Feasibility
Goleta, Carpinteria Study
Completed
Cities of Long Beach, Pomona, Baldwin Park, Feasibility
Commerce, Mission Viejo Studies
Underway
Riverside County,Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods Feasibility
Study
Completed
Huntington Beach, Forest Hills RFP Issued—
No Award
Multiple City Feasibility Study Proposal
Sustain Southern Seeking cities in Orange and San Diego Counties Awaiting
California CCE for Feasibility Study Cities
Program Enrollment to
Begin
Feasibility
Study
SDG&E Community Choice Programs
Single Jurisdiction CCE Operated by Local Government***
Solana Energy City of Solana Beach Launched $1.2 MM
Alliance 2018
CCEs in Formation,Under Development***
City of San Diego Feasibility
Study
completed
Cities of Encinitas, Oceanside,Carlsbad, Del Mar Joint
Feasibility
Study
Completed
Cities of La Mesa,Chula Vista,and Santee Feasibility
Study
Underway
'Regional discussions are underway regarding formation of a JPA
1 Reflects mid or end of 2018. Note that for newer CCEs,their financial position can change significantly month to month based
on power supply costs.
2 N/A indicates not available
3.5 Recommendation
If the City moves forward with CCE implementation, it should further investigate each of the
governance and staffing options. A detailed assessment of the options for joining existing
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 27
32
DRAFT
organizations or developing new, local/regional organizations should be developed as outlined
in Task 2.2 of the CCE Study, should City Council decide to move forward with CCE
implementation. In order to evaluate a City initiated JPA that includes additional cities, the
feasibility analysis would be expanded to include additional data obtained from SCE for
interested cities. Similarly, the City could solicit information from existing CCE organizations
regarding costs and other requirements for joining these organizations. That information should
then be compared to potential costs and requirements of creating a new, local/regional CCE
organization. If joining another CCE is the preferred option for the City, a request for proposal
(RFP) should be issued to each potential existing CCE to define the terms of joining an existing
CCE.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 28
33
DRAFT
4. Load Requirements
4.1 Introduction
One indicator of the viability of a CCE is the number of customers that participate in the CCE as
well as the quantity and timing of energy these customers consume. This section of the Study
provides an overview of these projected values and the methodology used to estimate them.
This section also describes Direct Access customers and the feasibility of the CCE program
without providing service to these customers.
4.2 Historical Consumption
SCE provided hourly historical data on energy use (kWh) for City customers receiving power
supply services from SCE (bundled customers) for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Bundled
customers currently purchase the electric power, transmission and distribution from SCE. This
data was aggregated by rate class in each month for bundled (full service) customers. In total,
bundled residents and businesses within the City purchased 1,975 GWh of electricity in 2016
from SCE.
Exhibit 10 summarizes energy consumption and number of accounts for bundled customers in
2016.
Exhibit 10
Bundled Load and Accounts in 2016
Customers
2,500 120AW
2AW 115AW
� los,oW
loom
S00 95,oW
Lad 90,000 Cow*
■Agriallval 17 ■A@6MtMra1 62
large Comrwdal/Indu0al 793 a Large Commerdal/Industrial 381
smag/Medium(ommeroai 597 •small/Medium(omme,dal 13,732
39 1,769
• _ ;2F a
Direct Access (DA) customers buy only the transmission and distribution service from SCE and
purchase power from an independent and competitive Electric Service Provider (ESP). SCE also
provided energy usage for DA customers. Once operating,the CCE may decide to provide service
options to DA customers with expired contracts, however, excluding DA customers offers the
most conservative analysis of feasibility. After the formation of a CCE, Direct Access customers
typically opt to continue to receive power under contract from their ESP due to contracting
limitations and/or lower cost power, for this reason DA customers were not included in the load
forecast.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 29
34
DRAFT
In California, eligibility for DA enrollment is currently limited to non-residential customers and
subject to a maximum allowable annual limit for new enrollment measured in gigawatt-hours of
new load and managed through an annual lottery.'
CPUC rulemaking to date has not addressed how vintage would be handled for DA customers
that opt to switch to receive electric power from a CCE rather than their current ESP.6
Monthly historic load from 2016 is shown in Exhibit 11. Understanding the timing around when
energy is consumed by customers is important because the time of power usage impacts the cost
and thus the generation rates. As shown in the graphic, the majority of the energy consumed in
Irvine is by commercial and industrial customers, with peak use in the summer months.
Exhibit 11
2016 Monthly Aggregated Load
250
200
150
x
3
c� -
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
■Residential Lighting Small/Medium Commercial Large Commercial/Industrial a Agricultural
4.3 CCE Participation and Opt-Out Rates
A CCE program is an opt-out program where eligible electric customers are enrolled automatically
unless they elect to opt out. This Study anticipates an overall customer participation rate of 94%
across all accounts. For residential accounts, it is assumed that approximately 95%of customers
would remain with the CCE. For commercial and industrial accounts, the opt-out rate is 10%
s S.B.286(CA,2015-2016 Reg. Sess.)
6 The most recent ruling on PCIA vintaging was issued on 10/5/2016:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published Docs/Published/G000/Ml67/K744/167744142.PDF.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 30
35
DRAFT
which adjusts historic opt-out rates for the new cap on direct access.' These opt-out assumptions
are conservative and based on participation rates in other CCEs; however, this Study's sensitivity
analysis tested CCE feasibility under higher opt-out scenarios. Operating CCEs in California have
experienced overall participation rates ranging from 83%(Marin Clean Energy)to 98%(Peninsula
Clean Energy). For recent CCEs, 90 to 97%of all potential customers have stayed with their CCE.8
Before customers are served by a CCE, they receive two notices with their monthly energy bills,
60 days and 30 days before the CCE's launch, and notices 30 days and 60 days after the CCE
launches. These notices provide information customers need to understand the terms and
conditions of service from the CCE and explain how customers can opt-out, if desired. Notices
typically provide a rate comparison between the CCE and the IOU. All customers that do not
follow the opt-out process specified in the customer notices prior to launch would be
automatically enrolled into the CCE.9
As such, the CCE would provide a minimum of four opt-out notices to customers to notify and
educate them about the CCE's product offerings and their option to opt-out. Customers
automatically enrolled would continue to have their electric meters read and billed for electric
service by SCE. The CCE bills processed by SCE would show separate charges for power supply
procured by the CCE, along with all other charges related to delivery of the electricity by SCE and
other utility charges that would continue to be assessed.
4.4 Conceptual CCE Launch Phasing
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently issued Resolution 4723,which requires
new CCEs to file their Implementation Plan by January 1 of any year, resulting in the earliest
possible CCE launch date of January 1 the following year. This new requirement, and the timing
of this feasibility Study means that the City's CCE launch could begin in 2021. Additionally, SCE is
planning to update its Customer Information System in the first half of 2020. If there are delays
in SCE's program updates, it could delay launch of a City CCE since SCE will not enroll customers
into new CCE programs while the update is taking place.
This Study reviewed phasing options for when to enroll and serve various customer classes within
the City based on factors such as load consumption patterns and seasonal market power pricing
and concluded that a phased approach is not necessary given the size of the potential City CCE.
Opt-out rates were increased to account for a 16%increase in the amount of non-residential load that is allowed
to move to direct access schedules. California Senate Bill 237: September 20, 2018.
https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=20172018OSB237
8 Average opt-out rate determined based on published number of customers and opt-out rates of Marin Clean
Energy, Peninsula Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, Apple Valley Clean Energy, and Lancaster as found at the
following document http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20170818/apple-valley-choice-energv-prompts-
thousands-of-customer-calls. Published 8/18/2017;accessed 2/15/2018.
9 Typically,this doesn't apply to DA customers as the CCE would assume that these customers are not interested in
being served by the CCE unless otherwise confirmed prior to launching service.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 31
36
DRAFT
When CCEs were first launching, IOUs could move only a limited number of customers to CCE
service each month. Because of these data limitations, CCEs initially launched in phases.
However, as more CCE programs have been launched, IOUs have updated their systems to handle
larger enrollments. The largest CCE program, Clean Power Alliance (CPA),which started in Los
Angeles County, has launched in three phases due to the number of customers numbering in the
millions. Other CCEs such as Western Community Energy and Desert Community Energy have
customer counts in the hundred thousands and are planning launches in a single phase. Given
the number of electric accounts within the City,the Study assumes that service would be offered
to all customers by April 2021 in one phase, as noted in Exhibit 12.
Exhibit 12
First Year CCE Load,Customers,and Revenue
Normalized
Total Annual
Average Retail Peak Operating
Assumed Customer Load Year Demand Revenues to
Start Eligibility Accounts (GWh) (MW) the CCE
All
Apr-21 Customers 114,107 1,465 346 $116 million
This strategy would enable the City CCE to provide service to all customers as soon as possible.
The number of customers and projected total load is similar to the number of customers enrolled
by other CCEs launching in a single phase.10
4.5 Forecast Consumption and Customers
The number of customers enrolled in the City CCE, and the retail energy they consume, are
assumed to increase at 0.63% per year. This forecast is selected as the midpoint based on the
California Energy Commission's (CEC) mid-demand baseline forecasts for SCE service territory.11
Peak demands are calculated using hourly consumption data provided by SCE. The forecast of
load served by the CCE over the next five years is shown in Exhibit 13. The forecast of GWh sales
in Exhibit 13 reflects the single-phase roll-out and customer enrollment schedule discussed
previously. Because there are line losses between the point where the City CCE would purchase
wholesale energy and the total energy used by the retail customer, the City CCE would need to
purchase more energy than it would sell. Annual wholesale energy requirements, after
accounting for losses,12 are shown below in the last column of Exhibit 14.
to For example,Silicon Valley Clean Energy enrolled 180,000 residential customers and Monterey Bay Clean Energy
enrolled 235,000 residential customers at one time.
11 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017_energypolicy/documents/
11 Line losses are energy waste resulting from the transmission of energy across power lines.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 32
37
DRAFT
Exhibit 13
Projected Load by Class
2,500
2,000
x
1,500
T
a` 1,000
C
W
500
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
■Residential Lighting
Small/Medium Commercial Large Commercial/Industrial
Agricultural
Exhibit 14
CCE Projected Requirements(GWh)
Total Wholesale Energy
Year Total Retail Sales LosseS13 Requirement
2021 1,465 82 1,547
2022 1,911 107 2,018
2023 1,923 108 2,030
2024 1,935 108 2,043
2025 1,947 109 2,056
2026 1,959 110 2,068
2027 1,971 110 2,081
2028 1,983 111 2,094
2029 1,996 112 2,107
2030 2,008 112 2,120
13 Transmission and Distribution power losses were estimated at 6.6%based on the California Energy Commission's
Public Electricity and Natural Gas Demand Forecast published 4/20/2015 at
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-IEPR-03/TN204261-
9_20150420T154646_Pac ific_Gas_and_Electric_Compa ny's_Notes_re_2015_I E P R_Dema nd_Fo.pdf.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 33
38
DRAFT
5. Power Supply Strategy and Costs
5.1 Introduction
This section of the Study discusses the City CCE's resource strategy, projected power supply costs,
and resource portfolios based on the City CCE's projected loads.
Long-term resource planning involves load forecasting and supply planning on a 10- to 20-year
time horizon. Prior to launch, the City's CCE planners would develop integrated resource plans
that meet their supply objectives and balance cost, risk, and environmental considerations.
Integrated resource planning also considers demand side energy efficiency, demand response
programs, and non-renewable supply options. The City's CCE would require staff or a consultant
to oversee planning even if the day-to-day supply operations are contracted to third parties. This
staff or consultant would ensure that local preferences regarding the future composition of
supply and demand side resources are planned for, developed, and implemented.
5.2 Resource Strategy
This Study assumes that the City CCE would be interested in minimizing overall community
energy bills, achieving GHG emissions reductions, stimulating local economic development, and
meeting or exceeding the State's renewable energy requirements. The City CCE can likely achieve
these goals within 5 years by taking advantage of relatively low wholesale market prices and
abundant GHG-free energy. For reference, Exhibit 15 summarizes the power content products
offered by existing CCEs. Forecast power content information is not available.
Exhibit 15
CCE Program Pr.. Offerings
IOU service
CCE Program Product Offerings Area
Clean Power Alliance Lean Power: 36% Renewable SCE
Clean Power: 50%Renewable
100%Green Power: 100%Renewable
Desert Community Energy Desert Saver: 35% Renewable, 50%Carbon Free SCE
(Not yet launched) Carbon Free: 100%Carbon free
Monterey Bay Community Power MB Choice: RPS minimum PG&E
MB Prime: 100% Renewable
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Greenstart: 50% Renewable, 100%Carbon Free PG&E
Green Prime: 100% Renewable
Apple Valley Choice Energy CoreChoice: 35% Renewable SCE
MoreChoice: 50%Renewable
Rancho Mirage Energy Authority Base Choice: 35% Renewable, 50%Carbon Free SCE
Premium Renewable Choice: 100% Renewable
East Bay Community Energy Bright Choice: 38% Renewable 85%Carbon Free PG&E
Brilliant 100: 40%Renewable, 100%Carbon Free
Renewable 100: 100% Renewable
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 34
39
DRAFT
ProductExhibit 15
CCE Program Offerings
IOU Service
CCE Program Product Offerings Area
Pioneer Community Energy Default product only PG&E
Sonoma Clean Power CleanStart:45% Renewable, 87%Carbon Free PG&E
EverGreen: 100% Local Renewable
Marin Clean Energy Light Green:50% Renewable PG&E
Deep Green: 100% Renewable
Local Sol: 100% local solar energy
Solana Energy Alliance SEA Choice: 50% Renewable, 75%Carbon Free SDG&E
SEA Green: 100% Renewable
As discussed in greater detail below, the City CCE's electric portfolio would be guided by the City
CCE's policymakers with input from its scheduling coordinator and other power supply experts.
The scheduling coordinator would obtain sufficient resources each hour to serve all the City CCE
customer loads. The City CCE policymakers would guide the power supply acquisition philosophy
to achieve the City CCE's policy objectives.
5.3 Projected Power Supply Costs
This Study presents the costs of renewable and non-renewable generating resources as well as
power purchase agreements based on current and forecast wholesale market conditions,
recently transacted power supply contracts, and a review of the applicable regulatory
requirements. In summary, the City CCE would need to procure market purchases, renewable
purchases, ancillary services, resource adequacy, and power management/schedule coordinator
services. The Study determines the base case assumption for each of these cost categories as
well as establishing a high and low range for each to be used for the risk analysis later in the
Study.
5.3.1 Market Purchases
Market prices for Southern California (referred to as SCE prices) were provided by EES'
subscription to a market price forecasting service,S&P Global. Exhibit 16 shows forecast monthly
southern California wholesale electric market prices. The levelized value of market purchase
prices over the 10-year study period is $0.0407/kWh (in 2019 dollars) assuming a 4% discount
rate.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 35
40
DRAFT
Exhibit 16
Forecast Southern California Wholesale Market Prices—Nonrenewable Energy
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.0s
Y
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
.r 'r fN N m m V Ln Ln W �O r� 00 00 m rn o o N M M v Ln Ln W W r, r, 00 M m
N N rV N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M m M M M M M m M m M M M M
j ro U ` y o, ocL f Q O c c Oo u - d a > c c to > V = -D d
a o o . a z a o g o n a z Q g o o LL n
Wholesale market power prices have been used to calculate balancing market purchases and
sales. When the City CCE's loads are greater than its resource capabilities, the City CCE's
scheduling coordinator would schedule balancing purchases. When the City CCE's loads are less
than its resource capabilities, the City CCE's scheduling coordinator would transact balancing
sales and the City CCE would receive market sales revenue. Balancing market purchases and
sales can be transacted on a monthly, daily and hourly basis.
5.3.2 Renewable Energy
The wholesale market prices shown above in Exhibit 16 are for non-renewable power (i.e., this
product does not come with any renewable attributes). The cost of renewable resources varies
greatly. Wind and solar levelized project costs vary from $0.030 to $0.060/kWh. Geothermal
project costs can vary from $0.070 to$0.100/kWh. While geothermal projects have higher costs,
they also have higher capacity factors than wind and solar projects and, as such, can bring
additional value to the City CCE as baseload resources. Geothermal resources also bring value
from a resource adequacy perspective since they can provide capacity benefits. The availability
of off-shore wind and ocean power in the marketplace is minimal, so these resources were not
included in this assessment of renewable energy market prices.
This Study assumes, in the base case, that long-term renewable contracts are available starting
in 2021 and are priced at $0.035/kWh. This price is lower than non-renewable prices; however,
it is representative of the prices CCEs are currently obtaining for long term renewable PPAs. This
long-term price is only available for 65% of the RPS targets in 2021 growing to 75% of target by
2030. At a minimum, the CCE is required to purchase 65%of its renewable energy requirement
via long-term contracts lasting at least 10 years. Renewable energy above the requirement is
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 36
41
DRAFT
priced at$0.055/kWh to represent a blend of short-term and long-term wind and solar resource
contracts. This pricing is based on a survey of renewable resources currently in operation and
new projects coming on-line. It is assumed that renewable energy contract prices will be stable
for the 10-year Study period to balance the influence of two trends. First, renewable energy
prices are being driven down by the rapidly declining cost of solar and wind projects. This trend
has persisted over the past several years and is expected to continue over the 5tudy's forecast
period. However,this trend is expected to be balanced out by the impact of increasing statewide
demand for renewables due to California's renewable portfolio standards(RPS) laws and changes
in Federal tax laws. These assumptions regarding renewable energy prices have been
independently confirmed by current market trends in southern California.
RPS compliance requirements for all load serving entities, including CCEs, are 33% in 2020, with
interim goals until the requirement reaches 60%in 2030.At a minimum,comparability with SCE's
renewable energy procurement plan is recommended. To provide information about the cost
difference between renewable resource portfolios, this Study analyzes the following 3 portfolios:
1) SCE Equivalent Renewable Portfolio — Renewable energy equal to SCE's projected portfolio
meeting the RPS requirement of 60% by 2030. SCE's renewable share was 32% in 2017. At
launch in 2021, SCE' renewable share will be between 33% and 44%. Greenhouse gas free
resources will also be consistent with the projected SCE portfolio. In 2017, SCE's GHG free
share was 46% including 32% renewable, 8% large hydro, and 6% nuclear."
2) 100%Renewable by 2035—50%retail loads served with RPS-qualifying renewable resources
at launch in 2021 increasing steadily to 80% by 2025, 90% by 2030, then 100% by 2035 and
afterward.
3) 100% Renewable — 100%of retail loads are served with RPS-qualifying renewable resources
in all years.
The resource portfolios will be discussed in greater detail in the "Resource Portfolios" section
below. It should be noted that the City CCE policymakers may opt for other resource portfolios
but those selected above should give the City a sound basis for evaluating other resource
portfolio options. The renewable energy targets of the three portfolios included in the power
cost model, plus the RPS target scenario, are shown below in Exhibit 17.
Important to note there are differences between renewable energy and GHG free energy that
will be discussed in the Resource Portfolio section below. The CCE would need to procure 100%
GHG free energy by 2045 in order to meet California's goals (SB 100).
14 Southern California Edison. 2017 Power Content Label. Version July 2018.
https://wwwl.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/6ee4O264-673a-45ee-b79a-
5a6350ed4a50/2017PCL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 37
42
DRAFT
Exhibit 17
Renewable Energy Purchase Scenarios Compared to RPS RequirementS15Like
120%
100%
80%
60%
40% `
20%
0%
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
SCE Equivalent 100%Renewable by 203S 100%Renewable RPS Target
5.3.3 Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)
California load serving entities (LSE), including CCEs, must purchase bundled energy and/or
renewable energy credits (RECs) that meet certain eligibility requirements across three Portfolio
Content Categories (PCC) or buckets. Each of the buckets represents a different type of
renewable product that can be used to meet up to a specific percent of the total procurement
obligation during a compliance period. The permitted percentage shares of each bucket type
changes over time. The three buckets and the type of energy included in each bucket can be
summarized as follows:
■ Bucket 1: Bundled renewable resources and RECs — either from resources located in
California or out-of-state renewable resources that can meet strict scheduling requirements
ensuring deliverability to a California Balancing Authority (CBA);
1s http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published Docs/Efile/G000/Ml58/K845/158845742.PDF
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 38
43
DRAFT
■ Bucket 2: Renewable resources that cannot be delivered into a CBA without some
substitution from non-renewable resources.16 This process of substitution is referred to as
"firming and shaping" the energy. The firmed and shaped energy is bundled with RECs.
■ Bucket 3: Unbundled RECs, which are sold separately from the electric energy.17
Under the current guidelines, the number of RECs that can be procured through Buckets 2 and 3
is limited and decreases over time. SBX1 2 (April 2011) established a 33% RPS requirement for
2020 with certain procurement targets prior to 2020. SB350 (October 2015) increased the RPS
requirement to 50% by 2030. SB 100 (September 2018) increased the target to 60% renewable
by 2030.The share of renewable power that can be sourced from Bucket 2 or 3 energy after 2020
is expected to be the same as the 2020 required share of total RPS procurement.18
Purchasing unbundled RECs from existing renewable resources does not increase the number of
renewable projects in the State. In addition, the REC market is not as liquid as it once was. For
these reasons, this Study does not rely on unbundled REC purchases to meet renewable energy
purchase requirements under the RPS.
However, in practice, small quantities of unbundled RECs may be used to balance the CCE's
annual renewable energy purchase targets with the output from renewable resources. Due to
the variable size and shape of the renewable energy purchases, the annual modeled renewable
energy purchases do not typically match up perfectly with annual renewable energy purchase
targets. In some years there are small REC surpluses, and, in others, there are small REC deficits.
These surpluses and deficits can be balanced out using small unbundled REC purchases and sales.
This methodology was used to simplify the modeling. Small REC surpluses and deficits would
most likely be handled by banking RECs between years. For the Base Case, unbundled REC prices
are assumed to increase from $18.00/REC in 2021 to $22.78 in 2030 (2.4%annual escalation).
5.3.4 Ancillary Service Costs
The CCE would pay the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) for transmission
congestion and ancillary services. Transmission congestion occurs when there is insufficient
"This may occur if a California entity purchases a contract for renewable power from an out of state resource.When
that resource cannot fulfill the contract, due to wind or sun intermittency for example, the missing power is
compensated with non-renewable resources.
17 For example, a small business with a solar panel has no RPS compliance obligation, so they use the power from
the solar panel, but do not "retire"the REC generated by the solar panel.They can then sell the REC, even though
they are not selling the energy associated with it.
"California Public Utilities Commission Final Decision, 12/20/2016,accessed at:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published Docs/Published/G000/Ml7l/K457/171457580.PDF,on 1/19/2017. 75%of the
RPS procurement must be Bucket 1 resources and less than 10%of the RPS procurement can come from Bucket 3
resources.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 39
44
DRAFT
capacity to meet the demands of all transmission customers. Congestion is managed by the
CAISO by charging congestion charges in the day-ahead and real-time markets. The Grid
Management Charge (GMC) is the vehicle through which the CAISO recovers its administrative
and capital costs from the entities that utilize the CAISO's services.
In addition, ancillary services are the services necessary to support the transmission of electric
power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities
within those control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission
system. Because generation is delivered as it is produced and, particularly with respect to
renewables, can be intermittent,deliveries need to be firmed using ancillary services to meet the
CCE's load requirements. Ancillary services and products need to be purchased from the CAISO
based on the CCE's total load requirement. Based on a survey of transmission congestion and
ancillary service costs currently paid by CAISO participants, the CCE Base Case ancillary service
costs are estimated to be approximately$.0036/kWh, escalating by 20%through 2026 and then
at 5% annually for the remainder of the study period. Ancillary service costs are expected to
increase significantly as California works toward the RPS requirements over the next 10 years.
5.3.5 Resource Adequacy
In addition to purchasing power, the City CCE would also need to demonstrate it has enough
physical power supply capacity to meet its projected peak demand plus a 15% planning reserve
margin. This requirement is in accordance with Resource Adequacy (RA) regulations
administered by the CPUC, CAISO and the CEC. In addition, the CCE must meet the local and
flexible resource adequacy requirements set by the CPUC, CAISO and CEC every year.
The CPUC undertakes annual policy changes to the RA program, so these requirements may
change by the time program launch occurs. Different types of resources have different capacity
values for RA compliance purposes, and those values can change by month. Moreover, recent
rule changes have reduced the RA values for wind and solar resources as more of these
technologies are added to the system. As such, other types of renewables, including geothermal
and biomass,could have an overall better value in the portfolio compared to relying on RA solely
from gas-fired resources.
The CPUC's RA standards applicable to a CCE require several procurement targets. CCEs must
secure the following three types of capacity and make it available to the CAISO:
■ System capacity is capacity from a resource that is qualified for use in meeting system peak
demand and planning reserve margin requirements;
■ Local capacity is from a resource located within a Local Capacity Area capable of contributing
to the local capacity requirement; and
■ Flexible capacity is capacity from a resource that is operationally able to respond to dispatch
instructions to manage variations in load and variable energy resource output.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 40
45
DRAFT
5.3.6 Power Management/Scheduling Coordinator
Given the likely complexity of the City CCE's resource portfolio, the City CCE would want to
engage an experienced scheduling coordinator to efficiently manage the City CCE's power
purchases and wholesale market transactions. The City CCE's resource portfolio would ultimately
include market purchases,shares of some relatively large power supply projects, as well as shares
of smaller, most likely renewable resources with intermittent output. Managing a diverse
resource portfolio with metered loads that will be heavily influenced by distributed generation
may be one of the most important and complex functions of any CCE.
The City CCE should initially contract with a third party with the necessary experience (proven
track record, longevity and financial capacity) to perform most of the City CCE's portfolio
operation requirements. This would include the procurement of energy and ancillary services,
scheduling coordinator services, and day-ahead and real-time trading.
Portfolio operations encompass the activities necessary for wholesale procurement of electricity
to serve end use customers. These activities include the following:
■ Electricity Procurement— assemble a portfolio of electricity resources to supply the electric
needs of the City CCE customers.
■ Risk Management — standard industry risk management techniques would be employed to
reduce exposure to the volatility of energy markets and insulate customer rates from sudden
changes in wholesale market prices.
■ Load Forecasting — develop accurate load forecasts, both long-term for resource planning,
and short-term for the electricity purchases and sales needed to maintain a balance between
hourly resources and loads.
■ Scheduling Coordination—scheduling and settling electric supply transactions with the CAISO,
with related back office functions to confirm SCE billing to customers.
The City CCE should approve and adopt a set of protocols that would serve as the risk
management tools for the City CCE and any third-party involved in the City CCE portfolio
operations. Protocols would define risk management policies and procedures, and a process for
ensuring compliance throughout the City CCE. During the initial start-up period, the chosen
electric suppliers would bear most of the risk and be responsible for managing those risks. The
protocols that cover electricity procurement activities should be developed before operations
begin.
Based on conversations with scheduling coordinators currently working within the CAISO
footprint,the estimated cost of scheduling services is in the$0.0001 to $0.00025/kWh range for
Large operating CCEs. This Study very conservatively assumes a cost of$0.0004/kWh, escalating
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 41
46
DRAFT
at 2.5% annually, in all portfolios as a starting cost. Over time, as the City CCE is operating, it is
expected that the scheduling costs will decline to the $0.0002/kWh range.
5.4 Resource Portfolios
Projected power supply costs were developed for three representative resource portfolios.
Portfolios are defined by two variables:
(1) the share of renewable energy in the power mix (per the "Renewable Energy" discussion
above), and
(2) the share of resources that are GHG-free in the power mix.
Renewable resources refer to resources that qualify under State and Federal RPS, such as solar,
wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydropower. GHG-free power refers to energy sourced
from any non-GHG emitting resource, including both the RPS-compliant sources mentioned
above as well as nuclear power and large hydroelectric power. However,while nuclear and large
hydroelectric (over 30 MW) are GHG-free sources, they are not considered renewable resources
in California under the current statute. For this Study, no nuclear resources were included in the
resource portfolio analysis.
SCE's resource portfolio in 2017 included 32% renewable energy resources, 20% natural gas
resources, 8% hydroelectric and 6% nuclear as well as 34% unspecified (market) purchases. In
2017, SCE's resource portfolio was 46% GHG-free. As the amount of load served by renewable
resources increases each year, so too would the amount of load served by GHG-free resources.
This is true of all portfolios included in the Study.
In the "SCE-Renewable Equivalent" scenario, it is assumed that the City CCE resource portfolio is
between 46%and 60%GHG-free. In the "100% Renewable by 2035 Portfolio" it is assumed that
the City CCE's resource portfolio is 50%GHG-free in 2021 and ramps up to 90%GHG-free in 2030.
The 100% Renewable portfolio assumes 100% GHG free resources in all years. The RPS targets
are the drivers of the amount of GHG-free resources in the portfolio. The GHG-free targets for
each scenario are shown below in Exhibit 18.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 42
47
DRAFT
Exhibit 18
GHG-Free Targets in Resources Portfolios
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
SCE Equivalent 100%Renewable by 2035 100% Renewable
To achieve the GHG-free targets shown above, it was assumed that a portion of the market power
purchases used to serve load in each resource portfolio are sourced to GHG-free resources and
that the City CCE pays a premium for market Power Purchase Agreements(PPAs)sourced to GHG-
free resources. A calendar year 2021 GHG-free premium of$0.004/kWh was assumed based on
a survey of other CCEs. The GHG-premium is assumed to escalate annually by 5%. Given the
assumed escalation rate, the premium paid for GHG-free power increases from $0.004/kWh in
2020 to$0.007/kWh in 2030. Including GHG-free premiums in the costs associated with a portion
of market PPA purchases results in a $0.010/kWh increase in the 10-year levelized cost of each
portfolio. Market purchases via PPA are analyzed in the sensitivity analysis.
5.4.1 Resource Options
For each of the three resource portfolios assessed,a combination of resources has been assumed
to meet the renewable energy and GHG-free targets, resource adequacy targets, and ancillary
and balancing requirements. The mix of resources included in each portfolio are for indicative
purposes only. The CCE should be flexible in its approach to obtaining the renewable and non-
renewable resources necessary to meet these requirements.
Exhibit 19 shows the 10-year levelized resource costs used in this Study.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 43
48
DRAFT
Exhibit 19
10-Year Base Case Levelized Resource Costs ($/kWh)
0.090
0.078
0.080 0.074
0.070 0.068
0.060 0.054
0.050 0.047
Y
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
Wholesale Shaped Market SCE Equivalent 100% 100%
Makrket PPA Renewable by Renewable
2035
Exhibit 19 above shows a 10-year levelized price of $0.068/kWh for the SCE Equivalent
Renewable;$0.074/kWh for the 100%by 2035 Portfolio,and a price$0.078/kWh under the 100%
Renewables Portfolio. The higher price in the 100% Renewables Portfolio is in recognition of the
fact that the City CCE may have to sign contracts for higher priced renewables to find sufficient
supply of renewables to meet the higher targets. A breakout of the costs for the three portfolios
analyzed in this Study can be found later in this section in Exhibit 23.
Exhibit 19 also shows both spot wholesale market cost at $0.047 per kWh and market PPA cost
at $0.054 per kWh. Wholesale market prices are for non-renewable power. Market PPA costs
are greater than spot wholesale market costs in recognition of the cost of the PPA supplier
absorbing the market fuel price risk associated with providing a long-term PPA contract price.
The capacity factor for market PPA purchases is assumed to be 100% (flat monthly blocks of
power). Capacity factor is equal to average monthly generation divided by maximum hourly
generation in a given month. A 100%capacity factor implies that the same amount of power was
purchased or generated each hour. The average monthly capacity factor for renewable resources
and local renewables is assumed to be 33% based on the capacity factors of existing renewable
resources operating in California.
5.4.1.1 Local Resources
On a $/watt basis, the cost of smaller scale solar projects is greater than the cost of large-scale
solar projects. It is expected that the cost of smaller local renewable energy is$0.065/kWh based
on information related to recent projects. The advantage of local renewable projects is lower
transmission costs and less stress on the congested transmission grid. This Study assumes that
local projects will be funded through new programs administered by the City CCE. Funds
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 44
49
DRAFT
available for new programs or additional discounts are discussed in the results section of the
Study.
5.4.1.2 Renewable Requirements
CCEs are required to comply with California's RPS. The renewable energy requirements in the
State's RPS are based on retail energy sales. Retail energy refers to the amount of energy sold to
customers as opposed to the amount of energy purchased from generation sources (wholesale
energy). Wholesale energy purchases must always exceed retail energy sales to account for
transmission and distribution system losses.To be consistent, it was assumed that the renewable
energy targets included in the portfolios apply to retail energy sales.
1. SCE-Renewable Equivalent Renewables Portfolio (Baseline Scenario)
In this portfolio,the renewable energy purchases match the expected SCE renewable share based
on recent information.19 In Exhibit 20, the orange bars show renewable energy purchases. The
grey bars show GHG free purchases to supplement bucket 2 renewable energy purchases.
The share of renewable energy increases each year along with California's RPS requirements. In
all four portfolios it is assumed that local renewables would begin serving load in year five of
operation (2026). For example, one year after launch, Sonoma Clean Power helped bring 13.5
MW of county solar online via its feed in tariff program. Similarly, in 2018 SCP installed 1 MW of
local solar. The ultimate relative cost of power supply and SCE rates will determine how quickly
and what mechanisms can be used to encourage local resource development. Not all resource
development may be through direct contracts.
The source of the "market" purchases shown in Exhibits 20 to 22 is unspecified. These market
purchases could ultimately be sourced to a mix of renewable and non-renewable resources based
on the availability of surplus resources in California and resources bid into CAISO for balancing
energy purchases. For this Study's purposes, "market" purchases are assumed to be sourced to
non-renewable generating facilities.
The "GHG-Free Market PPA" purchases shown in Exhibits 20 to 22 are market purchases that are
sourced to hydroelectric generating facilities. These market purchases would be procured
through long-term PPAs. The cost of hydro power is assumed to be greater than the cost of
unspecified market purchases. The premium of$.0004/kWh applied to the cost of hydro power
is discussed above in the "Resource Portfolios" section.
19https://www sce com/sites/default/files/inline-files/2017IICL 0 pdf
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 45
50
DRAFT
Exhibit 20
SCE-Renewable Equivalent Portfolio(aMW)
300
250
200
150
100
50
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
■ Market PPA Renewable PPA GHG Free
*Average annual megawatt or aMW is equal to annual megawatt-hours divided by the number of hours in a year.
2. 100%Renewobles by 2035 Portfolio
In this portfolio, a minimum of 50%of retail load is served by renewable resources through 2025,
80% through 2025, 90% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. Exhibit 21 illustrates this portfolio. In this
portfolio, a combination of long-term renewable resource contracts and REC purchases fully
offset the Market PPAs by 2027.
Exhibit 21
100% Renewable by 2035 Portfolio(aMW)
300
250
200
150
100
50
C
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
■ Market PPA Renewable PPA GHG Free
*Average annual megawatt or aMW is equal to annual megawatt-hours divided by the number of hours in a year.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 46
51
DRAFT
3. 100%Renewables Portfolio
In this portfolio, 100%of retail load is served by renewable resources in all years.As shown below
in Exhibit 22 renewable energy purchases are much of the portfolio where market PPAs (non-
renewable purchases) and GHG-Free Market PPAs are used only for load following.
Exhibit 22
100%Renewable Portfolio(aMW)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
■ Market PPA ■ Renewable PPA ■ GHG Free
*Average annual megawatt or aMW is equal to annual megawatt-hours divided by the number of hours in a year.
5.4.13 10-Year Levelized Portfolio Costs
The 10-year levelized costs have been calculated based on the base case assumptions detailed
above regarding resource costs and resource compositions under the three portfolios. Exhibit 23
shows a breakdown of power, ancillary service and scheduling costs associated with each
portfolio.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 47
52
DRAFT
Exhibit 23
10-year Levelized Base Case Portfolio Costs
$0,0900
$0.0800
$0.0700 $0.0198
$0.0600 $0.0198
$0.0198
$0.0500
�c $0.0202 $0.0248
.i $0.0400 $0.0145
$0.0300
$0.0200
$0.0100
$0.0000
SCE Equivalent 100%Renewable by 100%Renewable
2030
■Power Renewable and GHG Free Capacity and Ancillary
As shown above, power costs under the portfolios considered are similar. The low variance in
power costs between these portfolios is due to the small difference in price between market
PPAs and renewable energy purchases.
5.5 Resource Strategy
The electric portfolio may be managed by a third-party vendor, at least during the initial
implementation period. This Study assumes that a third-party would manage the City CCE's
power contracts and the cost of this management is reflected in the operating costs. Through a
power services agreement, the City CCE can obtain full service requirements electricity for its
customers, including providing for all electricity, ancillary services and the scheduling
arrangements necessary to provide delivered electricity.
After operations have begun, the City could decide to sign long-term PPAs,which could minimize
the City CCE's exposure to market prices and provide the City CCE with the ability to increase the
renewable percentage over time. Additionally, it is recommended that the City CCE engage with
a portfolio manager or schedule coordinator, who has expertise in risk management and would
work with the City CCE to design a comprehensive risk management strategy for long-term
operations. A portfolio manager or schedule coordinator would actively track the CCE's portfolio
and implement energy source diversification, monitor trends and changes in economic factors
that may impact load, and identify opportunities for dispatchable energy storage systems or
automatic controls for managing energy needs in real-time with the CAISO.
Once operational,the City CCE will be subject to energy storage targets once operating under AB
2514. The California Energy Storage Bill, AB 2514, was signed into law in September 2010 and
established energy storage targets for IOUs, CCEs, and other LSEs in September 2013. The
applicable CPUC decision established an energy storage procurement target for CCEs and other
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 48
53
DRAFT
LSEs equal to 1% of their forecasted 2020 peak load. The decision requires that contracts be in
place by 2020 and projects be installed by 2024. The costs for energy storage projects are
included in the operational costs under new program spending.
5.5.1 Product Choice
While the Study evaluates the financial feasibility of distinct portfolio choices, in practice, more
than one retail product may be offered. Depending on the City CCE goals, City CCE customers
might have a choice between a default energy product and a greener, more renewable power
supply option. Almost all CCEs offer at least two choices in rates and products. The final decision
regarding product offerings will be made by the CCE Board of Directors or City Council,depending
on governance structure.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 49
54
DRAFT
6. Cost of Service: Operating Costs for Base
Scenario
6.1 Introduction
This section of the Study describes the financial pro forma analysis and cost of service for a CCE
for the City. It includes estimates of staffing and administrative costs, consultant costs, power
supply costs, uncollectable charges,and SCE charges. In addition, it provides an estimate of start-
up working capital and longer-term financial needs.
6.2 Cost of Service for CCE "Base Case" Operations
The first category of the pro forma analysis is the cost of service for a CCE for the City's
operations. To estimate the overall costs associated with CCE operations, the following
components have been included:
■ Current and Future Power Supply Costs:
• Wholesale purchases
• Renewable purchases
• Procurement of Resource Adequacy (RA) power products which meet power supplier
reliability requirements for California (System Capacity, and Local and Flexible Capacity
products)
• Other power supply and charges
■ Current and Future Non-Power Supply Costs:
• Start-up costs
• CCE staffing and administration costs
• Technical consulting support
• Legal and regulatory support
• SCE and regulatory charges
• Costs of acquiring and paying back financing
■ Allowable Specific Charges to CCE Customers from SCE:
• Transmission and distribution charges
• Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA)
Once the costs of CCE operations have been determined, the total costs can be compared to
SCE's projected rates. A detail of the various costs noted below is included in Appendix C.
6.3 Power Supply Costs
A key element of the cost of service analysis is the assumption that electricity would be procured
under a power purchase agreement (PPA) for both renewable and non-renewable power for an
initial period. Power supply would likely be obtained by the City CCE's procurement consultant
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 50
55
DRAFT
prior to commencing operations. The products and services required from the third-party
procurement consultant are energy, capacity (System, Local and Flexible RA products),
renewable energy, GHG-free energy, load forecasting, CAISO charges (grid management and
congestion), and scheduling coordination.
The calculated 10 year level ized cost of electric power supply, including the cost of the scheduling
coordinator and all regulatory power requirements, is estimated between$0.075 and $0.082 per
kWh as discussed in the previous section.This price represents the price needed to meet the load
requirements of the CCE customers while meeting required regulations and objectives of the City
CCE. The variation in price is a function of the desired level of renewable resources.
As mentioned in the previous section, three power supply scenarios are modeled for this Study.
The scenarios are a SCE Equivalent Renewable Portfolio, a portfolio that begins at 50%renewable
and grows to 100% renewable by 2035, and a 100% renewable portfolio. Power Supply costs for
the baseline scenario (SCE Equivalent) are approximately 90%of the annual operating costs.
6.4 Non-Power Supply Costs
While power supply costs would make up the vast majority of costs associated with operating
the CCE (roughly 80-90% depending on the portfolio scenario), there are additional cost
components that must be considered in the pro forma financial analysis. These additional non-
power supply costs are noted below.
6.4.1 Estimated Staffing Costs
Staffing is a key component of operating a CCE. All staffing costs are detailed in Exhibit 24 and
can be recouped through CCE rates.
The City CCE would have discretion to distribute operational and administrative tasks between
internal staff and external consultants in any combination. For this Study, two scenarios are
explored that are at the maximum and minimum of this spectrum.The first option involves hiring
internal staff incrementally to match workloads involved in forming the CCE, managing contracts,
and initiating customer outreach/marketing during the pre-operations period (Full Staff
Scenario). In the alternative approach, the City CCE would hire just four staff internally and
contract out the remaining work to consultants (Minimum Staff Scenario). Throughout the rest
of this Study, it is assumed that the City CCE will opt for the Full Staff Scenario to be conservative
in the Study's economic analysis, but both options are discussed. The Full Staff Scenario is likely
the most-costly option that the City CCE could pursue and the details of the staffing plan would
be decided later.
6.4.1.1 Full Staff Scenario
Exhibit 24 provides the estimated staffing budgets for a full staff City CCE scenario for the start-
up period (Pre-launch in 2020 through full operating in 2021). Staffing budgets include direct
salaries and benefits. Prior to program launch, it is assumed that an operating team would be
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 51
56
DRAFT
employed per the example of other CCEs in California thus far to implement the launch of a CCE
program. This operating team typically includes an Executive Director, a Director of
Administration and Finance, a Communication Outreach Manager and a Director of Power
Resources. The remaining functions would be filled as quickly as possible.
CCE Staffing Plan
2021*
CCE Staff Positions Launch 2022
Executive Director 1 1
Director of Marketing and Public Affairs 1 1
Account Service Manager 1 1
Account Representative 1 1
Communication Outreach Manager 1 1
Communication Specialist 1 1
Director of Power Resources 1 1
Power Resource Analyst 1 1
Power Supply Compliance Specialist 1 1
Administrative Assistant 1 1
Total Number of Employees 10 10
Total Staffing Costs $1,260,000 $1,710,000
*Represents only partial year due to launching in April(9 months).
Based on this staffing plan, the City CCE would initially employ 4 staff members. Once the City
CCE launches, it is anticipated that staffing would increase to approximately 10 employees within
the first year of operation.
6.4.1.2 Minimum Staff Scenario
To build the minimum staff possible to run the City CCE, all necessary tasks would be completed
by consultants on a contract basis. It is assumed that these contracts would be managed by the
Executive Director and two in-house staff, such as the Communication Outreach Manager, a
Director of Administration and Finance and a Director of Power Resources. In addition,
consultants would have to be hired to manage the tasks not managed by full-time staff.
6.5 Administrative Costs
Overhead needed to support the organization includes computers and other equipment, office
furnishings, office space, utilities and miscellaneous expenses. These expenses are estimated at
$28,000 during program pre-start-up. Office space and utilities are ongoing monthly expenses
that would begin to accrue before revenues from program operations commence, and are;
therefore, included in start-up costs that would be financed.
It is estimated that the per employee start-up cost is approximately$10,000. This expense covers
computer and furniture needs. An additional annual expense of about$75,000 for office space,
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 52
57
DRAFT
and approximately $160,000 in assorted expenses related to program start-up including office
supplies, utilities costs, cost of mailing notifications, meetings, communication and other start-
up activities is expected. Finally, additional miscellaneous expense budgets are estimated for
general start-up costs in 2020.All administrative costs for start-up are shown in Exhibit 25. These
costs are based on other start-up CCE operations. These costs are a very small portion of total
operating costs and even a doubling of these costs from the assumptions below would not
change the Study findings and recommendations. Note that the first year is higher to get the City
CCE up and running. Costs estimates for 2022 would be stable thereafter but would escalate at
the rate of inflation.
EstimatedExhibit 25
Overhead Cost by Year(Full-Staff Scenario)
2021 2022
Infrastructure Costs
Computers $51,000 $0
Furnishings $51,000 $0
Office Space $55,080 $74,909
Utilities/Other Office Supplies $0 $0
Miscellaneous Expenses $158,508 $78,030
Total Infrastructure Costs $315,588 $152,939
The above costs are based on a full staff scenario. If the City CCE determines in its business plan
that hiring consultants rather than staff would be more cost-effective, then administrative costs
would be reduced, improving the feasibility of the City CCE.
6.6 Outside Consultant Costs
Consultant costs would include outside assistance for legal and regulatory work, communication
and marketing, data management, financial consulting,technical consulting and implementation
support, even with the full staffing scenario.
CCE data management providers supply customer management system software, and oversee
customer enrollment, customer service, as well as the payment processing, accounts receivable
and verification services. The cost of data management is charged on a per customer basis and
has been estimated based on existing contracts for similar sized CCEs. For this Study,the cost for
data management is estimated at $1.15 per customer per month.
In addition, estimated funding for other consulting support (such as HR, legal, customer service,
etc.)is provided. These costs have been estimated based on the experience of start-up consulting
costs at other CCEs. Exhibit 26 shows the estimated consultant costs except for data
management during the first three years. Consultant fees are provided on a monthly and annual
basis in Appendix C.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 53
58
DRAFT
Exhibit 26
Estimated Consultant Costs-by Year
2021 2022
Legal/Regulatory* $71,298 $96,965
Communication 156,672 0
Scheduling Consultant 466,500 634,440
Other Consulting/City Functions 168,300 228,800
Total Consultant Costs $862,770 $960,205
*Legal/regulatory consulting refers only to legal counsel regarding CPUC compliance,filings,etc.
The estimate for each of the services is based on costs experienced by other CCEs. Consultant
costs are increased by inflation every year. The above costs are recovered through the CCE
energy rate.
6.7 SCE Billing & Metering Costs
SCE would provide billing and metering services to the CCE based on SCE Schedule CCE:
Transportation of Electric Power to City CCE Customers. The estimated costs payable to SCE for
services related to the City CCE start-up include costs associated with initiating service with SCE,
processing of customer opt-out notices, customer enrollment, post enrollment opt-out
processing, and billing fees.
Customers who choose to receive service from the CCE would be automatically enrolled in the
program and have 60 days from the date of enrollment to opt-out of the program. A total of four
opt-out notices would be sent to each customer. The first notice would be mailed to customers
approximately 60 days prior to the date of automatic enrollment. A second notice would be sent
approximately 30 days later. Following automatic enrollment, two additional opt-out notices
would be provided within the 60-day period following customer enrollment.
Based on SCE's current rate schedules, and CCE participation assumptions, SCE billing charges
would be approximately $389,000 annually and initial setup costs and noticing would be on the
order of$180,000 per year for 2020 and 2021, as shown in Exhibit 27.
Exhibit 27
Utility
2020 Transaction 2021 2022
Total SCE Billing Fees $0 $389,000 $390,000
Notification and Setup Costs $180,000 $184,000 $0
6.8 Uncollectible Costs
As part of its operating costs, the City CCE must account for customers that do not pay their
electric bill. While SCE would attempt to collect funds, approximately 0.2% of revenues are
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 54
59
DRAFT
estimated as uncollectible.20 This cost is therefore included in the City CCE operating costs, or
expense budget.
6.9 Financial Reserves
The City CCE is assumed to receive capital financing during its start-up through full operation.
After a successful launch, the City CCE must build up a reserve fund that is available to address
contingencies, cost uncertainties, rate stabilization or other risk factors faced by the City CCE.
Therefore, this Study assumes that the City CCE would begin building its reserve immediately
upon launch. After 4 full operating years, it is estimated that the City CCE will have accumulated
enough reserves to cover four months of expenses, including power supply costs. This level of
reserves represents the minimum industry standard for electric utilities and would provide
financial stability to assist the City CCE in obtaining favorable interest rates if additional financing
is needed. After that point, revenues that exceed costs could be used to finance a rate
stabilization fund, new local renewable resources, economic development projects and/or lower
rates. Exhibit 28 provides the estimate of the reserves available for local programs or rate
stabilization.
Estimated Reserves Under Base Scenario
Assuming 2%Rate Discount Exhibit 28
Operating
Reserves New Programs or
Cumulative (4 months Additional Rate
Surplus* O&M) Reduction
2021 $3,926,442 $27,267,140 $0
2022 $9,485,919 $39,297,334 $0
2023 $16,175,776 $40,628,967 $0
2024 $22,743,225 $42,457,459 $0
2025 $29,557,018 $43,902,349 $0
2026 $36,532,874 $44,947,817 $0
2027 $50,534,364 $45,508,988 $10,486,152
2028 $66,466,105 $46,971,225 $15,931,742
2029 $84,902,471 $48,322,946 $18,436,365
2030 $106,162,053 $49,738,212 $21,259,582
*Includes cash from financing
The new program funding amount decreases over time due to the conservative 3%growth in SCE
generation rates and relative size of the PCIA. The PCIA is the charge paid by departing load
customers to SCE to hold bundled customers harmless for the decision to depart from bundled
service. After 2030, SCE stranded costs are expected to decrease significantly as contracts expire
(resulting in lower PCIA rates). It is expected that programs and rate discounts could be provided
well beyond the term of this Study. These financial reserves are documented in Appendix B.
2°Based on SCE 2019 GRC uncollectible revenue as percent of total revenue.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 55
60
DRAFT
6.10 Financing Costs
To estimate financing costs, a detailed analysis of working capital needs, as well as start-up
capital, is estimated. Each component is discussed below.
6.10.1 Cash Flow Analysis and Working Capital
This cash flow analysis estimates the level of working capital that would be required until full
operation of the City CCE is achieved. For the purposes of this Study, it is assumed that the City
CCE pre-operations implementation costs begin in July 2020. In general, the components of the
cash flow analysis can be summarized into two distinct categories:
1. Cost of the City CCE operations, and
2. Revenues from City CCE operations.
The cash flow analysis identifies and provides monthly estimates for each of these two
categories. A key aspect of the cash flow analysis is to focus primarily on the monthly costs and
revenues associated with the City CCE and specifically account for any transition or "phase-in"
of the City CCE customers.
The cash flow analysis also provides estimates for revenues generated from the City CCE
operations or from electricity sales to customers. In determining the level of revenues, the cash
flow analysis assumes all customers are enrolled at the same time and assumes that the City CCE
offers rates that provide a discount compared to projected SCE rates corresponding to a total bill
discount of 2%for each customer class.
The results of the cash flow analysis provide an estimate of the level of working capital required
for the City CCE to move through the pre-operations period. This estimated level of working
capital is determined by examining the monthly cumulative net cash flows (revenues minus cost
of operations) based on payment terms, along with the timing of customer payments.
The cash flow analysis assumes that customers will make payments within 60 days of the service
month, and that the City CCE would make payments to power suppliers within 30 days of the
service month. It is assumed that payments for all non-power supply expenses would need to be
paid in the month they occur. Customer payments typically begin to come in soon after the bill
is issued,and most are received before the due date. Some customer payments are received well
after the due date. Therefore, the 30-day net lag in payment is a conservative assumption for
cash flow purposes.
For purposes of determining working capital requirements related to power purchases, the City
CCE would be responsible for providing the working capital needed to support electricity
procurement unless the electricity provider can provide the working capital as part of the
contract services. In addition, the City CCE would be obligated to meet working capital
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 56
61
DRAFT
requirements related to program management, the CPUC Bond of minimum $180,00021 and a
potential SCE program reserve. SCE requires a program reserve in absence of a credit rating.
Because of their start-up nature, most CCEs elect to pay the program reserve rather than go
through a credit rating process. While the City CCE may be able to utilize a line of credit, for this
Study it is assumed that this working capital requirement is included in the financing associated
with start-up funding.
A summary of working capital needs is presented below on Exhibit 29.
NeedsExhibit 29
Working Capital
2020 2021
Pre-Launch Launch
Bonding&Security Requirement
(CPUC) $0.2 million -
SCE Program Reserve $0.3 million -
Start-up Costs $1.5 million -
Working Capital (Cash Flow) - $8.0 million
Total Capital Needed $2.05 million $8.0 million
For comparison, Marin Clean Energy(MCE) started with $3.3 million in pre-launch funding22 and
is now operating with $21.7 million in working capital.23 At initial launch MCE served electrical
load roughly equivalent to 80-90%of the CCE's estimated load.24 Similarly, Sonoma Clean Power
(SCP) acquired $6.2 million in pre-launch capita1,21 and now maintains working capital reserves
of$25 million21 while serving 50%more than the City CCE's estimated load.Z7 The working capital
needs after launch assumed in this Study are reflective of the experience of successfully operating
CCEs on a $/GWh basis.
6.10.2 Total Financing Requirements
The start-up of the City CCE would require a significant amount of start-up capital for three major
functions: (1)staffing and consultant costs; (2) overhead costs(office space, computers, etc.)and
(3) CPUC Bond and SCE security deposits.
21 CPUC Decision 18-05-022
22https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/MCE-Start-Up-Timeline-and-Initial-Funding-
Sou rces-10-6-14-1.p df
2'https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/MCE-Audited-Financial-Statements-2015-
2016.pdf
24https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Marin-Clean-Energy-2015-Integrated-Resource-
Plan_FINAL-BOARD-APPROVED.pdf
25 https:Hsonomacleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014-SCPA-Audited-Financials.pdf
2e https:Hsonomacleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2016-05-SCP-Compiled-Financial-Statements.pdf
27 https://sonomacleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2015-SCP-Implementation-Plan.pdf
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 57
62
DRAFT
Staffing, consultant and other program initiation costs have been discussed previously. In
addition, the Public Utilities Code requires demonstration of insurance or posting of a bond
sufficient to cover reentry fees imposed on customers that are involuntarily returned to SCE
service under certain circumstances. These circumstances may include cessation of the City CCE
program. SCE also requires a bond equivalent to the reentry fee for voluntary returns to the IOU.
This corresponds to the fees outlined in the CCE rate schedule from SCE, which are
$1.12/customer for 2018. In addition, the bond must cover incremental procurement costs.
Incremental procurement costs are power supply costs incurred by the IOU when a customer
provides notice and returns to IOU bundled service.
The total City CCE financing requirement, including working capital, during the pre-launch to full
operations, is estimated to be approximately $2 million, with approximately another $8 million
needed following full enrollment. With more flexible power payment terms and/or customer
payments of less than 60 days, capital requirements can be reduced.
6.10.3 Current CCE Funding Landscape
The CCE market is rapidly expanding with increasingly proven success. To date, there are 19
operational CCEs in California and existing CCEs have demonstrated the ability to generate
positive operating results. The early sources that funded CCE start-up capital costs were
community banks located in the CCE service territory, but now a mix of regional and large
national banks have shown increased levels of interest evidenced by additional banks submitting
proposals to CCEs looking for financing. As such, the City CCE would likely have access to an
adequate number of potential financial counterparties.
As CCEs have successfully launched across the State and a more robust data set of opt-out history
becomes available, the financial community has demonstrated an increased level of comfort in
providing credit support to CCEs. Most programs that have launched to date, and those in
development, have relied on a sponsoring entity to provide support for obtaining needed funds.
This support has come in varied forms, which are summarized in Exhibit 30.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 58
63
DRAFT
SupportExhibit 30
Forms of
Pre-Launch Funding
CCE Name Date Requirement' Funding Sources
Marin Clean Start-up loan from the County of Marin,
Energy 2010 $2-$5 million individual investors, and local community bank
loan.
Loan from Sonoma County Water Authority as
Sonoma 2014 $4-$6 million well as loans from a local community bank
Clean Power secured by a Sonoma County General Fund
guarantee.
CleanPowerSF 2016 ^'$5 million
Appropriations from the Hetch Hetchy reserve
(SFPUC).
Lancaster
Choice Energy 2015 —$2 million Loan from the City of Lancaster General Fund.
Peninsula PCE has also obtained a $12 million loan with
Clean Energy 2016 $10-$12 million Barclays and almost $9 million with the County
of San Mateo for start-up costs and collateral.
$2.7 million loans from County of Santa Clara and
Silicon Valley member Cities.
Clean Energy 2017 $2.7 million $21 million Line of Credit with $2 million
guarantee (subset of total loan from members),
otherwise no collateral.
Clean Power $10 million loan from Los Angeles County and
Alliance 2018 $41 million
$31 million Line of Credit from River City Bank.
Solana Clean
2018 N/A Vendor Funding
Energy
East Bay
Clean Energy 2018 $50 million Revolving Line of Credit from Barclays.
1 Source: Respective entity websites and publicly available information. These funds are representative of CCE
funding at different times of start-up.
A review of the current state of options for obtaining funds for these initial phases is detailed
below:
Direct Loan from Cities—The City could loan funds from its General Fund for all or a portion of
the pre-launch through launch needs. Start-up funding provided by the cities would be secured
by the City CCE revenues once launched. The City would likely assess a risk-appropriate rate for
such a loan. This rate is estimated to be 4.0% to 6.0% per annum. Lancaster provided a direct
loan for program start-up.
Collateral Arrangement from City—As an alternative to a direct loan from the City, the City could
establish an escrow account to backstop a lender's exposure to the City CCCE. The City would
agree to deposit funds in an interest-bearing escrow account, which the lender could tap should
the City CCE revenues be insufficient to pay the lender directly. The City would be secured by
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 59
64
DRAFT
City CCE revenues collected once the City CCE achieves viability. This method was used by SCP,
PCE, and CPA.
Loan from a Financial Institution without Support—Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority(SVCEA)
was able to use this option to fund ongoing working capital. After member agencies funded a
total of $2.7 million in start-up funds, SVCEA obtained a $21 million line of credit without
collateral. This is the most common financing options used by emerging CCEs. This arrangement
requires a "lockbox" approach with a power provider. A lockbox arrangement requires the CCE
to post revenues into a "lockbox" which power suppliers can access to get paid first before the
CCE. This arrangement reduces the required reserves and collateral held by the CCE.
Vendor Funding — The CCE could negotiate with its power suppliers to eliminate or reduce the
need for supplemental start-up and operating capital. However, the vendor funding approach
can be less transparent as the vendor controls expenses and activities, and the associated cost
may outweigh the benefit of eliminating or reducing the need for bank financing. This method
was used by Solana Energy Alliance.
Revenue Bond Financing — This financing option becomes feasible only after the CCE is fully
operational and has an established credit rating.
6.10.4 CCE Financing Plan
While there are many options available to the City CCE for financing, the initial start-up funding
is expected to be provided via short-term financing with a loan from a financial institution. The
City CCE would recover the principal and interest costs associated with the start-up funding via
subsequent retail rate collections.This Study demonstrates that the City CCE start-up costs would
be fully recovered within the first three years of City CCE operations.
The anticipated start-up and working capital requirements for the City CCE through launch are
approximately$2 million. Once City CCE program is operational, these costs would be recovered
through retail rate collections. Actual recovery of these costs would be dependent on third-party
electricity purchase prices and the rates set by the City CCE for customers.
Based on several recent examples of CCE's obtaining financing for start-up and operating costs,
this financial analysis assumes that the City CCE would be able to obtain a loan for all $8 million
with a term of 5 years at a rate of 3.86%. Repayment could be accelerated to 3 years based on
meeting reserve targets. This is very conservative as most CCEs will operate on a line of credit
for most working capital needs.
The detail of the base case cash flow analysis is provided in Appendix D.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 60
65
DRAFT
7. Rate Comparison
7.1 Introduction
This section provides a comparison of rates between SCE and the City CCE. Rates are evaluated
based on the City CCE's total electric bundled rates as compared to SCE's total bundled rates.
Total bundled electric rates include the rates charged by the City CCE, including non-bypassable
charges, plus SCE's delivery charges.
7.2 Rates Paid by SCE Bundled Customers
Customers served by SCE will pay a bundled rate that includes SCE's generation and delivery
charges. SCE's current rates and surcharges have been applied to customer load data aggregated
by major rate schedules to form the basis for the SCE rate forecast.
The average SCE delivery rate, which is paid by both SCE bundled customers and City CCE
customers, has been calculated based on the forecasted customer mix for the City CCE. The SCE
rate forecast assumes that delivery costs will be based on SCE's recent General Rate Case (GRC)
filing for 2019 to 2021. The delivery rates are paid by both City CCE and SCE bundled customers.
As such, changes in delivery rates impact all customers equally and, therefore, it is assumed that
the delivery costs will remain stable during the study period.
Similarly, the average power supply rate component for SCE bundled customers has been
calculated based on the projected City CCE customer mix. Finally, the SCE generation rates have
been projected in the short-term based on the most recent rate filings. In the long term, SCE
generation rates are forecast to increase based on the renewable and non-renewable market
price forecast, and the state's regulatory requirement for RIPS, energy storage, and resource
adequacy objectives.
In the short-term, SCE's generation rate is forecast to increase 16% in April 2019 following the
November 2018 ERRA filing which includes the under collection from 2018 estimated at $825
million. The general rate case phase 1 application filed by SCE is expected to reduce generation
rates in summer 2019 by 4%to 5%. The driving factors behind this rate decrease are the new tax
laws. SCE will file another ERRA in Spring 2019 followed by an update in Fall 2019. At this time,
it is unclear what generation rate changes will be requested for 2020 in the next ERRA
proceeding.
In the long-term, SCE generation rates are forecast to change as existing contracts expire,
additional loads depart, and wholesale power costs change. It is projected that SCE-owned
resources and renewable cost escalation will be less than the CCE over the 10-year analysis
period. SCE does not provide detailed cost information or power supply price forecasts for the
utility. Based on SCE's 2017 resource mix and RPS requirements, approximately half of SCE's
resources come from market purchases and natural gas resources for which costs grow based on
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 61
66
DRAFT
market price changes. Market costs are expected to increase at a rate of 1%to 3%annually. The
remainder of SCE's resources are from high priced long-term renewable contracts. While the
cost of market purchases and natural gas are expected to increase, the cost of the renewable
portfolio is expected to decrease over time as SCE's current contracts expire and new lower cost
renewable contracts are obtained. SCE's current contracts largely begin to expire after 2030.
The Study uses a conservative 3%growth rate for SCE generation costs beginning in 2020 through
2030. This growth rate is consistent with the annual growth rate that the CCE is forecasting for
its power supply. The SCE generation rate forecast is in Exhibit 31.
Exhibit 31
SCE Generation Rate Forecast
0.12
0.1
0.08
t
0.06
� 0.04
0.02
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Historic Forecast
7.3 Rates Paid by CCE Customers
The Study assumes that the City CCE's rate designs would initially mirror the structure of SCE's
rates so that similar rates can be provided to the City CCE's customers and bill comparisons can
be made on an apples-to-apples basis. SCE is moving towards Time-of-Use (TOU) rates for all
customers and it is assumed that the CCE would follow this transition initially. Operating CCEs
like SCP structure their rates to mirror the incumbent IOU; this makes it easy for customers to
compare rates. In determining the level of CCE rates,the financial analysis assumes all customers
are enrolled at the same time and that the implementation phase costs are financed via start-up
loans.
In addition to paying the CCE's power supply rate,City CCE customers would pay the SCE delivery
rate and non-bypassable charges also referred to as the Cost Responsibility Surcharge (CRS). The
CRS is comprised of the following components: 1) Department of Water Resources Bond Charge
(DWRBC), 2) Ongoing Competition Transition Charge (CTC) and 3) Power Charge Indifference
Adjustment (PCIA). The DWRBC and CTC are charged to SCE's bundled customers in the SCE
delivery charge. It is therefore assumed that the CCE customers would pay these charges as part
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 62
67
DRAFT
of the delivery charges, as well. As such, the only additional non-bypassable charges that are
payable to SCE by CCE customers is the PCIA.
7.3.1 Power Charge Indifference Adjustment
The PCIA is an exit fee that is added to CCE rates to cover an IOU's stranded costs associated with
energy purchases made to anticipated, but unrealized demand because of customers leaving
bundled service to receive service from a CCE.
On October 11, 2018 the CPUC voted unanimously to revise the PCIA methodology adopting the
Alternative Proposed Decision (APD) methodology. This new methodology allows for more
utility-owned resources to be included in the calculation and gets rid of the limits on cost recovery
previously embedded in the old PCIA methodology. In addition, the new methodology allows for
reductions in the stranded cost due to the value of renewable energy and resource adequacy
provided by the resources. The APD methodology is not completely final as a Phase 2 study began
in late 2018 to define some of the additional components of the methodology. However, the
IOUs filed their 2019 PCIA calculations using the new methodology and current market
conditions. The forecast below incorporates the latest decision, market conditions, and forecast
stranded costs for departing SCE customers as seen in Exhibit 32.
Exhibit 32
SCE PCIA/CTC Forecast
0.0300
0.02S0
0.0200
0.0150
0.0100
0.0050
0.0000
oy°� oho o�ti o�ti o�'� o�R o�h oho oti1 oL00 09 0�0 o5y o�ti o�3 o�A o,, o,S"O o,�A 0,�% o,,C) opo o�ti
ti ti ti ti - ti ti ti ti ti ti - ti ti ti ti ti - ti - ti ti ti
PCIA/CTC 2018 PCIA --*--Initial 2019 ERRA(Spring 2018)
7.4 Retail Rate Comparison
Based on the CCE's projected power supply costs, PCIA, operating costs, and SCE's power supply
and delivery costs, forecasts of City CCE and SCE total rates are developed. The analysis balances
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 63
68
DRAFT
the rate discount, collection of reserves and the share of renewable and GHG-free resources
purchased. If the discount is too high, the City CCE will not be able to collect enough reserves to
meet reserve targets within the first 5 years.
The rate forecasts are illustrated below in Exhibit 33. A rate discount of 2% is targeted for the
SCE-Equivalent Renewable Portfolio.The 100% Renewable by 2035 portfolio is at parity with SCE
rates. The 100% Renewable Portfolio rates are calibrated to be as close to SCE rates as possible
while collecting the reserves needed for City CCE operation;due to the additional costs of a 100%
renewable portfolio, these rates are at a 2% premium to SCE rates.
Exhibit 33
Average Total Retail Rate Comparison—With Savings Targets
$0.240
$0.230
$0.220
$0.210
i
i
$0.200 /'
0.1
$0.190
$0.180
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
SCE Rate -- SCE Equivelant 100%Renewable by 2035 100%Renewable
Based on estimated City CCE discounts, Exhibit 34 provides a comparison of the indicative
bundled rates for City CCE products based on the projected 2021 SCE rates. These indicative
rates are calculated as a percentage off SCE's bundled rates.The City CCE rates calculated in this
Study are for comparison purposes only. Under formal operations, the City CCE policymakers
would determine the actual rates offered to its customers.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 64
69
DRAFT
Exhibit 34
Bundled Rate Comparisons
SCE 100%
Equivalent Renewable by 100%
Rate Class 2021 SCE* Renewable 2035 Renewable
Residential 0.2522 0.2472 0.2522 0.2573
Small Commercial 0.2552 0.2501 0.2552 0.2603
Medium Commercial 0.2307 0.2261 0.2307 0.2353
Street Lights 0.1591 0.1559 0.1591 0.1622
Agriculture 0.1964 0.1924 0.1964 0.2003
Total 0.1864 0.1827 0.1864 0.1902
Initial Rate Savings in 2021 from 2.00% 0.00% -2.00%
SCE Bundled Rate
*SCE bundled average rate projections based on SCE's 2018 Rates.
A financial pro forma in support of these rates can be found in Appendix B.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 65
70
DRAFT
8. Economic and Environmental Impacts
8.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the potential environmental and indirect economic impacts
to the Orange County area from the implementation of a CCE for City residents. In addition,
potential future programs that could be offered by the City CCE are outlined.
8.2 Economic Impacts in the Community
So far, the analyses in this Study has focused only on the direct economic impacts of forming a
CCE. However, in addition to direct effects, indirect microeconomic effects are also expected.
The indirect effects of creating a CCE include the effects of increased commerce and disposable
income. An input-output (10) analysis is performed to analyze indirect effects. The IO model
estimates the local economic impact of lower electricity rates resulting from the formation of a
CCE.
The savings estimated below are based on the economic construct that households would spend
some share of the increased disposable income on more goods and services. This increased
spending on goods and services would then lead to producers either increasing the wages of their
current employees or hiring additional employees to handle the increased demand. This in turn
would give the employees a larger disposable income which they spend on goods and services
and thus repeating the cycle of increased demand. In addition, reduced inputs to production for
non-residential electric customers would allow companies to invest in other areas to promote
growth such as hiring new employees, offering additional training, and purchasing upgraded
equipment.
Three types of indirect impacts are analyzed in the 10 model. These are described below.
Local Investment — The CCE may choose to implement programs to incentivize investments in
local distributed energy resources (DER). The CCE may choose to invest in local DER generation
projects. These resources can be behind the meter or community projects where several
customers participate in a centrally located project (e.g. "community solar"). This demand for
local renewable resources would lead to an increase in the manufacturing and installation of DER,
and lead to an increase in employment in the related manufacturing and construction sectors.
Increased Disposable Income — Establishing a CCE would lead to reduced customer rates for
energy, more disposable income for individuals, and greater net revenues for businesses. These
cost savings would then lead to more investment by individuals and businesses for personal or
business purposes. This increase in spending would then lead to increased employment for
multiple sectors such as retail, construction, and manufacturing.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 66
71
DRAFT
Input-Output Modeling (10 Modeling) — City-wide electric rate savings and growth in
manufacturing jobs and other energy intensive industries are expected to spur economic
development impacts. Exhibit 36 shows the effect $7.7 million in rate savings could have on the
County economy as estimated by the IMPLAN model.28 The $7.7 million rate savings represents
the minimum annual bill savings projected to occur once the City CCE has achieved full operation
(SCE-Equivalent Renewable portfolio). The IMPLAN model is an 10 model that estimates impacts
to an economy due to a change to various inputs such as industry income, supply costs, or
changes to labor and household income. Both positive and negative impacts can be measured
using 10 modeling. 10 modeling produces results broken clown into several categories. Each of
these is described below:
■ Direct Effects — Increased purchases of inputs used to produce final goods and services
purchased by residents. Direct effects are the input values in an 10 model, or first round
effects.
■ Indirect Effects--The value of inputs used by a firm that results from direct effects. Or, this
is the economic activity that supports direct effects.
■ Induced Effects — Results of Direct and Indirect effects (calculated using multipliers).
Represents economic activity from household spending.
■ Total Effects—Sum of Direct, Indirect, and Induced effects.
■ Total Output—Value of all goods and services produced by industries.
■ Value Added —Total Output less value of inputs, or the Net Benefit/Impact to an economy.
■ Employment — Number of additional/reduced full time employment resulting from direct
effects.
This Study uses Value Added and Employment figures to represent the total additional economic
impact of the rate savings associated with City CCE formation.
The projected rate savings are modeled for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
sectors. For residential, the rate savings are modeled at different household income levels to
estimate the impact on the economy from reduced bills. Estimated household income
distribution is based on the income percentiles from the statistical atlas for Orange County.29
Exhibit 35 summarizes the high-level breakdown for income distribution within the county
compared with the rest of the State.
28 http://www.implan.c:om/
29 Statistical Atlas. Orange County,California. Available online:
https://statisticalatlas.com/county/California/Orange-County/HouseFiold-Income data from U.S. Census Bureau.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 67
72
DRAFT
Exhibit 35
Household Income Distribution,Orange County and California"
Orange County — California
Percentile Oth-100th 10th-90th
2091-80111 0 3010-70th
40th-60th
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% Count %
>$200k 120k 11A8 b
$150-200k2 95 2k 9.36%
$125-150k2 75 6k 7.43%
$100-125K2 105k 10.3%
S75-100K2 131k 12.To
560-75K2 93 4k 9.19%
550-60K2 69 31K 6 82%
545-501K 34 9k 3 44?0
$40-45K 2K 3.56%
$35-40K s : 3.42%
$30-351K 3.64%
$25-30K = 35 7k - Z 1%
520-25K 37 Ok _ 5-4';
515-20K 33.3k
$10-15k 32 7k 1=
< $10K2a .'
Count number of households wrth incomes in the interval
% unnormalized percentage of households vath incomes in the mterva;
normalieed assuming interval of$50k °normalized
The change in household income assumes that all households are impacted proportionately;
however, in practice lower income households typically see the most significant benefit due to
the disproportionate amount of total household income that goes to costs associated with
household electricity use. Generally, lower income families are not able to reduce their utility
bills as easily through efficiency upgrades or modified behavior due to lack of disposable income.
Therefore, the overall impacts are likely underestimated.
Non-residential impacts are estimated using the top 16 industries in Irvine. Rate savings are
allocated to each industry based on the share of revenue. This method assumes that energy use
is positively correlated with industry revenue. Major agricultural activities in the County include
nursery products, avocados, lemons, limes, tomatoes, and herbs. Major commercial and
industrial industries include professional, scientific, tech, manufacturing, education, healthcare,
finance, retail, wholesale trade, and real estate.
so Normalized with respect to standard interval of$5k. Gray areas represent percentile bands from the counties in
California. C OpenStreetMap contributors Available online:
https://statisticalatlas.com/county/California/Orange-County/Household-Income
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 68
73
DRAFT
Exhibit 36 details the macroeconomic impacts anticipated from the 2%savings in the generation
rate after forming the City CCE. The total Value Added for one year of rate savings is estimated
at$5.89 million. Finally,the rate savings are estimated to produce an additional 85 full time jobs.
OrangeExhibit 36
$7.7 Million Rate Savings Effects on the
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Total ValueAdded Output
Direct Effect 39 $1,920,000 $1,950,000 $3,590,000
Indirect Effect 8 $500,000 $810,000 $1,350,000
Induced Effect 37 $1,770,000 $3,220,000 $5,220,000
Total Effect 85 $4,190,000 $5,980,000 $10,160,000
1. Full impacts to Orange county are estimated, it can be expected that a large share of these impacts would be
realized within the City.
8.3 Environmental Impacts of Resource Plan on Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions
8.3.1 Environmental and Health Impacts
With the creation of a City CCE, other non-commerce indirect effects would occur. These may be
environmental, such as improved air quality or improved human health due to the City CCE
utilizing more renewable energy sources, versus continuing use of traditional energy sources
which may have a greater GHG footprint. While a change in GHG emissions is not modeled
directly in economic development models used in this Study, the reduction of these GHG
emissions are captured in indirect effects projected by the models to the extent that carbon
prices are accounted for in the input-output matrix.31 The City's Strategic Energy Plan will assess
the GHG emissions reductions associated with CCE prograrns.
Currently, SCE's resource mix is 46%11 GHG-free due to power supply from renewable resources.
The passing of S6100 accelerates the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations for retail
sellers (investor-owned utilities (IOUs), CCEs, energy service providers (ESPs), and Public Owned
Utilities (POUs)) as follows:
a) from 40%to 44% by 2024;
b) from 45%to 52% by 2027; and
c) From 50%to 60% by 2030.
" Decreased health care costs have been modeled to make a major contribution to the local economy. e.g., DT
Shindell,Y. Lee&G. Faluvegi,Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2 °C;Nature
Climate Change volume 6, pages 503-507 (2016)
12 https://www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/2017—index.html
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 69
74
DRAFT
The bill also establishes state policy that RPS-eligible and zero-carbon (Clean Energy) resources
supply 100% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers no later than
December 31, 2045. SCE is therefore expected to be 60% renewable and GHG free by 2030 and
100%GHG free by 2045.
As outlined in the Resource Portfolio section above, the City CCE portfolio scenarios assumed
that the City CCE's resource portfolio has the same GHG-free share as the forecasted SCE
portfolio in all years. In the "SCE-Equivalent" scenario, it is assumed that the City CCE's resource
portfolio starts at 40% GHG-free and grows to 60%. In the "100% Renewable by 2035" scenario
it is assumed that the CCE's resource portfolio starts at 50%GHG-free in 2021 and that the GHG-
free resources increase to 100%of the portfolio by 2035. In the "100% Renewable" it is assumed
that the City CCE's resource portfolio is 100% GHG-free in 2021 and remains 100% GHG-free
through the study period.
The portfolios would generate amounts of carbon dioxide as outlined in Exhibit 37. The average
portfolio GHG-free percentage over the ten-year study period (48%)was used for this calculation,
to account for the higher GHG-free levels in later years. Average annual emissions from the three
portfolios for 2021-2030 are presented below. In each case, it was assumed that the full City CCE
load (average of 1,948 GWH) was in each portfolio. In other words, if, for example, the City CCE
decides to offer both 100% Renewable and SCE Equivalent Renewables products and some
proportion of customers fall into each product bucket, the emissions would fall somewhere
between zero and 359,766 metric tons of CO2e/year.
Exhibit 37
Comparison of Average Annual GHG Emissions from Electricity, by Resource Portfolio(2021-2030)
SCE Equivalent 100%
Renewable Renewable by 100%
Portfolio 2030 Renewable SCE
Avg./GHG Share 48% 76% 100% 48%
Avg. Emissions(Metric Tons CO2) 359,766 168,856 - 359,766
Difference SCE 60%Portfolio 0 190,910 218,000
(Metric Tons CO2)
Savings expressed as Number of
Cars Off the Road' 0 41,344 47,000 0
' Passenger cars, based on 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year assuming 22 mpg and 11,500 miles per year.
8.4 Local Resources/Behind the Meter CCE Programs
Local resources and behind-the-meter programs add to the environmental benefits of CCEs. The
City CCE would have the option to invest in a range of programs to expand renewable energy use
and enhance economic development in the City. Increased renewable energy use can be
accomplished by supporting customers wishing to own small renewable generation, like rooftop
solar (net energy metering), purchasing from small local for-profit renewable generators (feed-
in tariffs), purchasing renewable resources directly, or supporting electric vehicle use. Each of
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 70
75
DRAFT
these programs also yields economic development benefits by stimulating spending locally and
saving local customers money. Economic development can also be accomplished by providing
additional support for low-income customers or extra support for new or growing businesses.
The following sections discuss these programs.
8.4.1 Economic Development Rate Incentive
There are several programs that CCEs can offer to stimulate indirect local economic development
in their service area. One is a special economic development rate to encourage job providers to
locate, move to, or expand operations within the CCE jurisdiction. This economic development
may benefit the CCE and rate payers due to load diversification, which can reduce average power
supply costs. Additionally,the City CCE could offer rebate programs to target the business sectors
of interest to their service area. If, for example, a large industrial customer would like to locate
within the City CCE service area, increased efficiency may result in decreased costs to all other
customers due to overhead cost sharing, thus an incentive could be paid to the new industrial
customer.
8.4.2 Net Energy Metering (NEM) Program
The City CCE could establish a Net Energy Metering (NEM) program for qualified customers in
their service territory to encourage wider use of distributed energy resources (DER) such as
rooftop solar. NEM programs allow energy customers who generate some or all their own power
to sell excess generation to the grid and benefit from a credit for those sales when they become
a NEM consumer.
SCE currently offers a NEM program in which customers receive an annual "true-up" statement
at the end of every 12-month billing cycle. This allows customers to balance credit earned in
summer months (when solar energy generation is highest) with charges accrued in the winter
(when solar generation is lower, and customers rely more on SCE's bundled service). Customers
earn power credits at the value of electricity and the value of renewable energy credits, though
they are not paid for excess generation.Credits unused at the end of each year expire.This policy
therefore incentivizes customers to limit the size of their generation system,as excess generation
supplied to the grid will not provide a return.
All the CCEs currently operating in California also offer NEM programs, and three of the most
recently operational CCEs have offered them at the launch of service.33 All of these CCE-managed
NEM programs offer greater incentives for customers in their service area to invest in more and
larger DER. Higher incentives up to the full retail rate have been offered. This has the benefit of
increasing the supply of renewable resources available to these CCEs as well as encouraging high
participation rates among current and potential NEM customers. The City CCE would have the
33https://pioneercommunityenergy.ca.gov/home/nem-solar/,https://www.poweredbyprime.org/faq,
http://www.applevaIIey.org/home/showdocument?id=18607
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 71
76
DRAFT
option to implement a similar NEM program and the ability to stimulate local economic
development in the form of new DER system investments and associated business activity.
8.4.3 Feed-in Tariffs
Feed-in tariffs (FIT) offer terms by which electric service providers such as IOUs and CCEs
purchase power from small-scale renewable electricity projects within their service territory. In
contrast with NEM programs, which typically target owners of homes and small businesses who
wish to install a rooftop photovoltaic (PV) system, FIT programs target owners of larger
generation projects, in the range of 0.5-3 MW. These could be larger rooftop photovoltaic (PV)
systems located at industrial sites or ground-mounted solar shade structures in parking lots. In
developing a FIT program of its own, the CCE could incentivize customers in their service area to
develop local renewable resources.
8.4.4 Local Generation Resources Development
A final option to drive investment in local renewable generation resources within the CCE service
area is for the City CCE itself to build or acquire generation resources. For example, Marin Clean
Energy (MCE) currently has 10.5 MW of CCE-owned local solar PV projects under development
and is planning to develop or purchase up to 25 MW of locally constructed, utility scale renewable
generating capacity by 2021.31 This model of CCE-owned resources provides CCEs with a
guaranteed renewable power source as well as local economic stimulus.
8.4.5 Electric Vehicle (EV) Programs and Charging Stations
Encouraging electric vehicle use can both increase load serving entity total load and
simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions within its service area. Many LSEs offer special
rates for electric vehicle charging. SCE offers three options for electric vehicle charging including
time-of-use (TOU), EV-TOU-1 and the traditional tiered rate plans. EV-TOU customers install a
separate meter explicitly for vehicle charging.35 TOU rates encourage vehicle charging at times
when energy is cheapest, or system load is lowest. MCE offers a similar program for their
customers with lower rates than the IOU.36
In addition to targeted rate programs, CCEs can encourage electric vehicle use by investing in
local electric vehicle charging stations. Silicon Valley Power (SVP) opened the largest public
electric vehicle charging center in the State in April 2016.The facility features 48 Level 2 chargers
and one DC Fast Charger.31 Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) also provided qualified customers with
34https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MCE-2018-Integrated-Resource-Plan-FINAL-
2017.11.02.pdf
ss https://www.sce.com/residential/electric-cars/residential-rates
se https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/electric-vehicles/
37 http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/Home/Components/News/News/5036/2065
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 72
77
DRAFT
incentives to purchase EVs in 2016 and continued the program in 2017.38 The City CCE could
invest in similar projects to promote electric vehicle use within its service area.
8.4.6 Low Income Programs
SCE offers assistance to low-income customers on both one-time and long-term bases. For
customers in need of sustained assistance,SCE offers rates that are up to 30%lower for qualifying
households under the California Alternate Rate Energy (CaRE)39 program. The CARE program is
mandatory for IOUs per California Public Utilities Code 739.1. The program is set up for electric
corporations that have 100,000 or more customer accounts to provide 30-35% discount on
electric utility bills on households that are at or below 200%of the federal poverty line. Funding
for CARE is collected on an equal cents/kWh basis from all customer classes except street lighting.
This program, like other SCE low income programs, would continue to be available to City CCE
customers through SCE. Existing CARE customers do not need to reapply once transferred to City
CCE service. New CARE enrollments would be handled through SCE.
In addition, the Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) Program can provide a monthly discount
on electric bills. This program is designed for income-qualified households of three or more
persons. Finally, the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD)
oversees a federal program, Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which
offers help for heating or cooling homes and help for weatherproofing homes.
At present, most California CCEs simply match their incumbent IOU's low-income programs, as
in the case of MCE and SCP. The City CCE could provide the same support to low-income
customers as does SCE.
38 https:Hsonomacleanpower.org/sonoma-clean-power-launches-ev-'ncentive-program/
39 https://www.sce.com/residential/assistance/care-fera21
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 73
78
DRAFT
9. Sensitivity and Risk Analysis
9.1 Introduction
The economic analysis provides a Base Case scenario for forming a CCE. This Base Case is
predicated on numerous assumptions and estimates that influence the overall results. This
section of the Study will provide the range of impacts that could result from changes in the most
significant variables for the portfolios described in the Power Supply Strategy and Cost of Service
sections of this Study. In addition, this section will address uncertainties that should be
considered and mitigated to the maximum extent possible.
The following analysis is an overview of risks and their relative severity,followed by discussion of
each factor. For variables where uncertainty is quantified, key assumptions are discussed, and a
reasonable range of outcomes is established. The range in variable assumptions is meant to
reflect probable scenarios, but do not demonstrate the full scope of possible outcomes. The
CCE's rate impacts are estimated using a range of these scenarios and are presented in a
comparison to SCE rates.
9.2 Risk Factors
When evaluating risks, it is important to note that power supply costs are approximately 93
percent of the total CCE operating costs; SCE non-bypassable (PCIA/CTC) charges equates to 12
percent of the SCE generation rate and CCE non-power supply related operating costs (staff,
administration, financial reserves) account for 7 percent of total CCE revenue requirement. The
figure below (Exhibit 38) illustrates this breakdown of CCE costs. Exhibit 39 provides discussion
of each risk factor, summarizing the severity of the problem and potential mitigation strategies.
Exhibit 38
Rate Comparison SCE Renewable-Equivalent Portfolio
12
10
s 8
N 6
c
a�
u 4
2
0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
�Energy Capacity Renewable
GHG Free MWU Other Power PCIA
�0&M SCE Rate
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 74
79
f—
LL O I 3 Q ¢ I O w LA > 'O w Ln
v °c° a E a u a 3 Y i ^ o
co
Q W ° U N O u On a ro Y N .v O
+- 3 u+ a s a o w u a 3 a > o a 3 w a N
a° r' v a° o o Y a u v °o_ aci E = ° ° j U o v Y
a s @ N C a C w 'O 'O T On T a s >T +
> '� 7 'rp O O O c U a s a c i5 ro > N On O c
s c c� �+ >' O u E c a s v r6 N a
U Y o ° u c u a
a N w w0 OOA T E dfl w C a is a
u 7 C O a O M 0O N c U O T E L
o U L on a T a 3 s o 3 fo u N ° w
c Y on m a o E v a 3 o O
W Q +�+ f0 w "O m Y °' - w �'' w
C a � fC0 a u On : .a a
N VI N > I o .� u C ° N ° a N u a+ a Vl
fu
- I 3 L a
> v v Oa ° 3 a Lon aci Y ° v .� L o c 3 a
Lai v a 2 �u v . aci ° '> a 3 E u a at
cw a N E T on a s _>. a L T w . N
L � T w
E �° 2 o c y m a 3 `o °�° v c m a c v u
L _ Y "3 0 3 u
w c � J ° a N > O a O C _Fj a Q a '`_' m
a o _ C
Q 'C Q w On N w V a f0 — Y c N E a
> .. O ,+J a fo .� U Q a Y c O ra C
w O
i .r L a c OA ° � U Y w V u U T On
a O N — N Q a C C a a a a E a 'Ln -0 c
E `j c E L N ° L `° � o u a o u � I ." � ° �
H O c O O .X ,� O c E .-� a _a w U v Y O u a
Y L b4 a u a -° a+ O N f0 _T Y a O u E N
N a .c I a Y L N a m N Y N � O
Y Lon u c a 3 aui v `' ° 3 ,-` E v °a c v 8 o u a
C x v o a E Y °a � o .c o o v o o. o a°
A
N 'LS T C ,ri w i T N —
� c oD a(u �,
v Y E c u o o _ 3 u
a w c ca a ca ra a O
mw D Q
i a ro E O c 00 W '� O n
aM+ � '(O a 'c � O L N 2 O u O _a �
C N u w 'j _ ->° a N
N Y
t v aci 3 o > a ° N on '-
c 3 a c
W 00 On N O m 'O E O � N N U C M N a
a > C aN-. a ECU `
o � Y co T c > m " LU s Ln
a E Ln
a do u N a
C U,A . E E
O O O
Ln
p N o
o E o o CNQ
u E
c > pEw w
3 Y o f ry
�n • • vOi O_ • • • • • • d • a L
L u
fC
a N w -° �; N N w -O
E a) u a Q v u a Q a ~
e ^ o O N N o °
U a u T v c
° a ry
w a c a a j O w c a a N a a >
a U a O 3 u -p L U a O ca O
a Y a a a Y y,,
O X Z .� = rn u j u N Y
N
a • a • u O • • • a • u O
p O cYa U N .� w _0 w a (7 N y
a Y u u Y i v L 3 2 3 N a n
u a L7 3
� `o T li c c ° u Q a L CL o X v
= C L1 a o N > C N O` C
W nu, r o_ E a a o O ooa -0 o v°i °q ` w
a ° N u a ° o Y o a s — > '�, a ° ° ego
N a N L u
c ra U u a co E E •� 3 a O_ O -O p w a w C
cuii .� .� w aci o °u o a .E O c U a o ° U w
c o n Ln a E u
v
O T a O
M N d m
CL
a bD O LnN
io c`o io d +�
H w L On N `. or
i Y
N w
OC LA (Ai oar w a u N E
E
r N m Rt O
u
LL
Q ° _ o
0: cu
cu no
a v •C
c a on u
+' w 3 an co u 3 3
a " ° c u o 0 0
v c o v 0 0 0 ° = v ° f6 n > c cu c v 3
U L N 7 L C E CL
> Y •a+ (O O w
E C > L y L Qj m -O >
'y ij N L N _c 4- N On UJ
O O N U O d0 4 N u Y .0 CO ^ � O L aL+
CL E w > 0 3 O c u " 0 3 ° Y > c
CL °j — > c
O C a O N I aJ N N J O I Y ° U N ; •O
v E cu .N u N — u o v y a
•L `^ _ W E a f�D c v •N C (` 41 CL
a, v ° x l7 a c _ v -0 3 E fE axi
u o ac, �°' c o = E o '� v 'Q o o 0 0 c o
Ln o 3 -o u ° a l7 cu a c o 2 u o E a ao c .� 0 a
N c6 N N N 'O +' +' Ol C W N
aEi
a. 2
uL m E u N o
° vY E °u
a -0M O a O O oC ? La (V o L u E cu@
a _N > N N �° U `) i c
O c to.s s cn .@ O -0 m
'0 v ccn .c—° W T c m E E on v v
o E a, > U o 00 > o c � >
O N 'Q Ln m U v w C C N = Z d L
t a cu 'u _ E v
• U a N u U c y O U N
Y 3 0 N a s 3 w a L 3 u a v
c CU x
a m 0 -0 E .E u a .E E v
o c v Y 0 on
° -0 0 c E
a, m ° 0 E Y
�J On —
LL ° N
W c Y CU 0 c N
f0 C '0 Y U
2 Y E
m N L
a c 3
aj O � 3 a
O M ca c aj tw
m
0 a N CU , a c c N
y N N L N E
m N v Y O Y L `D N
` fD i 7 m > f6 O N
N a > .0 ° E > E Q1
C E - O N L N O
O w N N u Cn '_^ ^� m u 'O N - Q
a. CL .a E W u c a�
m N v o o m 'c -o aa) x Y c u, io
(A oac m> cuV)i v Q E cr w E u° u v
U
U!
3 O Y c 3 •oA
C O O N O O Y �
0 a Y 0 E N a u ra
°- Y a`
�O LUu Y Yv 0 f6 v v
Q
U EO
7
Cl � ban w u d N
a • • • • • >_
Lpn O O O -0
cu Ql QJ Ln
?' m a L u c N
C cuD UJ O (uC O 61 > Li-
-0
N N �Y
Q 3 C .Q
C x I � v — O c O O N
v"i o� c O E c w o' M a -O E C
Ol c U u C C a W
O E O v N O v U M _ SOEU O
4J
U_
O O
c c �
>
f6 U
= 0 ° CU
E a
fO
Y co a c N O C
N y M Y t' 7
N > CL E N C N
Q �' w U_ J° V a E
E
Ln lD O
U
DRAFT
9.3 SCE Rates and Surcharges
Sensitivity analyses were conducted for two components of SCE rates.The delivery rates are paid
by both CCE and SCE bundled customers. As such, changes in delivery rates impact all customers
equally and,therefore, are not included in the sensitivity analysis. A range of changes in the PCIA
charged by SCE are included in the sensitivity analysis.
9.3.1 Generation Rate
SCE generation rates are projected to increase on average by 3% per year over the 10-year study
period; a very conservative assumption based on past results. In addition to the base SCE rates
assumptions, this study uses a high SCE rate and a low SCE rate. These rates are approximately
2%lower and 7% higher than the base assumptions.
9.3.2 PCIA
When legislation was introduced to allow the formation of CCEs, it was recognized that the IOUs
currently serving the potential City CCE customers may face stranded generation costs. The PCIA
methodology was established by the CPUC as a means for IOUs to recover those stranded costs.
The PCIA faces several issues, however, including the source and transparency of data used for
the calculation and the fact that the PCIA level is variable and contains a great amount of
uncertainty.
The level of the PCIA, or other non-bypassable charges that will potentially replace the PCIA,
would impact the cost competitiveness of the City CCE. To be competitive, the CCE's rates which
include power supply costs plus PCIA and other surcharges (and non-power supply costs) must
be at or lower than SCE's generation rates. Many factors influence the PCIA, but primarily the
PCIA is determined by the cost of SCE's existing power contracts and the cost to SCE of the
departing load served under those existing contracts. Uncertainties surrounding the PCIA include
methodology assumptions unique to SCE, as well as to what degree previously acquired power
contracts can be retired. The potential for the PCIA to increase sharply occurs when SCE must
sell previously contracted power at times when current wholesale market power prices are much
lower.The PCIA also has the potential to decrease since it reflects SCE's own resources and signed
contracts obtained prior to load departure; once those contracts expire, the related PCIA would
disappear. Therefore, over time the PCIA would vary, but it is expected that it would decline as
market prices increase and grandfathered contracts expire.
Forecasting the PCIA is difficult since key inputs are heavily redacted from the rate filings and
regulatory changes can significantly impact the PCIA calculation . The uncertainty associated with
forecast PCIA rates is modeled considering historic PCIA increases as well as the recently adopted
methodology used for the PCIA calculation (October 11, 2018). In addition to the Base Case PCIA,
a low and high PCIA forecast are modeled. The low scenario is 10%lower than the Base Case. In
the high scenario, the PCIA increases by the full cap of$0.005/kWh in the first 2 years then de-
escalates at an average of 5% per year.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 77
82
DRAFT
9.4 Working with SCE
SCE has a Customer Choice service department dedicated to coordination with developing CCEs.
SCE's policy is to schedule meet and confer conferences with CCEs in different stages of
implementation, launch, and operations. These conferences could be held for many reasons
including: informing SCE of a jurisdiction's intent to investigate CCE, obtaining SCE staff review
and comment on CCE preliminary implementation plans or goals; notifying SCE of changes in
implementation plans or schedules; or understanding factors in SCE's Customer Choice service
operations that may impact CCE schedules. Generally, SCE has practiced friendly and timely
communication with CCEs which is important because SCE will still play a critical role in City CCE
implementation including providing customer account information, conducting billing on behalf
of the City CCE, and providing City CCE customer consumption data used to settle accounts with
power providers.
9.5 Grid Reliability
Grid reliability refers to the continual and uninterrupted distribution and transmission of
electricity throughout the State and directly to customers. Reliability is measured using the
number, frequency, and duration of outages. If the City were to implement a CCE program, SCE
would still be the entity in charge of maintaining a reliable distribution system. SCE recovers the
cost to maintain and operate the distribution system through its delivery charge, which is still
collected regardless of energy supplier. Therefore, City CCE program is not expected to impact
grid reliability, certainly not distribution grid reliability,due to their purchase of wholesale power
to serve their customers.
Local grid reliability is a concern of energy regulators and the IOUs as distribution grid operators.
In the past, in order to operate and maintain a reliable distribution grid, IOUs have invested in
maintenance projects and capital project upgrades which require CPUC approval and for which
the IOUs then receive a shareholder return on those investments. In a variety of ongoing
proceedings, the CPUC is investigating how the utilization of distributed energy resources (DERs)
deployed at strategic locations on the distribution grid, may help improve grid reliability. These
DERs may include permanent or scheduled reduced consumption (e.g., energy efficiency or
demand response), permanent or scheduled increased consumption (e.g., electric vehicle
charging,timely electric appliance usage),or the utilization of energy storage devices. Some CCEs
are now exploring whether their flexibilities in retail rate design, local incentives for distributed
generation, and development of customer programs may result in improving grid reliability.
The CPUC, the California Energy Commission, the California Independent System Operator and
some State legislators have questioned whether CCEs are procuring power that meets reliability
standards. The CPUC has established Resource Adequacy Requirements for load serving entities
(LSE) to support Statewide system reliability. The RA requirements level penalties and establish
trigger prices for certain types of RA. These mechanisms are meant to ensure all LSEs acquire the
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 78
83
DRAFT
appropriate resources to support reliability; and they are meant to shield LSE's (such as CCEs)
from inflated market RA prices.
The challenge of RA procurement has led to the proposal of a central, Statewide power
procurement entity. This entity would purchase power and system grid resource needs on behalf
of all load serving entities (IOUs, CCEs, and Direct Access providers). This activity emphasizes the
need for CCEs to remain vigilant and engaged in all legislative and regulatory issues that involve
CCE operations.
9.6 Regulatory Risks
There are numerous factors that could impact SCE's rates in addition to the market price impacts
described above. Regulatory changes, generation plant or technology retirements or additions,
and gas prices all can impact SCE's rates in the future. Regulatory issues continue to arise that
may impact the competitiveness of the City CCE. The impact of these factors is difficult to assess
and model quantitatively. However, California's operating CCEs have worked aggressively to
address any potentially detrimental changes through effective lobbying in Sacramento and San
Francisco.
New legislation can also impact the City's CCE. For example, new legislation that recently
affected CCEs is SB 350. The CCE-specific changes reflected in SB 350 are generally positive,
providing for ongoing autonomy regarding resource planning and procurement. CCEs must be
aware, however, of this legislation's long-term contracting requirement associated with
renewable energy procurement. Specifically, CCEs are required to contract 65% of renewable
resources for 10 years or more by 2020.
In addition, there is a risk that additional capacity resource costs are pushed onto CCEs via the
Cost Allocation Mechanism (CAM). The City CCE would need to continually monitor and lobby at
the Federal, State and local levels to ensure fair and equitable treatment related to CCE charges.
CCEs in California currently utilize their own staff arid, primarily, the trade association
representing all operating CCEs, the California Community Choice Association, or CaICCA. The
City CCE would more than likely join CaICCA and support: their efforts in representing CCEs in
regulatory and legislative venues.
9.7 Power Supply Costs
Ramping services are predominantly provided by natural gas-fired generating resources. These
resources are capable of ramping generation levels up and down quickly to assure that resources
are equal to load requirements. Therefore, wholesale market prices are driven largely by natural
gas prices. In addition,the City CCE's power supply mix has been modeled according to different
levels of renewable energy. Renewable energy costs are forecast for the base case; however,
several factors could influence future renewable energy costs including locational factors for new
facilities, transmission costs, technology advancements, changes in state and federal renewable
energy incentives, or changes in California or neighboring state RPS.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 79
84
DRAFT
Since resource costs are based on forecast wholesale market and renewable market prices, it is
prudent to look at the sensitivity of the 10-year levelized cost calculations to fluctuations in
projected prices. Exhibit 40 below shows a summary of low, base, and high resource costs.
Exhibit 40
SupplyPower
SCE-
Equivalent 100%
Renewable Renewable by 100%
Case Portfolio 2035 Renewable
Low Case 0.0614 0.0671 0.0717
Base Case 0.0681 0.0738 0.0784
High Case 0.0812 0.0869 0.0915
The Base Case renewable energy costs are based on the cost of PPAs currently being executed in
the region. The Low Case renewable energy costs assume that the costs of renewable generating
projects will, as expected, continue to decline and the City CCE would, over time, layer in PPAs
sourced to the lower cost renewable resources that will be developed over the next five to ten
years. The High Case renewable energy costs assume that the City CCE is not able to secure PPAs
sourced to relatively new and lower cost renewable resources but, rather, signs PPAs sourced to
older renewable resources with higher costs. The renewable costs in this case reflect the costs
of renewable resources that were developed three to five years or more ago.
The 10-year levelized costs of each portfolio has been calculated using the range of resource costs
shown above. The base case costs are depicted by the black dots in Exhibit 41, while the range
projected between the High Case and the Low Case are depicted by the orange bar.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 80
85
DRAFT
Exhibit 41
Sensitivity of Portfolio 10-year Levelized Costs$/kWh
0.100
0.090
0.080 •
0.070 • •
0.060
L
Y 0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
SCE-Equivalent Renewable 100%Renewable by 2035 100%Renewable
Portfolio
The 100% Renewable portfolio, which relies on the most renewable energy purchases to serve
retail load, has the highest projected costs that range from a low of $0.0717/kWh to a high of
$0.0915/kWh. There is a low likelihood that renewable project costs would increase to the point
that 20-year levelized costs of renewable purchases is near $0.100/kWh. Alternatively, it is far
more likely that decreases in solar equipment costs on ,a $/watt basis will continue as more
renewable power resources are developed.
While renewable energy costs continue to decline,the potential for market PPA prices to increase
could be material. Wholesale market prices are dependent on many factors, the most notable
of which is natural gas price. Natural gas prices are at historic lows, and because natural gas-
fired resources are often the marginal resource in the market, wholesale market prices have
followed. Natural gas prices are subject to a variety of local, national and international forces
that could have a large impact on the current marketplace. For example, increased regulation in
the natural gas industry with respect to the deployment of fracking technology could cause
decreases in natural gas supplies and commensurate increases in natural gas prices. Additionally,
increased costs associated with carbon taxes and/or carbon cap and trade programs could also
cause upward pressure on wholesale market prices.
9.8 SCE RPS Portfolio
There are several factors that may impact the share of renewable energy in SCE's portfolio over
the next decade. Customers departing SCE for CCE service throughout SCE territory would have
the effect of shrinking SCE's load, thereby increasing the share of renewables made up by SCE's
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 81
86
DRAFT
current RPS contracts. Finally, SCE could further strive to compete with CCEs in terms of the
environmental impact of its power portfolio. In combination, these forces could drive up the
share of renewable energy in SCE's power mix to match or exceed the CCE's planned power mix.
To mitigate this risk, the City CCE would have the option to acquire more renewable energy in
response to changes in SCE's portfolio.
9.9 Availability of Renewable and GHG-Free Resources
Often one of the goals of a CCE is to offer power products that are cleaner than those provided
by the IOU. All the portfolios developed for this Study are modeled at 40% to 100% GHG-free.
The Portfolios include enough renewable and GHG-free resources to meet or exceed the share
of GHG-free resources in SCE's power supply portfolio, which is currently in the 40% to 50%
range.
9.9.1 SCE Green Rate
SCE does offer additional renewable choice to customers. SCE's Green Rate allows the customer
to sign up for"50%to 100%renewable power" as shown in Exhibit 42.40 This program is available
to both residential and non-residential customers. There is no minimum enrollment term and
customers can decide to cancel participation at any time. The Green Rate currently results in a
discount off SCE's standard rate, because new renewable resources are cheaper than the existing
resources committed to by SCE. However, a Green Rate customer will have to pay the PCIA as
would CCE customers.
Exhibit 42
Green Rates(Updated 02/10/2019)
M/L
Commercial
Small and Street
Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Lighting
Rate Component ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
Renewable Power Rate&Program 0.08711 0.08711 0.08711 0.08711 0.08711
Costs &Transmission
Class Average Generation Credit -0.08687 -0.08808 -0.06836 -0.074 -0.04614
Renewable Energy Value 0.01095 0.00651 0.00395 0.0038 0.00386
Adjustment
Green Rate Differential 0.01119 0.00554 0.0227 0.01691 0.04483
PCIA 0.01566 0.01002 0.00914 0.0097 0.0001
Total Cost 0.02685 0.01556 0.03184 0.02661 0.04477
40 https://wwwl.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/gdf/ce370.pdf
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 82
87
DRAFT
For residential customers, the cost per kWh for participating in the Green Rate is $0.01119 per
kWh. After applying the PCIA, this rate increases to $0.02685 per kWh.
9.9.2 SCE Community Renewables Program
SCE's Community Renewables program allows the customer to contract directly with a renewable
project developer and purchase the rights to a portion of the output from a new local renewable
generating facility. Customers participating in the Community Renewables Program will receive
a credit on their SCE bill reflecting the amount of renewable energy purchased through the
developer. In addition, the customer pays the PCIA and other program costs, such as the
administrative costs.
The primary risk associated with a high renewable resource strategy is whether enough
renewable resources exist at prices that would keep the City CCE rates competitive with SCE's.
The current market has sufficient renewable resources available. Utilities that submit requests
for renewable power supply receive bids that far exceed the requested amounts at prices that
are very competitive to non-renewable market resources. As RPS requirements and the share of
renewable resources in CCE portfolios are increasing, competition for renewable resources could
increase. However, it is important to note that the CCE movement does not change the total
load. Rather, the renewable resource timeline may just have accelerated until targets have been
reached. Increased competition would result in increased prices once supply cannot meet the
demand, resulting in increased development of renewable resources. In addition, the CCEs
would have the opportunity to aid in the development of renewable resources by fostering local
resource development.
9.10 Financial Risks
Starting a new venture carries financial risks that will have to be considered and mitigated before
proceeding with a City CCE. Depending on the organizational structure, a third-party may take
on the financial obligations of the City CCE. These include establishing start-up financing,working
capital funding such as lines of credit,and entering into contracts with suppliers and consultants.
Other cities and counties have protected their General Funds by establishing JPAs or lockbox
arrangements with vendors. These options were discussed previously.
The City could manage many of the financial risks associated with the uncertainty surrounding a
City CCE start-up. While the goal is to provide clean power competitively with SCE, the most
important consideration to the third-party financer is that the City CCE can increase rates if
needed to ensure enough revenues are collected to meet costs. In addition, the City CCE can
plan carefully by minimizing staff initially and only growing as fast as the size of the City CCE can
support, thus minimizing the fixed costs of operating the City CCE.
The CCE would need to manage the financial risk associated with power supply costs by managing
power market and load exposure through prudent hedging and power portfolio management. In
addition, the establishment of rate stabilization reserves and sufficient working capital can
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 83
88
DRAFT
mitigate financial risks to the third-party financer and to customers.The success of existing CCEs
in managing the financial challenges of a City CCE start-up and setting rates that are competitive
with the SCE and the other IOUs can be a valuable guide for the City CCE.
9.11 Loads and Customer Participation Rates
The Study bases the load forecasts on expected load growth, load profiles, and participation
rates. To evaluate the potential impact of varying loads, low, medium, and high load forecasts
have been developed for the sensitivity analysis.
Another assumption that can impact the costs of the City CCE is the overall City CCE customer
participation rates. This Study uses a conservative participation rate of 95% for residential
customers and 90% for non-residential customers as its base case. A higher participation rate,
such as has been experienced by all of California's operating CCEs to date,would increase energy
sales relative to the base case and decrease the fixed costs paid by each customer. On the other
hand, a reduced participation rate would increase the fixed costs to the City CCE customers. A
low participation scenario was analyzed as the worst case. The low participation scenario has an
opt-out rate of 20% (80% participation). The results of this scenario are similar to the base case,
the City CCE is able to offer a 2% discount and achieve its financial objectives. For reference,
recent CCEs have experienced participation rates in the 90-97% range.
Sensitivity to changes in projected loads has been tested for the high and low load forecast
scenarios. For the sensitivity analysis, the low case assumes a -0.14% growth in energy and
customers after 2019,while the high scenario assumes a 1.36%growth in energy and customers.
The experience of existing CCEs suggest that only a small number of customers opt-out. For
example, PCE has an opt-out rate of 2%, while CPA has a current opt-out rate of 0.7%. Once a
CCE is operating, the number of customers switching back to the incumbent IOU have also been
less than 5%. To mitigate the potential switching of customers, it would be important for the City
CCE to implement prudent power supply strategies to address potential load swings from
changes in participation and weather uncertainty, plus establish a rate stabilization fund.
Keeping rates low as well as providing excellent customer service would lead to strong customer
retention.
9.12 Sensitivity Results
Exhibit 43 provides the results of the sensitivity analysis for the SCE Renewable Equivalent
Portfolio scenario, which is the most likely portfolio for the City CCE to pursue initially given its
goals.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 84
89
DRAFT
Exhibit 43
Base Case Portfolio—Bundled Rates($/kWh)
10-Year Levelized Average System Rate
CCE Low Load
CCE High Load
CCE High Power Costs
CCE Low Power Costs
CCE High PCIA
CCE Low PCIA
CCE 20%Opt Out
CCE 100%Renewable
CCE 100%Renewable by 2035
CCE Base Case
SCE High Case
SCE Base Case
SCE Low Case
0.21 0.215 0.22 0.225 0.23 0.235 0.24 0.245
Exhibit 43 provides a comparison of the average system rate under several scenarios. This
sensitivity shows that it is a significant risk to the City CCE if the City CCE's power costs increase
based on the high-power cost scenario without any offsetting PCIA benefits. Even in a scenario
that has a 20%opt out rate the City CCE can achieve target savings if power supply and PCIA costs
remain close to expected levels.
Wholesale market prices for natural gas/electricity are currently at all-time lows. The probability
of these market prices decreasing significantly from current levels is low. In addition, the City
CCE would need to manage its supply portfolio so that it is not exposed to unmanageable risks
associated with power costs.
While the City CCE would not be able to impact SCE's generation rates, the City CCE does have
the opportunity to monitor and actively opine on the costs and methodology used to allocated
non-bypassable costs to CCEs in SCE's service area, including the PCIA. Given recent history, this
task would be shared with other CCEs and is an important and time-consuming task that can
mitigate the impact on the City CCE's costs. SCE's PCIA is at a historic high; however, the design
of the PCIA implies that the PCIA will decrease over time as SCE's high-cost contracts expire and
market prices increase.
This Study assumes a relatively high customer opt-out percentage (10% for non-residential
customers) compared to the more modest opt-out rates experienced by California's actively
operating CCEs, which is closer to 5% overall. While there is a possibility that the City CCE does
not reach the projected participation rates, careful monitoring and planning can reduce the
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 85
90
DRAFT
potential impact of low loads through flexible power supply contracts and regular monitoring of
administrative and general expenses.
The City CCE should also consider implementing a rate stabilization fund so that short-term
events that result in lower SCE rates compared with the CCE rates can be mitigated with reserves
rather than by rate increases. Reserves would help the CCE remain competitive and would
provide rate stabilization for customers.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 85
91
DRAFT
10.Conclusions and Recommendations
10.1 Rate Conclusions
The first benefit associated with forming the City CCE would be lower electricity bills for City CCE
customers. City CCE customers should see no obvious changes in electric service other than the
lower price and potentially more renewable power procurement, depending on the City CCE's
goals. Customers would pay the power supply charges set by the City CCE and no longer pay the
costs of SCE power supply but would still pay the costs of SCE distribution.
Given this Study's findings, the City CCE's rate setting can establish a goal of providing rates that
are equal to or lower than the equivalent rates offered by SCE even under the 100% Renewable
by 2035 portfolio. The projected City CCE and SCE rates are illustrated in Exhibit 44.
Exhibit 44
Bundled Rate Comparisons
Forecast SCE 100%
2021 SCE Equivalent Renewable 100%
Rate Class Rate* Renewable by 2035 Renewable
Residential 0.2522 0.2472 0.2522 0.2573
Lighting 0.2552 0.2501 0.2552 0.2603
Small/Medium Commercial 0.2307 0.2261 0.2307 0.2353
Large Commercial/Industrial 0.1591 0.1559 0.1591 0.1622
Agricultural 0.1964 0.1924 0.1964 0.2003
Total 0.1864 0.1827 0.1864 0.1902
Initial Rate Savings in 2021 from SCE Bundled 2.00% 0.0% -2.00%
Rate
*SCE bundled average rate projected based on SCE's 2019 Rates.
Once the City CCE gives notice to SCE that it will commence service and when it will commence
service, the City CCE customers will not be responsible for costs associated with SCE's future
electricity procurement contracts or power plant investments.41 This is an advantage to the CCE
customers as they would then have local control of power supply costs through the City CCE.
10.2 Renewable Energy Conclusions
A second benefit of forming a CCE would be an increase in the proportion of energy generated
and supplied by renewable resources. The Study includes procurement of renewable energy
sufficient to meet 33% or more of the City's CCE's electricity needs (initially). Most of this
renewable energy would be met by new renewable resources over time. By 2030, SCE must
procure a minimum of 60% of its customers' annual electricity usage from renewable resources
41 CCEs may be liable fora share of unbundled stranded costs from new generation but would then receive associated
Resource Adequacy credits.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 87
92
DRAFT
due to the State Renewable Portfolio Standard and the Energy Action Plan requirements of the
CPUC. The City CCE can decide whether to follow the same renewable goals or to implement
more aggressive targets.
10.3 Energy Efficiency Conclusions
A third benefit of forming a CCE would be an increase in energy efficiency program investments
and activities. The existing energy efficiency programs administered by SCE are not expected to
change because of forming a City CCE. The City CCE customers would continue to pay the public
benefits charges to SCE which funds energy efficiency programs for all customers, regardless of
supplier. The energy efficiency programs ultimately planned for the CCE would be in addition to
the level of investment by SCE that would continue in the absence of a CCE. Thus, the CCE has
the potential for increased energy investment and savings with an attendant further reduction
in emissions due to expanded energy efficiency programs. Also,the CPUC allows CCEs to receive
utility ratepayer funding for CCE energy efficiency programs and serve as an independent Energy
Efficiency Program Administrator with equal status and authority as the utilities.
10.4 Economic Development Conclusions
The fourth benefit of forming a CCE would be enhanced local economic development. The
analyses contained in this Study have focused primarily on the direct effects of this formation.
However, in addition to direct effects, indirect economic effects are also anticipated. The indirect
effects of creating a City CCE include the effects of increased local investments, increased
disposable income due to bill savings, and improved environmental and health conditions.
Exhibit 45 shows the effects of 2% in electric bill savings could have in Orange County. The 2%
rate discount is about $7.7 million in rate savings and represents the estimated (maximum) bill
savings per year achievable by the CCE once in full operation. It is estimated that the electric bill
savings could create approximately 85 additional jobs in the County with over $4.1 million in
labor income. It is also projected that the total value added could be approximately $6 million
and output close to $10 million.
$7.7 Million Rate Savings Effects on the Exhibit 45
Total Value
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Added Output
Direct Effect 39 $1,920,000 $1,950,000 $3,590,000
Indirect Effect 8 $500,000 $810,000 $1,350,000
Induced Effect 37 $1,770,000 $3,220,000 $5,220,000
Total Effect 85 $4,190,000 $5,980,000 $10,160,000
1. Full impacts to Orange county are estimated, it can be expected that a large share of these impacts would be
realized within the City.
These savings are based on the economic assumption that households would spend some share
of the increased disposable income on more goods and services. This increased spending on
goods and services would then lead to producers either increasing the wages of their current
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 88
93
DRAFT
employees or hiring additional employees to handle the increased demand. This in turn would
give the employees a larger disposable income which they spend on goods and services and thus
repeating the cycle of increased demand.
10.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Conclusions
A fifth benefit of forming a CCE may be reduced GHG emissions. The amount of renewable power
in SCE's power supply portfolio is 43% and will rise to 60% by 2030. Based on the power supply
strategy described previously, the estimated GHG emission reductions are forecast to range from
zero to 360,000 tons CO2e per year by 2030 depending on the portfolio. The baseline for
comparison is SCE's portfolio resource mix versus the potential City CCE resource mixes. Exhibit
46 details these reductions over the 10-year study period.
Exhibit 46
Comparison of Average Annual GHG Emissions from Electricity, by Resource Portfolio(2021-2030)
SCE
Equivalent 100%
Renewable Renewable 100%
Portfolio by 2035 Renewable SCE
Avg./GHG Free 48% 76% 100% 48%
Avg. Emissions(Metric Tons CO2) 360,000 169,000 - 360,000
Difference SCE 50% Portfolio (Metric Tons CO2) 0 191,000 1 360,000
10.6 Findings and Conclusions
Based on the analysis conducted in this Study,the following findings and conclusions are made:
■ The formation of a City CCE is financially feasible and could yield considerable benefits for all
participating residents and businesses.
■ Key risks include: power supply costs and regulatory changes impacting local control and the
PCIA.
■ Benefits could include electric retail rates that are at least 2%lower compared with SCE rates.
■ Other benefits include local control over power supply, economic development incentives,
and targeted demand-side management programs.
■ City CCE start-up costs could be fully recovered within the first three years of City CCE
operations.
■ After this cost recovery, revenues that exceed costs could be used to finance a rate
stabilization fund, new local renewable resources, economic development projects and/or
lower customer electric rates.
■ The sensitivity analysis shows that the ranges of prices for different market conditions will for
the most part not negatively impact City CCE rates compared to SCE rates. Where negative
impacts may exist, those risks can be mitigated.
■ Local electric rate savings are expected to stimulate economic development.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 89
94
DRAFT
The positive impacts on the City and its citizens of forming a CCE suggest that City CCE
implementation should be considered with the following next steps: evaluate governance
options, partnering options, and develop implementation plan.
10.7 Recommendations
Based on the Feasibility Study results, and recent CCE experiences in the State, the following
recommendations are made pursuant City CCE formation:
■ The City CCE should initially contract with a third party with the necessary experience(proven
track record, longevity and financial capacity) to perform most of the City CCE's portfolio
power supply operation requirements. This would include the procurement of energy and
ancillary services, scheduling coordinator services, and day-ahead and real-time trading.
■ The City CCE should approve and adopt a set of protocols that would serve as the risk
management tools for the City CCE and any third-party involved in the CCE portfolio
operations. Protocols would define risk management policies and procedures, and a process
for ensuring compliance throughout the City CCE. During the initial start-up period, the
chosen electric suppliers would bear most risks and be responsible for their management.
The protocols that cover electricity procurement activities should be developed before
operations begin.
■ The City CCE should be conservative and flexible in its approach to obtaining power supply
resources necessary to meet load requirements. This might mean seeking a variety of low-
priced power suppliers as opposed to a single, or few, suppliers.
■ Additionally, it is recommended that the City CCE engage with a portfolio manager or
schedule coordinator, who has expertise in risk management and would work with the City
CCE to design a comprehensive risk management strategy for long-term operations.
10.8 Summary
This Study concludes that the formation of a CCE for the City of Irvine is financially feasible and
could yield considerable benefits for all participating residents and businesses if the City chose
to implement a CCE. These benefits could include 2% lower rates for electricity, although higher
rate reductions are possible. The City would also see positive impacts for their constituents due
to the formation and operation of a City CCE. The City CCE could develop a number of customer
programs that the City CCE could administer. And a City CCE would help contribute to established
or future City clean energy goals. A City CCE would provide local self-determination and
governance for energy use in the City.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 90
95
3 �
� a
L
N ry
N N
a
`W
W C
V N
41 u
•1 0
O �
L p
a Z
� o -
Q Fl
vi
X m
� Q
W O
C N C
C 7
Q C
G
¢
`m
a
w
c
A
Q m
0 0
z
0
a
N
7
Q
01 �
O
N cj
G
a
A
a
w
LL
C
f0
O O O O O ti ti
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_ � �� '-1 •-1 '-1 r-I W Q
QM V � CO 00 O1 •-I l0 V V U'1 f\r1 V 00 � (� 01 .ti 00 O N 00 O � � .--1 N M V V N
cC -Y
U p C E
c v
° 0 O £ Q
io U
tf
E
E u
o c
s v uw
O u
uo o do 'a ~ o o in
c ,o - `c-. ,o F. z z z Z Y
v u v O > v v t v c E r m v v ac o c v E
o v „ a � `_' a v o u _ c v .'_' E E
m x n ° - ¢ v ° E 3 `c y`o > o n a o `'" ° o ° o o a` ° ° i
O Q 3 0 w ✓� `m u U 2 > v ° oi! v v ob � `� aiS v 3 U w _Eo 2 w w uo>
Y ¢ 7 a n E v v v v 0 '- x v v > n > 3 n Ica n ¢ = a v o
m _ U O a 0 - - = d a s = = v A LL v ° V m O o c
H �t u u d Q li = x n LL U ¢ U LL z 9 CC o n _LL ¢ U U a a U a a a w
v 0 m v c
p n E 6 0
a Q v r
v v o V
a ° E E
- c c
o m E
O U z a U V
$ 1 $ 18Do? N � ��� � � SR
p O CO �l1 n O N N ,M O N N N N N N N N n n N C 01
11Q�V N N Yf N N IA �-1 Oppi 0aa1 Oi pyp 00
VI to VL N Vf Vf
QJp� 1p �ppp ryp�� �Vp� lqp
Of lV IOoDDD N � F Vpp1 M M � � O N M M � pNppp 01 pO� p0p0 F
M M M M M M T ry OO 00 �i N
LL N V� N V!ul aA V� VI Vf N O O
/AO A V
li tpV� V1 pp �p T O O N fy O N G O O N N IA O V1 pp
' �8 ppvp� (Up��1 VN1 � O O tt�pp n
N lnDp
pp r1 f�1 Ono OTl T Om1 01 OM1 I� On1 Q ON1 pap N
CL
/� fOV VT N N VI N N
O �p Yp1 �ppp p p p pp pppp pQp
ip ONi �O pWm� �.p�i Q n O „•i OO �8 IN�L M � N�pS1 .ny p a VOf a m N N .�Q Q.N� pNp mOf (OO � O
N N
N N N N N Vf N VF N V1� N �p
N
NOT N ^ l�0 ON1 N N O�0 O�C Op W N N N N g NNO gigN O
.I �ppp pq� �Np pp
O N b Oppi OO � tNI! N N N n n Oni On1 �On�pp1 �On�ppt 1fNpV a� OpOp� 1OFp1 OM1 N
LL N
m
Opp F B N n n n pppl N v �i Bi m m �n .4i.4i N N �$
M N yppy�� Ppp� Vf N �D !per V N M M M n n n IIli
O Np m Ot N
fOY N QN N V' �A N N Nf�'1
X T OO O oM T � 8 a w M M O Q i -R Q i a N N t0/1 N O Oi O
n rvt e+f � ri n n n ri lYf r Iv1 V1 ri N
rm1 N N N w N N N V1�N VT � VY N VT N Vf N M M N
N Vl N N N V�
R O1 1OOp 01� _ N yp M �O1 Ci OQpi Opp ppp� 0pp1 upl OO upl N tD N
ON1 � N �!1 10 N tMM� I� � N v fN` t0 10 �I�pOp 1p W N N eO�O N
V� cVp} Vf N �e
o �i OO7ppS '6'+ o � tpNV� o"lo n I°.' �m pv pNm� v a `g` a o •qi 3. Si.�i m 'gm' I�, `� ffi ti
�y I� tNO O lND 1m0 lm0 N T O ti N �OpI V1 N N � VNf enl N W 0�1 � N
fOV eNi eN•I N N to N Vf fVf
N ah Vf N N N
C
N
N V1 O Vf O N N O O N N 1p N
8 �p May �spp $ pNN , pppp OpM o s x
N �I V OD O � V �� N Q V1 Q Oml Orvl ON1 � On1 N T Onl �D N 00 N O N Q
fOV 00 OD N N N N�A N N N N N � N N� N N N V
u
H
c
� m
`w a
v
-
5
d c •�
C c A N
V x c LL m o A li
c
O C C Y C c.O W 00`0 W
£ y v w A £°Q m v u p E m o vo nn A £ u t
a Q S i Q v c c V
w $ L d o g Y
R c aW aco °� ZpYn £ E of E nm > am mm E
w 01 a/ A a+ p O t lu O M1I w O
a y J r u o a' u n o o o
U O F Z R 2 H Z H G' GC V m O of U
• O 1 a
tnu ao ri rl cri l 'i IY1 ri ni o 8
G 00 0) 0000 rl O N N M q VNj
L N N
41
O , I ry O n0mN 0 p N 00 O , m , m
}r 0000 0000 N N rrn n N 1p
H 01 N m N to 0)
m rl rj
L
0 , m m n , p rl 00) , , , , , m m N
.a N Mm q m 0 rl m m 0) 8N f�
00 000 co O QN1 N N m n 8 N
rl '•I
r\ In Ln
In H H N 00 00 v N 00 m 0)N m
p O N to N u1 rl n M l0 n
ry NN
00 000 N O N N N N 8 001 01
V7 rl rl 00 N M N 00
rl rl
XN , , 00 N , 't 00 , , p , m N q 00 rl O
N O 1 m N 14 n O � Ln rl
00 NNNMpp W mOO a n
CL
LL aLn
m
, pp
N m 2N 01 I n ' O 0rl 0 N N ' cf
01 n N O N n N O ll7 tr1 H 00
t\ 00 r, O N N N M 0 q 00
H rj
N In C N c•I 0Mp , N , (1 l0 00 H 0) l0
N Om1 n H r-I00) 00 0 po Q1 n
N ^ 0000 l00 8 m N `H m l0 m 0000
rl rl N N m W V n
'•I rl
n rl ri 00 U) Epp
N umi 8 0N N O N rml ' 0000
" N 0 m ppp N " m a� L a
rl �D N m V n
rl rl
N O , 0 In , 0) , , 00 , m , rl O1
N q 0 pa rn r`�i °o0 0 o`noo N mn
Ici N t` N l0 Ol N O N fan rml
N m t0 n
ri rl
ry $ � 88 no � ,0 N
O In n Ln In N m 0 N In O 01 a
H rl L6 Lr lG lC Lf rl lC V1 M lD lD lC l0 O1
N n n m ^ N r�i r�i M m N d)
14 Q
Tv
u
C C
= L
C� N
vi
L ~
m A
M
10 >
a C 0
In �0 X
01
u 0 u a a: a
4- u C 7 o 1 a Ir v
O 3 C 0O 'A of p ,cu
01 3
c
N OO "
u a
c ca• u °do o oc o uo W
arm o � oo0) to « muo w v, 00
' N fu0 C > L m A Op 7 00 N u m 0 m 7 Z 7 c m N c 'p
a cNo ,� u w c v .N v c u c u C CC c u
f0 M jO �+ 00 L LA m
M > n N 0) a-• > [ 5 C V .0 c C E u 0 00 IO ++ 0 M
t c of
ul E 'c u `= E �° m 'A m v `0 r m c o 0 o v L E
E w — m m r c > E u f0 u m N ;° 3 a, v c E
C 0 7 `� a+ O C O O y '0 7 y f0 C u F c 7 Q 0 u . C u N O C Uu. O � m � ui U � Q2H0iz OUH o In in m � H u
� 6
pipp � p�pp �
�V K
Q
3 A P5� aa
^LL N Z N N K
i
ryry�� Rp ry p� p p Epp
a M Q
N N N K
v
o Aar
CL
CL
cK
4 ya m Ov�0 � N N e.T
L
d � N N K N Vf N K
N N N N
0
IK ll
16
a5L5t 'st 5t s 5t
GI
$.yy St 5t 5� a st st st eppp a 5t -a a z4 a
N N N N aA N N N N N N N Qt O N tD d CvC
N N
W N
Q 5Q� Q f0
as IR .qi a a 9. 'rM9� a4.aR a
N K N N LT N H
f0
T
I ♦ �
7
N
T
� 2
c
N � W
3^ 00
DRAFT
Appendix E — Glossary
Ancillary Services: Those services necessary to support the transmission of electric power from
seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities within those
control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system.
aMW: Average annual Megawatt. A unit of energy output over a year that is equal to the energy
produced by the continuous operation of one megawatt of capacity over a period of time (8,760
megawatt-hours).
Baseload Resources: Base load power generation resources are resources such as coal, nuclear,
hydropower, and geothermal heat that are cheapest to operate when they generate
approximately the same output every hour.
Basis Difference(Natural Gas):The difference between the price of natural gas at the Henry Hub
natural gas distribution point in Erath, Louisiana, which serves as a central pricing point for
natural gas futures, and the natural gas price at another hub location (such as for Southern
California).
Buckets: Buckets 1-3 refer to different types of renewable energy contracts according to the
Renewable Portfolio Standards requirements. Bucket 1 are traditional contracts for delivery of
electricity directly from a generator within or immediately connected to California.These are the
most valuable and make up the majority of the RECS that are required for LSEs to be RPS
compliant. Buckets 2 and 3 have different levels of intermediation between the generation and
delivery of the energy from the generating resources.
Bundled Customers: Electricity customers who receive all their services (transmission,
distribution and supply)from the Investor-Owned Utility.
Bundled and Unbundled Renewable RECS: Unbundled Renewable Energy Credits (RECS) are
those that have been disassociated from the electricity production originally represented and are
sold separately from energy. Bundled RECS are delivered with the associated energy.
California Independent System Operator (CAISO): The organization responsible for managing
the electricity grid and system reliability within the former service territories of the three
California IOUs.
California Balancing Authority: A balancing authority is responsible for operating a transmission
control area. It matches generation with load and maintains consistent electric frequency of the
grid, even during extreme weather conditions or natural disasters. California has 8 balancing
authorities. SCE is in CAISO.
California Clean Power(CCP): A private company providing wholesale supply and other services
to CCEs.
California Energy Commission (CEC):The state regulatory agency with primary responsibility for
enforcing the Renewable Portfolio Standards law as well as a number of other, electric-industry
related rules and policies.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC): The state agency with primary responsibility for
regulating IOUs, as well as Direct Access (ESP) and CCE entities.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 95
100
DRAFT
Capacity Factor: The ratio of an electricity generating resource's actual output over a period of
time to its potential output if it were possible to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously
over the same period. Intermittent renewable resources, like wind and solar,typically have lower
capacity factors than traditional fossil fuel plants because the wind and sun do not blow or shine
consistently.
CleanPowerSF: CCE program serving customers within the City of San Francisco. CleanPowerSF
began service to 7,800 "Phase 1" customers in May 2016.
Climate Zone: A geographic area with distinct climate patterns necessitating varied energy
demands for heating and cooling.
Coincident Peak: Demand for electricity among a group of customers that coincides with peak
total demand on the system.
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA): Method available through California law to allow cities
and Counties to aggregate their citizens and become their electric generation provider.
Community Choice Energy: A City, County or Joint Powers Agency procuring wholesale power to
supply to retail customers.
Community Choice Partners: A private company providing services to CCEs in California.
Congestion Charges: When there is transmission congestion, i.e. more users of the transmission
path than capacity, the CalSO charges all users of the congested transmission path a "Usage
Charge".
Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs): Financial rights that are allocated to Load Serving Entities to
offset differences between the prices where their generation is located and the price that they
pay to serve their load. These rights may also be bought and sold through an auction process.
CRRs are part of the CAISO market design.
Demand Side Resources: Energy efficiency and load management programs that reduce the
amount of energy that would otherwise be consumed by a customer of an electric utility.
Demand Response(DR): Electric customers who have a contract to modify their electricity usage
in response to requests from a utility or other electric entity. Typically, will be used to lower
demand during peak energy periods, but may be used to raise demand during periods of excess
supply.
Direct Access: Large power consumers which have opted to procure their wholesale supply
independently of the IOUs through an Electricity Service Provider.
EEI (Edison Electric Institute)Agreement: A commonly used enabling agreement for transacting
in wholesale power markets.
Electric Service Providers (ESP): An alternative to traditional utilities. They provide electric
services to retail customers in electricity markets that have opened their retail electricity markets
to competition. In California the Direct Access program allows large electricity customers to opt-
out of utility-supplied power in favor of ESP-provided power. However, there is a cap on the
amount of Direct Access load permitted in the state.
Electric Tariffs: The rates and terms applied to customers by electric utilities. Typically have
different tariffs for different classes of customers and possibly for different supply mixes.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 96
101
DRAFT
Enterprise Model: When a City or County establish a CCE by themselves as an enterprise within
the municipal government.
Federal Tax Incentives:There are two Federal tax incentive programs. The Investment Tax Credit
(ITC) provides payments to solar generators. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) provides payments
to wind generators.
Feed-in Tariff(FIT): A tariff that specifies what generators who are connected to the distribution
system are paid.
Firming: Firm capacity is the amount of energy available for production or transmission which
can be (and in many cases must be)guaranteed to be available at a given time. Firm energy refers
to the actual energy guaranteed to be available. Firming refers to the financial instrument to
change non-firm power to form power.
Flexible Resource Adequacy: Flexible capacity need is defined as the quantity of economically
dispatched resources needed by the California ISO to manage grid reliability during the greatest
three-hour continuous ramp in each month.
Forward Prices: Prices for contracts that specify a future delivery date for a commodity or other
security. There are active, liquid forward markets for electricity to be delivered at a number of
Western electricity trading hubs, including SP15 which corresponds closely to the price location
which the City of Davis will pay to supply its load.
Implied Heat Rate:A calculation of the day-ahead electric price divided by the day-ahead natural
gas price. Implied heat rate is also known as the 'break-even natural gas market heat rate,'
because only a natural gas generator with an operating heat rate (measure of unit efficiency)
below the implied heat rate value can make money by burning natural gas to generate power.
Natural gas plants with a higher operating heat rate cannot make money at the prevailing
electricity and natural gas prices.
Integrated Resource Plan: A utility's plan for future generation supply needs.
Investor-Owned Utility(IOU): For profit regulated utilities. Within California there are three IOUs
- Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric.
ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association): Popular form of bilateral contract to
facilitate wholesale electricity trading.
Joint Powers Agency (JPA): A legal entity comprising two or more public entities. The JPA
provides a separation of financial and legal responsibility from its member entities.
Lancaster Choice Energy(LCE): A single-jurisdiction CCE serving residents of the City of Lancaster
in Southern California. LCE launched service in October 2015 and served 51,000 customers.
LEAN Energy (Local Energy Aggregation Network): A not-for-profit organization dedicated to
expanding Community Choice Aggregation nationwide.
Load Forecast: A forecast of expected load over some future time horizon. Short-term load
forecasts are used to determine what supply sources are needed. Longer-term load forecasts are
used for budgeting and long-term resource planning.
Local Resource Adequacy: Local requirements are determined based on an annual CAISO study
using a 1-10 weather year and an N-1-1 contingency
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 97
102
DRAFT
Marginal Unit: An additional unit of power generation to what is currently being produced. At
and electric power plant, the cost to produce a marginal unit is used to determine the cost of
increasing power generation at that source.
Marin Clean Energy (MCE): The first CCE in California now serving residents and businesses in
the Counties of Marin and Napa,and the cities of Richmond, Benicia, El Cerrito,San Pablo,Walnut
Creek, and Lafayette.
Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade (MRTU): CAISO's redesigned, nodal (as opposed to
zonal) market that went live in April of 2009.
Net Energy Metering (NEM): The program and rates that pertain to electricity customers who
also generate electricity,typically from rooftop solar panels.
Non-bypassable Charges: Charges applied to all customers receiving service from Investor-
Owned Utilities in California, but which are separated into a separate charge for departing load
customers, such as Community Choice Aggregation and Direct Access Customers. These charges
include charges for the Public Purpose Programs(PPP), Nuclear Decommissioning(ND), California
Department of Water Resources Bond (CDWR), Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA),
Energy Cost Recovery Amount (ECRA), Competition Transition Charge (CTC), Cost Allocation
Mechanism (CAM).
Non-Coincident Peak: Energy demand by a customer during periods that do not coincide with
maximum total system load.
Non-Renewable Power: Electricity generated from non-renewable sources or a source that does
not come with a Renewable Energy Credit (REQ.
On-Bill Repayment (OBR): Allows electric customers to pay for financed improvements such as
energy efficiency measures through monthly payments on their electricity bills.
Operate on the Margin: Operation of a business or resource at the limit of where it is profitable.
Opt-Out: Community Choice Aggregation is, by law, an opt-out program. Customers within the
borders of a CCE are automatically enrolled within the CCE unless they proactively opt-out of the
program.
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE): Community Choice Aggregation program serving residents and
businesses of San Mateo County. PCE launched in October of 2016.
Pricing Nodes:The ISO wholesale power market prices electricity based on the cost of generating
and delivering it from particular grid locations called nodes.
Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA): A charge applied to customers who leave IOU
service to become Direct Access or CCE customers. The charge is meant to compensate the IOU
for costs that it has previously incurred to serve those customers.
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA): The standard term for bilateral supply contracts in the
electricity industry.
Portfolio Content Category: California's RPS program defines all renewable procurement
acquired from contracts executed after June 1, 2010 into three portfolio content categories,
commonly referred to as "buckets."
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs):The renewable attributes from RPS-qualified resources which
must be registered and retired to comply with RIPS standards.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 98
103
DRAFT
Resource Adequacy(RA): The requirement that a Load-Serving Entity own or procure sufficient
generating capacity to meet its peak load plus a contingency amount (15% in California) for each
month.
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): The state-based requirement to procure a certain
percentage of load from RPS-certified renewable resources.
Scheduling Coordinator: An entity that is approved to interact directly with CAISO to schedule
load and generation. All CAISO participants must be or have an SC. A scheduling coordinator
provides day-ahead and real-time power and transmission scheduling services.
Scheduling Agent: A person or service that forecasts and monitors short term system load
requirements and meets these demands by scheduling power resource to meet that demand.
Shaping: Function that facilitate and support the delivery of energy generation to periods when
it is needed most.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE): CCE serving customers in twelve communities within Santa
Clara County including the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los
Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View,Saratoga,Sunnyvale,and the County of Santa
Clara. As of the date of completion of this Study, SVCE had not yet launched service.
Sonoma Clean Power (SCP): A CCE serving Sonoma County and Sonoma County cities. On
December 29th, SCP received approval of their implementation plan from the California Public
Utilities Commission to extend service into Mendocino County.
SP15: Refers to a wholesale electricity pricing hub-South of Path 15 -which roughly corresponds
to SCE and SCE's service territory. Forward and Day-Ahead power contracts for Northern
California typically provide for delivery at SP15. It is not a single location, but an aggregate based
on the locations of all the generators in the region.
Spark Spread: The theoretical grow margin of a gas-fired power plant from selling a unit of
electricity, having bought the fuel required to produce this unit of electricity. All other costs
(capital, operation and maintenance, etc.) must be covered from the spark spread.
Supply Stack: Refers to the generators within a region, stacked up according to their marginal
cost to supply energy. Renewables are on the bottom of the stack and peaking gas generators on
the top. Used to provide insights into how the price of electricity is likely to change as the load
changes.
System Resource Adequacy: System requirements are determined based on each LSEs CEC
adjusted forecast plus a 15% planning reserve margin.
Vintage: The vintage of CRS applicable to a CCE customer is determined based on when the CCE
commits to begin providing generation services to the customer. CCEs may formally commit to
become the generation service provider for a group of customers
Weather Adjusted: Normalizing energy use data based on differences in the weather during the
time of use. For instance, energy use is expected to be higher on extremely hot days when air
conditioning is in higher demand than on days with comfortable temperature. Weather
adjustment normalizes for this variation.
Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC): The organization responsible for coordinating
planning and operation on the Western electric grid.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 99
104
DRAFT
Wholesale Power: Large amounts of electricity that are bought and sold by utilities and other
electric companies in bulk at specific trading hubs. Quantities are measured in MWs, and a
standard wholesale contract is for 25 MW for a month during heavy-load or peak hours (7am to
10 pm, Mon-Sat), or light-load or off-peak hours (all the other hours).
Western States Power Pool (WSPP)Agreement: Common, standardized enabling agreement to
transact in the wholesale power markets.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 100
105
DRAFT
Appendix F — Power Supply Detail
Wholesale Market Prices
Market prices for SCE, which is the SCE price market location, were provided by EES Consulting's
subscription to a market price forecasting service. Figure F-1 below shows forecast monthly
southern California wholesale electric market prices. The levelized value of market prices over
the 10-year study period is $0.0407/kWh (2019$) assuming a 4% discount rate. Electric market
prices peak in the winter and summer when there is large heating and cooling load.
Figure F-1
Forecast Southern California Wholesale Market Prices
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
Y
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
lV M V V V1 lD 1, n 00 a) O C) M V V) tO lO r� 00 M M
N N N N N N N rV N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M r?
C lYJ d C 5 _ a C u - L C V 75 Q C V � u C V
O Q � Q 9 O Q 9 O Q Q 99 O Q 9 O
Wholesale power prices have been used to calculate balancing market purchases and sales.
When the CCE's loads are greater than its resource capabilities, the CCE's scheduling coordinator
would schedule balancing purchases and the CCE would incur balancing market purchase costs.
When the CCE's loads are less than its resource capabilities, the CCE's scheduling coordinator
would transact balancing sales and the CCE would receive market sales revenue. Balancing
market purchases and sales can be transacted on a monthly, daily and hourly pre-schedule basis.
Ancillary and Congestion Costs
The CCE would pay the CAISO for transmission congestion and ancillary services. Transmission
congestion occurs when there is insufficient capacity to meet the demands of all transmission
customers. Congestion refers to a shortage of transmission capacity to supply a waiting market
and is marked by systems running at full capacity and still being unable to serve the needs of all
customers. The transmission system is not allowed to run above its rated capacities. Congestion
is managed by the CAISO by charging congestion charges in the day-ahead market. Congestion
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 101
106
DRAFT
charges can be managed with Congestion Revenue Rights (CRR). CRRs are financial instruments
made available through a CRR allocation, a CRR auction, and a secondary registration system.
CRR holders manage variability in congestion costs. The CCE's congestion charges would depend
on the transmission paths used to bring resources to load. As such, the location of generating
resources used to serve the CCE load would impact these congestion costs.
The Grid Management Charge (GMC) is the vehicle through which the CAISO recovers its
administrative and capital costs from the entities that utilize the CAISO's services. Based on a
survey of GMC costs currently paid by CAISO participants, the CCE's GMC costs are expected to
be near$0.5/MWh.
The CAISO performs annual studies to identify the minimum local resource capacity required in
each local area to meet established reliability criteria. Load serving entities receive a proportional
allocation of the minimum required local resource capacity by transmission access charge area
and submit resource adequacy plans to show that they have procured the necessary capacity.
Depending on these results of the annual studies, there may be costs associated with local
capacity requirements for the CCE.
Because generation is delivered as it is produced and, particularly with respect to renewables can
be intermittent, deliveries need to be firmed using ancillary services to meet the CCE's load
requirements. Ancillary services would need to be purchased from the CAISO. Regulation and
operating reserves are described below.
■ Regulation Service: Regulation service is necessary to provide for the continuous balancing
of resources with load and for maintaining scheduled interconnection frequency at 60 cycles
per second (60 Hertz). Regulation and frequency response service is accomplished by
committing on-line generation whose output is raised or lowered (predominantly using
automatic generating control equipment) and by other non-generation resources capable of
providing this service as necessary to follow the moment-by-moment changes in load.
■ Operating Reserves - Spinning Reserve Service: Spinning reserve service is needed to serve
load immediately in the event of a system contingency. Spinning reserve service may be
provided by generating units that are on-line and loaded at less than maximum output and
by non-generation resources capable of providing this service.
■ Operating Reserves—Non-Spinning Reserve Service: Non-spinning reserve service is available
within a short period of time to serve load in the event of a system contingency. Non-spinning
reserve service may be provided by generating units that are on-line but not providing power,
by quick-start generation or by interruptible load or other non-generation resources capable
of providing this service.
Based on a survey of ancillary service costs currently paid by CAISO participants, the CCE's
ancillary service costs are estimated to be near $0.0036/kWh. The Study's base case assumes
ancillary service costs are$0.0036/kWh in 2020,escalating by 20%through 2026 and 5%annually
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 102
107
DRAFT
thereafter. Serving a greater percentage of load with renewables would likely result in increased
grid congestion and higher ancillary service costs. The scenarios included in this Study as shown
below in Exhibit F-2.
Exhibit F-2
Base Case Ancillary Service Costs in Resource Portfolios
2019 Ancillary Service
Portfolio Annual Escalation Factor
Costs,$/kW-month
1- Meet RPS Targets 3.6 20%2021-2026,5%2027+
2- Serve 50%of Retail Load with Renewables 3.6 20%2021-2026,5%2027+
3- Serve 100%of Retail Load with Renewables 3.6 20%2021-2026,5%2027+
Scheduling Coordinator Services
A scheduling coordinator provides day-ahead and real-time power and transmission scheduling
services. Scheduling coordinators bear the responsibility for accurate and timely load forecasting
and resource scheduling including wholesale power purchases and sales required to maintain
hourly load/resource balances. A scheduling coordinator needs to provide the marketing
expertise and analytical tools required to optimally dispatch the CCE's surplus resources on a
monthly, daily, and hourly basis.
The CCE's scheduling coordinator would need to forecast the CCE's hourly loads as well as the
CCE's hourly resources including shares of any hydro, wind, solar, and other resources in which
the CCE is a participant/purchaser. Forecasting the output of hydro, wind, and solar projects
involves more variables than forecasting loads. Scheduling coordinators already have models set
up to accurately forecast hourly hydro, wind, and solar generation. Accurate load and resource
forecasting would be a key element in assuring the CCE power supply costs are minimized.
A scheduling coordinator also provides monthly checkout and after-the-fact reconciliation
services. This requires scheduling coordinators to agree on the amount of energy purchased
and/or sold and the purchase costs and/or sales revenue associated with each counterparty with
which the CCE transacted in a given month.
A scheduling coordinator provides day-ahead and real-time power and transmission scheduling
services. Scheduling coordinators bear the responsibility for accurate and timely load forecasting
and resource scheduling including wholesale power purchases and sales required to maintain
hourly load/resource balances. A scheduling coordinator needs to provide the marketing
expertise and analytical tools required to optimally dispatch the CCE's surplus and deficit
resources on a monthly, daily and hourly basis.
Inside each hour, the CAISO Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) takes over load/resource balancing
duties. The EIM automatically balances loads and resources every fifteen minutes and dispatches
least-cost resources every 5-minutes. The EIM allows balancing authorities to share reserves,
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 103
108
DRAFT
and more reliably and efficiently integrate renewable resources across a larger geographic
region.
Within a given hour, metered energy (i.e., actual usage) may differ from supplied power due to
hourly variations in resource output or unexpected load deviations. Deviations between metered
energy and supplied power are accounted for by the EIM. The imbalance market is used to
resolve imbalances between supply and demand. The EIM deals only with energy, not ancillary
services or reserves.
The EIM optimally dispatches participating resources to maintain load/resource balance in real-
time. The EIM uses the CAISO's real-time market, which uses Security Constrained Economic
Dispatch (SCED). SCED finds the lowest cost generation to serve the load considering operational
constraints such as limits on generators or transmission facilities. The five-minute market
automatically procures generation needed to meet future imbalances. The purpose of the five-
minute market is to meet the very short-term load forecast. Dispatch instructions are
effectuated through the Automated Dispatch System (ADS).
The CAISO is the market operator and runs and settles EIM transactions. The CCE's scheduling
coordinator would submit the CCE's load and resource information to the market operator. EIM
processes are running continuously for every fifteen-minute and five-minute interval, producing
dispatch instructions and prices.
Participating resource scheduling coordinators submit energy bids to let the market operator
know that they are available to participate in the real-time market to help resolve energy
imbalances. Resource schedulers may also submit an energy bid to declare that resources will
increase or decrease generation if a certain price is struck. An energy bid is comprised of a
megawatt value and a price. For every increase in megawatt level, the settlement price also
increases.
The CAISO calculates financial settlements based on the difference between schedules and actual
meter data and bid prices during each hour. Locational Marginal Prices (LMP) are used in
settlement calculations. The LMP is the price of a unit of energy at a particular location at a given
time. LMPs are influenced by nearby generation, load level, and transmission constraints and
losses.
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment 104
109
Switzer, Donna
From: Jerry Barry <jbatgma@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday,August 04, 2019 9:22 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Item 21
"I urge you to oppose Agenda Items 21 and�2."Both items will cause irreparable harm to the citizens of Huntington
Beach".
-Jerry B.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Date: BLS)Z _____o
Agenda Ittn No.'
Switzer, Donna
From: Rita Barry <rrbarryl5@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday,August 04, 2019 9:41 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: oppose item 21 /
urge you to oppo a its te�21 .
They are not good for toppose their passage.
Rita Barry Resident of HB for over 50 years!
Sent from my Whone
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meedng Date: F/5//1
"1l
Agenda Hem No: ` ��Jr�
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 6:30 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Items and-22-'
As a concerned citizen of Huntington Beach, some of the current members on the council are out to undermine
the hard working individuals of this once great town. Please vote in opposition to Agenda Items 21 an!,�.
Thank you,
Janet
Janet Bean Designs and Services
714-362-7899
Creating unique pieces of jewelry and uniting couples in matrimony with love and under the
watchful eyes of my guardian angels.
Janet Bean Designs and Janet Bean Wedding Off iciant on Facebook
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 51.51/9
Agenda Item No.,•
Switzer, Donna
From: Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 11:16 AM
To: Agenda Alerts
Subject: Support CC agenda item #21 re CCE feasibility study
Attachments: Screenshot_20190804-110311.png; Screenshot_20190804-110320.png
Dear city council,
I wholeheartedly support moving forward with the CCE feasibility study process. CCE is ultimately a free
market move in providing both local HB energy consumers and producers with competitive choice.
Since installing Tesla solar panels and Powerwalls batteries back in May, my SCE grid consumption is
negligible. But because I had my system sized anticipation of future increase in usage, I currently export a lot
excess production to SCE for non-negotiable pricing.
SCE is under extreme financial pressure, so the price they're paying me is probably low. CCE would give me
the choice of getting the best price for my exported clean power.
- Mark Bixby
714-401-4526
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeft Date:
Agenda ram►,No.-
Jul 2019
320 1 Vh
240
160
80
7/7- 4 7/14 g. 7/21- Last
80 `
i
Aw
Y re6`
Jul 2019 v
493 kWh
HOME USAGE
1262 kWh
SOLAR ENERGY
159 kWh
FROM POWERWALL
201 kWh
TO POWERWALL
3 . 8 kWh
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 7:44 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:
AGENDA COMMENT
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Brown <heykathybrown@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 9:49 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:
I am writing to urge you to fight items 21,and,2Tihis Monday. They both sound corrupt!
Thank you,
Kathleen Brown
Sent from my Whone
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Deb:
Agenda Item No.•
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:04 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:Agenda items 21,22 for August 5 meeting
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Nancy Buchoz<nancybuchoz@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:01 AM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:Agenda items 21,22 for August 5 meeting
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council Members,
I am writing to share my opposition for the following agenda items at tonights city council meeting.
I oppose agenda item 21 because I believe that CCA's can put the city in a position of potential financial risk
because of the enormous costs to create such programs and the liability which would fall on the taxpayers if
such contracts were to go bad. Which is always possible.
Also, agenda item 21 can't promise that it will actually add additional green energy.
Finally, I oppose this agenda item on the basis it would create more government and thus the potential for
more utility rates. I believe it could jeopardize tax paying citizens with too much risk. I dont believe it would
benefit our city at this time if ever.
Secondly I also oppose agenda 4em 2-on the basis I believe it would create less transparency in an area of
our city government that frankly needs it the most! A pre conceived work plan would eliminate the ability
for oversight and participation by the Finance commission which is in place to do just that, BE AN
OVERSIGHT AND KEEP THE CITYS FINANCES PROTECTED.
Please continue to allow the Finance Commission to do its appointed job of helping keep the city on the right
track financially.
The commissioners are citizens appointed by Council members so it makes no sense to cut off their
involvement by having a system that is unable to be advised upon.
Thank you for the consideration to these two agenda items.
We appreciate your service.
Respectfully, SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Nancy Buchoz
Mee1ing Date:
Agenda Item No. �-
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Sylvia Calhoun <skc347@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday,August 04, 2019 11:41 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL--
Subject: Ag nda items 21 apt$-2-2
Please OPPOSE agenda items 21 aft4-22!
Sylvia Calhoun. Resident since 1982.
We need more simple and more transparent, not less! Thank you.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
MmOng Dice: ��5-Ile-7
AgerWe hem No., a� r 9�25
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 3:54 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject item 21 CCE
Name Mary Ann Celinder
Email macelinder@gmail.com
Comments
We are in support of a choice with our utilities. Please vote to proceed the study with item 21.
Kar, Kevin, Keatonl and Mary Ann Celinder
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting oa*.e:
Agenda ttm No.; C;v
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 10:47 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy;-CITY-COUNCIL
Subject: FW:AGENDA ITEM 21 nd T-EM-22---
AGENDA COMMENT
From:Alina Clougherty<alina_clougherty@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 10:46 AM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:AGENDA ITEM 21 and ITEM 22
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council:
I would like for you to vote No on the two agenda items: #21 d-#-2-2-slated for Monday's city council meeting.
I have read up on these issues and it is a bad idea for our city. Both take away citizen oversight on very important issues
that impact our lives. _
Again, please vote No on Item#21
Thank you,
Alina Clougherty
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeift Date:
Agenda hem No:
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:Agenda 21,c-22'
AGENDA COMMENT
-----Original Message-----
From: Marietta Daedelow<spide4@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:32 AM
To: CITY COUNN&-,<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject-Agenda ZI Br22
I urge you to oppose agenda items 2 �2 Both items will cause irreparable harm to the citizens of Huntington Beach.
Thank You,
Marietta Daedelow
Sent from my Whone
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
ring Date:
Agenda ftern No.*
Work Order: #178689 08/05/2019 Closed:
8/05 201
9
This issue is resolved Est. Resolution D. Not
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Steven Farnsworth
Email Hazmn54@gmail.com
SUBTYPE Phone 714-975-1038
City Council Meeting Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
❑x
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
City Council Members,I am asking you to oppose item 21 on the council agenda regarding the
city taking over the billing for SCE electrical use.Leave the power and associated billing to the
experts.The City of HB has no business dabbling in this.All this would mean is higher cost to
the citizens of HB.I am asking you to oppose this item.Thank you,Steve Farnsworth
Status Changed:08/05/2019 10:43 AM Donna Switzer
Work Order*178689 status has changed from assigned to resolved.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES
Assigned Support Worker:08/05/2019 10:28 AM Antonia Graham SUPPLEMENTAL
Workorder#178689 has been assigned to Patty Esparza COMMUNICATION
Share with Citizen:NO
Meeft Date:
Status Changed:08/05/2019 10:28 AM Antonia Graham / p�
Work Order#178689 status has changed from new to assigned. A9erWa hem No•• d-/
Share with Citizen:YES
Assigned Worker:08/05/2019 10:28 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178689 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau.
Share with Citizen:NO
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/05/2019 10:28 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder*178689 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
Switzer, Donna
From: Billg-Primary <Billg@socal.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday,August 04, 2019 1:03 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: OPPOSED TO AGENDA ITEMS 21 and 22
Huntington Beach City Council,
I urge all members of the Huntington Beach City Council to oppose Agenda Items 21
and 22.
These items will cause irreparable harm to the citizens of Huntington Beach.
Respectfully,
Bill Gailing
Virus-free. www.avast.com
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Moo"Date: alsll_!I
Apnda Item No.• "1l /mil- Ov7
Switzer, Donna
From: Susan Gary <susangaryphotos@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 9:18 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Agenda Items 21 and
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and ,2'and will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently"died" a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it was
exposed that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. Since the time of that Study Session, I
have been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one success among cities who
have attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad idea especially
knowing that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course,
Southern California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities
who adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council
should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no positive reason to shift the
current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council unless the end-goal is seeking a new"Slush
Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper
due diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be
afforded additional expansion or responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize
the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 -Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to believe that we
have arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS transparency and LESS oversight. As
someone who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is apparent that there is simply NO WAY
to articulate an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this commission! If we are truly interested, as
a city, in operating efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be "on the table" at all times! Whether or
not a given council choses to look at the material coming from Finance Commission is and always has been optional, but
to pre-identify a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the finances of our city
which should be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS
DANGEROUS PRECIDENT.
SUPPLEMENTAL
Respectfully, COMMUNICATION
Jon and Susan Gary
Sent from my iPhone
Meetlng Date: /
Agenda hem No:,,,,T`
Switzer, Donna
From: Nancy Griley <nangriley@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 8:39 AM
To: citycouncil@hermosabch.org; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: No on items 21 SL2�'
Dear City Council,
�,I min a co cerned citizen and property owner in Hermosa Beach. I'm writing to urge you to vote No on Agenda
item , a feasibility study for CCA. This was addressed in the past and it is still a bad idea. Do not waste the
money.
In addition, I urge you to vote no on4temz--2 regarding the Finance Committee.
Thank you,
Nancy Griley
120 28th St
Hermosa Beach CA 90254
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
l F/s/i-7
Agenda lhn r4o: oP/
Switzer, Donna
From: William Hennerty Jr. <billhennerty@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday,August 04, 2019 11:59 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Oppose items 21 an�
City Council,
I am emailing you to let you know that I am oppose items 21 d
Thank you,
William Hennerty
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meedng Date:_ V-5-//
AWda Mein No..- a/
Switzer, Donna
From: Mary Hiber <beachldy53@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 6:24 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS #21 AND #22!
ATTENTION ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS!
I oppose both agenda items#21 422 because neither one is fiscally wise for our community. We don't need our city
controlling our SCE billing and pricing. I do not see any reason to make any changes with out city Finance Committee, as
they are doing very well and no changes are necessary.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Hiber
50 year resident of Huntington Beach
Sent from my iPad
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item No.: I I - a.S
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #21 AND #22
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Sherrey Hollander<quantum_sherrey@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August OS, 2019 11:59 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#21 AND#22
Dear Mayor and Huntington Beach City Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22 and will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently "died" a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it
was exposed that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. Since the time of that
Study Session, I have been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one
success among cities who have attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose
and reject this bad idea especially knowing that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are
the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course, Southern California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad
contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt
CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to
another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City
Council should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no positive
reason to shift the current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council unless the
end-goal is seeking a new "Slush Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote to
purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is safe
to say that neither City Council nor staff should be afforded additional expansion or responsibility for
ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE
ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 - Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to believe
that we have arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS transparency and LESS
1
oversight. As someone who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is apparent that
there is simply NO WAY to articulate an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this
commission! If we are truly interested, as a city, in operating efficiently and transparently, all options for
oversight must be "on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given council choses to look at the material
coming from Finance Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-identify a Work Plan is the
complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should be the MOST
TRANSPARENT aspect of any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS
PRECIDENT.
Sherrey Hollander, Huntington Beach resident
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: S/S// /
Agenda Item No.:_ vP// lq �v2S J
2
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 9:41 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy;CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:I strongly Oppose Agenda Items 2 n
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Lily Jacinto<lilycabrera@msn.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 9:29 AM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@su T,
- g>
Subject: I strongly Oppose Agenda Items 21 n
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - F sibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently "died" following a Study Session, it was exposed that CCA's are
not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. There is yet to be even one success among cities
who have attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad
idea knowing that the only winners of CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course, Southern California
Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who adopt
CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to
another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
The most important reason to oppose the idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council should given more
ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES! There is no positive reason to shift the current Southern
California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council unless the end-goal is seeking a new "Slush
Fund". The recent council majority vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due diligence has
landed the city in a lawsuit, City Council nor staff should be given additional responsibility for ANYTHING, let
alone something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR
TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT
AGENDA ITEM 22 - Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
1
At a time when our financial resources are stretched,partially as a result of the poor decision making of this
council, the proposal to "gut"the very commission charged with citizen review and oversight of our city's
finances is brought forward? Interesting timing.
If we are truly interested, as a city, in operating efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be
"on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given council choses to look at the material coming from Finance
Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-identify a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen
oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of
any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS PRECIDENT.
Respectfully,
Lily Jacinto
Sent from my iPad
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mfg Data: Ls//7
Agenda kem No.- a SaS
2
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 10:55 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject item 21
Name Ellen Jacobs
Email ejacobs@socal.rr.com
Comments
I support a feasibility study on CCE. Please vote yes.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting oat3: '5�151/1
Agenda Item No4 -�f
i
Work Order: #178301 Opened:
s 02/2019 Closed:/ 01
9
This issLie is resolved Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By DAN Jamieson
Email danjamieson4@hotmail
.com
SUB TYPE
Phone
City Council Meeting
Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
Comment Re Council Member Item No.21,the Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study,
Aug.5,2019 meeting Dear Council Members:I support moving forward with a Community
Choice Energy feasibility study.As noted,the Council held a detailed study session on this
topic on August 7,2017,and voted 5-2 to proceed with the NDA in furtherance of pursuing a
feasibility study.According to the current agenda item,apparently the City got bids or
information from consultants about performing a feasibility study,but that effort fizzled.It is
unclear why this action stalled,despite clear support from the Council.I urge the current
Council to engage in a transparent debate on this topic at the August 5,2019 meeting,and
move forward with the overdue feasibility study.Sincerely,Dan Jamieson Huntington Beach
Status Changed:08/05/2019 8:39 AM Donna Switzer
Work Order#178301 status has changed from assigned to resolved.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Status Changed:08/05/2019 7:48 AM Antonia Graha> p Do%• O C//5//9
Work Order#178301 status has changed from new to assigned.
Share with Citizen fto)NM. 01� l
A—;- a c,.,.,.-. XAI—v..,..no inrr)nin"7.AQ nr,r A..........
Workorder#178301 has been assigned to Patty Esparza
Share with Citizen:NO
Assigned Worker:08/05/2019 7:48 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178301 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau.
Share with Citizen:NO
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/05/2019 7:48 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178301 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject Community Choice Energy
Name DonnaRose Kohl
Email donnarosekohl@gmail.com
Comments
I am writing to ask you to please support a feasibility study for Community Choice Energy in
Huntington Beach. I am a concerned citizen who believes that the environment, energy sources
and climate issues are of the utmost importance.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mae"Date: '91571161
Agenda Item No.'.
i
Work Order: #178712 Opened:/ 19 Closed:/ 01
9
This isstio is reso[ved Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Linda Kraemer
Email temptalkteam@gmail.c
om
SUB TYPE
Phone
City Council Meeting
Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
In support of City Council Agenda item#21,Immediate Action to complete a Community
Choice Feasibility study and receive results within six months of this data.As a fiscally
conservative NPP Voter,I have found Community Choice Aggregation to be the smartest way
for cities to protect their residents,businesses,and consumers from the high cost of electricity.
A City knows the local needs best of it's constituents.Lancaster Choice Energy clearly states
on its website,(www.lancasterchoiceenergy.com)that it brings in 60 Million Dollars per year
back to its city in revenue.It provides charging stations in business parking lots,has created
an electric bus company and 200 jobs,and now is working to change cleaner school busses to
electric busses(ideal because they are only needed in the morning and afternoon and can
charge at the cost efficient rate during the day).The evidence is easy to find on the successes
of CCA's in California.Still,Orange County has NONE.Please take due diligent action and get
the facts for your city by completing the feasibility study without delay.
Status Changed:08/05/2019 10:44 AM Donna Switzer �+
Work Order#178712 status has changed from assigned to resolved. SUPPLEMENTAL
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to COMMUNICATION
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YEU_ e%Date:_ 9/5-//2
Status Changed:08/05/2019 10:27 AM Antonia Graham Agenda 10!'M NO.' (�9— 0��
Work Order#178712 status has changed from new to assigned.
Share with Citizen:YES
Assigned Support Worker:08/05/2019 10:27 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178712 has been assigned to Patty Esparza
Share with Citizen:NO
Assigned Worker:08/05/2019 10:27 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178712 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau.
Share with Citizen:NO
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/05/2019 10:27 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178712 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 9:00 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject In support of Agenda Item#21, CCA Feasibility Study
Name Linda Kraemer
Email temptalkteam@gmail.com
Comments
I'm requesting the City Council move is support of item #21 on the agenda and complete a
Community Choice Aggregation study and have the results within the next 6 months.
Since CCA's have repeatedly shown fiscal benefits to communities throughout California, and
are revenue based, (not using tax dollars), it is financially prudent to conduct a proper study for
the residents, businesses, and customers of Huntington Beach, without delay.
Thank You
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No.: .:2-1 ` /9— 5�S�
1
Switzer, Donna
From: Jan Kubica <hbjan98@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 3:01 PM
To: CITY COUNC&—_
Subject: Agenda Items 21 [-
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am wri ing4o_ur that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - asibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently "died" a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it
was exposed that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. Since the time of that
Study Session, I have been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one
success among cities who have attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose
and reject this bad idea especially knowing that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the
Consultants, Attorneys and, of course, Southern California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad
contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt
CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy(since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency
to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City
Council should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no
positive reason to shift the current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council
unless the end-goal is seeking a new "Slush Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote
to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is
safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be afforded additional expansion or responsibility for
ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE
ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 -Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to believe that
we have arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS transparency and oversight. As
someone who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is apparent that there is simply
NO WAY to articulate an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this commission! If we are
truly interested, as a city, in operating efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be "on the
table" at all times! Whether or not a given council chooses to look at the material coming from Finance
Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-identify a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen
oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of
any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
i
Respectfully,
Jan Kubica
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeong Date:
Agenda Item NO."
2
Work Order: #178601 Opened:/ 19 Closed:/ 01
9
This issue is resolved Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Shayna Lathus
Email shayna@shaynalathus.c
om
SUB TYPE
Phone
City Council Meeting
Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
allone
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study-Please do conduct this study.Huntington Beach
takes a lot of pride in being independent and we should have accurate information so that we
may make a decision that will allow our city this independence.Not only that,we will be better
suited to support our local businesses,as well as attract new businesses.With a CCE,our city
can offer reasonable rates and increased reliability to suit the power needs of our local
businesses.
Status Changed:08/05/2019 8:42 AM Donna Switzer
Work Order#178601 status has changed from assigned to resolved.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES
SUPPLP-MENTAL
Assigned Support Worker:08/05/2019 7:31 AM Antonia Graham COMMUNICATION
Workorder#178601 has been assigned to Patty Esparza Dft'
Share with Citizen:NO
Status Changed:08/05/2019 7:31 AM Antonia Graham Agenda Nam Nm-
Work Order#178601 status has changed from new to assigned.
Share with Citizen:YES
Assigned Worker:08/05/2019 7:31 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178601 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau.
Share with Citizen:NO
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/05/2019 7:30 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder*178601 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 3:47 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject CCE
Name Shayna Lathus
Email shayna@shaynalathus.com
Comments
Please do conduct the Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study.
I expect that the results will show that CCE is the best choice for our city to show our
independence and to support our local businesses, as well as attracting new businesses to
Huntington Beach. Our local businesses (and residents, of course) deserve reasonable rates
and reliability when it comes to power. Our residents deserve choices when it comes to
purchasing electricity. With a CCE, we will have the option to either continue to buy electricity
from SCE or we can choose to get our energy from the locally run, CCE, keeping more money
within our Huntington Beach community.
Please allow the feasibility study to move forward. Only then will we be able to make an
informed choice about whether or not this is best for our city. Thank you.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: 5/1
Agenda brn No.•
1
Work Order: #178586 08/04/2019 Closed:
8/06 201
9
Date:This issue is resolved Est. Resolution
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Linda Law
Email lindaklaw@aol.com
SUB TYPE Phone
City Council Meeting Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
❑x
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
Please support item 21 on the upcoming Council Agenda.It is so important that communities
provide the cleanest and best priced energy for all it's citizens.
Status Changed:08/05/2019 8:41 AM Donna Switzer
Work Order#178586 status has changed from assigned to resolved.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES
Assigned Support Worker:08/05/2019 7:32 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178586 has been assigned to Patty Esparza
Share with Citizen:NO SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Status Changed:08/05/2019 7:32 AM Antonia Graham Meeft Date, 915
Work Order#178586 status has changed from new to assigned.
Share with Citizen:YE 01— 8Z 5Q
�►genda Mem No.: �._
Assigned Worker:08/05/2019 7:32 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178586 has been assigned to Robin Estanislau.
Share with Citizen:NO
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/05/2019 7:32 AM Antonia Graham
Workorder#178586 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 2:07 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject Agenda item 21
Name Linda Law
Email lindaklaw@aol.com
Comments
Please support this agenda item. It is very important that all communities provide the cleanest
energy at the best prices for their citizens. Thank you for your time.
SUPPLEMENTAL.
COMMUNICATION
Meebng Date:
Agenda Item No.;
i
Work Order: #178743 Opened:/ 19 Closed:/ 01
9
Date:This issue is resolved Est. Resolution
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Selene Lawrence
Email selenelawrence@gmail.
com
SUB TYPE
Phone
City Council Meeting
Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
n None
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
Huntington Beach City Council Meeting,Monday,August 5th,2019-Agenda Item#21-
Community Choice Energy
Status Changed:08/05/2019 10:45 AM Donna Switzer
Work Order#178743 status has changed from new to resolved.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Making tee: I S11I
Agenda Item No.: -:�/ [ 1— 5.2J��
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:04 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Mary Lou <smithsurfermom@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 10:58 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
m writing to urge yob to OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22 for the reasons listed below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - asibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently "died" a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it was exposed
that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but in fact, very dangerous. Since the time of that Study Session, I have
been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one success among cities who have
attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad idea especially knowing
that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course, Southern
California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who adopt
CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government ... no one needs or wants this!
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council
should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no positive reason to shift the
current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and the City Council unless the end goal is seeking a new
"Slush Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without
proper due diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit. I think it is safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be
afforded additional expansion or responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize the
citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
-AGENDA ITEM 22 -Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
I find it hard to believe that we have arrived at a point where certain council members would be advocating for LESS
transparency and LESS oversight. As someone who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is
apparent that there is simply NO WAY to articulate an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this
commission! If we are truly interested, as a city, in operating efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be
"on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given council chooses to look at the material coming from Finance
Commission is and always has been optional. In no way should they pre-identify a Work Plan as then, that is the
complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should be the MOST
TRANSPARENT aspect of any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT. SUPPLEMENTAL
Respectfully, COMMUNICATION
Mary Lou Shlaudeman k4eeting Date:_ F'/J7/ /
Agenda Item No.:
Switzer, Donna
From: Susan Matthewson <matthewson.susanl@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 3:23 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Items 21 nd-z-�--
Please vote to oppose these two items. They are not good for the city of HB or its residents.
Sent from my Whone
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item No.;
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Gab <gabriela_menendez@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 2:14 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL---
Subject: Opposing agenda items 2 � 2
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I arfi writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22 and will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM�- Fbility Study for CommunityChoice aka CCA
Energy ( )
I had hoped this item would have permanently "died" a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it
was exposed that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. Since the time of that
Study Session, I have been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one
success among cities who have attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose
and reject this bad idea especially knowing that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the
Consultants, Attorneys and, of course, Southern California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad
contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt
CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to
another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City
Council should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no
positive reason to shift the current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council
unless the end-goal is seeking a new "Slush Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority
vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it
is safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be afforded additional expansion or responsibility for
ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE
ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 - Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to believe that
we have arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS transparency and LESS
oversight. As someone who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is apparent that
there is simply NO WAY to articulate an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this
commission! If we are truly interested, as a city, in operating efficiently and transparently, all options for
oversight must be "on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given council chosen to look at the material
coming from Finance Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-identify a Work Plan is the
complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should be the MOST
TRANSPARENT aspect of any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS
DANGEROUS PRECIDENT.
Respectfully,
i
Gabriela Menendez.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeft Date: /S//
Agwida Rm W.: c'7 1 oL
2
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: 21,22
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Mrdi<mrdi2003@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 6:19 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council @surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: 21,22
NO on 2 n�.2
Local omeowner
Mrdi
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeft Date: '7•SS /11-1/
Agenda Kam No.* c�
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Russell Neal <russneal@ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday,August 04, 2019 1:02 PM
To: CITY COUNEIt—�
Subject: Agenda Items 21 a�1d
I oppose the move to CCA under item 21 and any back door attempt to weaken the citizens' finance commission
under item 22.
Russ Neal
Huntington Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeling Date: al sl Iq
Agenda Ibn Wo.• '-2/
Switzer, Donna
From: Dorothy Newbrough <dnewbr@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 11:59 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Agenda Items 2 nd-2-2-
I am requesting you OPPOSE Agenda items 21 and-22. The residents of Huntington Beach voted you into
office....listen to us.
Dorothy Newbrough
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting oaoe: '3- i57
Agenda Item No: I Oq- �5
Switzer, Donna
From: SHARON OTT <ottcamP@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 4:16 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL —�
Subject: NO ON AGENDA ITEM 21 P�IVD f f -2 PEEASE
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council:
I am writing today to express my opposition and ask for your"No"vote on two agenda items on Monday's city council meeting:
Agenda Item 21 and Agenda Item 22.
Both these items have been discussed before and,I thought,deemed not worthy of future consideration.And yet,here we are again,
with agendas and,frankly,personal vendettas being pursued.
With respect to Agenda Item fl-d'Sibility Study for Community Choice Energy:
I attended the meetings held several years ago.And I thought this idea was put to bed and acknowledged that:
1.Although good-intentioned,this idea would not increase the use of green energy,but simply transfer the certificates of purchase
from one agency to another.
2.CCA would increase the size and scope of our city government at a time when you should be addressing many,more pressing
issues that require resources-both from a financial standpoint as well as an energy perspective.Those more pressing issues,where
your energy would be better spent include: infrastructure costs that are unable to keep up with the needs,the failed purchase of a
building to be used as a"Navigation"Center,the Ascon toxic waste dump,the mitigation of which is causing many health related
issues to your constituents in Southeast Huntington Beach,The tank farm property,where a medium density,mixed use building
project next door-and separated simply by a chain link fence to the previously mentioned Ascon toxic waste site is being pushed
through our city at the speed of a bullet train.
And yet,several of you choose an item of great significance in which to invest your time,ignoring all the above.You propose to have
the city relieve Southern California Edison of their historical duty of billing your constituents for their electricity use.
Which brings me to question, WHY?Why is it that several of you deem this as so important?I can think of no other reason than to
think that you are looking for additional sources of revenue for our city.And frankly,after the"Navigation"Center fiasco,where none
of you listened when Mayor Peterson at the meeting informed you of an alternate solution that would have fulfilled our obligation to
Judge Carter without spending OUR$2.7MM,I do not trust your judgement currently with financial matters. I need to see this council
begin making better financial decisions before considering a system whereby you will have control over our energy billing. I
apologize for being so blunt. But you need to prove yourself more capable than you have.
Which segues perfectly into my opposition of the next agenda item-Agenda Item 22-Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance
Commission.
At a time when our financial resources are stretched,partially as a result of the poor decision making of this council,the proposal to
"gut"the very commission charged with citizen review and oversight of our city's finances is brought forward?Interesting timing.
At an Ascon meeting at Edison High School I took the time to speak with a council member that I have grown to greatly respect. I
expressed my concern that a city council would take ANY action to limit the voice of citizens in our city government-especially when
it relates to financial issues.This council member agreed and supported the idea of increased citizen involvement-not less.The reality
is that the citizen members of the Finance Commission act on behalf of everyone in the city-council members and citizens alike-to
create a city government that operates in a fiscally responsible manner.They simply look for ways to save money and present those
ideas to you seven.They understand they have no policy-making role.I urge you not to limit their role at a time when we need to fmd
ways to streamline our operations and spend our money in responsible ways.
Additionally, I am greatly concerned what message this action will send to the citizen participants on every other board and
commission.Why would anyone want to be nominated to a board or commission if they knew their actions would be limited and their
opinions not considered.No,this is not the message you should be sending-now or ever.
Lastly,I am greatly concerned that this issue has become simply a personality issue.As elected members of our city you are leaders.
1
Leaders should rise above pettiness and personality conflicts-not create or inflame them.If you disagree with a member of a
commission your job should not be to succumb to that pettiness-but be a leader and rise above it.I encourage all of you to work with
the Finance Commission and make the citizen oversight and transparency stronger-not weaker.
Regards,
Sharon Ott
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Agenda kem No.,
2
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject support iltem 21 on agenda HB council meeting August 5
Name Stephanie Pacheco
Email stephaniepac@gmail.com
Comments
Please support Item 21 on the Agenda -A feasibility study for Community Choice Energy in
Huntington Beach.
As a former recipient of the HB City Commendation as "Environmental Activists of the Year",
part of my environmental studies have focused on energy savings along with promotion of clean
air, water, and protections of our environment due to climate change. I hope the city will
consider this study of Community Choice Energy to study the environmental and financial
benefits.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date:
Agenda!tern No.•,
Switzer, Donna
From: Madeline Pacilio-Brand <mpaciliobrand@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 11:51 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council MembersY----- ----__,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items--2,l--"and
Respectfully submitted,
Madeline Pacilio-Brand
21571 Kanakoa Lane
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meelft Dte:
Agenda Item No.:
Switzer, Donna
From: Deby Pierce <deby.pierce@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 9:14 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 21 and
,22'
8-04-2019
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 2 d� d will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy(aka CCA)
Hoping that you will due your due diligence and see that this is a horrible idea. Why do we need more government here
in Huntington Beach? It seems that this is the least of our worries. Focus on what the public is crying for. Your leadership
not more possible spending and loss.
I did find this quote and I couldn't have said it better"But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the
mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD!
There is absolutely no positive reason to shift the current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City
Council unless the end-goal is seeking a new "Slush Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote
to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is safe to say
that neither City Council nor staff should be afforded additional expansion or responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone
something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS
DANGEROUS CONCEPT."
AGENDA ITEM 22 -Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
Please be brave and don't succumb to the pressure to destroy the Finance Commission. It is the way the citizens have a
little oversight and input over our city. Why is that a bad thing. It is a voluntary position that people are doing to help
this city. Everyone wants transparency these days, except the people who are hiding something or doing something
wrong..
Please council care about the citizens.
Sincerely,
Deby Pierce
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meer Data: 15-1i7
Agenda Item No:
1
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, CathtCITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: Agenda items#21 arm#22
AGENDA COMMENT
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Pitts<ppitts@socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 7:28 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Agenda items#21 and #22
1 am opposed to these two items and would like to know from council members who sponsored them, are these in the
best interest of residents of HB? I say no!
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Dats: 5- 5` 11
Agenda Item No.- a l Oq- $�S
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Linda Polkinghorne <lapolkinghorn@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 8:31 AM
To: COUNCIL
Subject: Agenda 21 �,2�'
I find it hard to believe that we even have to speak out against these. Do you guys not see the problem! These
are horrible and not at all good for the people of HB. Do the right thing and vote NO
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: '7
Agenda Item No: ,P
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Shepard <NRDKMOM@AOL.COM>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 7:39 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Agenda Items
Please oppose Agenda items 21 and-H-both of which are very detrimental to Huntington Beach.
Sent from my Whone
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mee ft Dabs: 5/5-//'--7
Agenda Item No.- / - Y,2 s 1
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 12:06 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject Support for Agenda Item #21 - Community Choice Energy Feasibility
Study
Name Steven C Shepherd
Email steve@shepherdarchitects.com
Comments
I support the City of Huntington Beach efforts to obtain a Community Choice Energy feasibility
study.
I like Free markets, and a consumers right to choose. A CCE would give all HB residents a
choose when buying their power.
I believe it is best to invest locally. With a CCE the rates residents pay for electricity would stay
local rather than being paid to a far-off investor owned utility
I like it when things are controlled and overseen locally. I want local officials rather than far-away
CEO's making decisions about our power.
I want better local power grid infrastructure. With a CCE rates paid for power stay local giving
Huntington Beach funds to improve the resilence and reliability of our local electric grid.
With over 160 other California cities currently employing a Community Choice Energy system
for power procurement, Huntington Beach is being left behind.
By failing to fully investigate the potential of this program, the residents of Huntington Beach are
being short changed by their own local government.
CCE for HB ... NOW!
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
MeetN Date: &/-5//7
Agenda item No.- ` GI- 5"a )
Switzer, Donna
From: Cari Swan <cswanie@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 9:29 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS 21 and 22
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members, --------
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 2yaKd nd will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently"died" a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it was exposed
that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. Since the time of that Study Session, I have
been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one success among cities who have
attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad idea especially
knowing that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course,
Southern California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who
adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council
should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no positive reason to shift the
current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council unless the end-goal is seeking a new"Slush
Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due
diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be afforded
additional expansion or responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens
of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 -Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to believe that we have
arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS transparency and LESS oversight. As someone
who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is apparent that there is simply NO WAY to articulate
an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this commission! If we are truly interested, as a city, in
operating efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be"on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given
council choses to look at the material coming from Finance Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-
identify a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should
be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS
DANGEROUS PRECIDENT.
Respectfully,
Cari Swan
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Data:
Agenda Item No.;
i
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy
LITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: I opp se Agenda items 21 a
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA COMMENT COMMUNICATION
From: winkie8108@aim.com <winkie8108@aim.com> Meebng Date:_
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:34 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Agenda Item No.. !?/ �/q- �a�l
Subject: I oppose Agenda items 21 and 22
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22 and will provide more information
below.
.AGENDA ITEM 21 - Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had-hoped this item would have permanently "died" a couple years ago when, following a Study
Session, it was exposed that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous.
Since the time of that Study Session, I have been following this topic very closely and can report that
there is yet to be even one success among cities who have attempted this massive city-government-
expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad idea especially knowing that the only winners
in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course, Southern
California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts
to cities who adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one
agency to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that
NO City Council should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is
absolutely no positive reason to shift the current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff
and City Council unless the end-goal is seeking a new "Slush Fund". May I remind all of you that the
recent council majority vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due diligence has
landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be
afforded additional expansion or responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone something that could
permanently jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS
DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 - Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to
believe that we have arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS
transparency and LESS oversight. As someone who attends most Finance Commission and many
other meetings, it is apparent that there is simply NO WAY to articulate an annual work plan unless
the goal is to neuter and silence this commission! If we are truly interested, as a city, in operating
efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be "on the table" at all times! Whether or
not a given council choses to look at the material coming from Finance Commission is and always has
1
been optional, but to pre-identify a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen oversight and
participation in the finances of our city which should be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of any
government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS PRECIDENT.
Sincerely,
Janice Torres
Copied with permission, I couldn't have said it better myself.
2
Switzer, Donna
From: rob.pool.oc@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 11:01 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Please OPPOSE Age da Items 2
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council:
I am writing today to express my opposition and ask for your"No" vote on two agenda items on Monday's city council
meeting: Agenda Item end Agenda item 227
Both these items have been discussed before and, I thought, deemed not worthy of future consideration. And yet, here
we are again, with agendas and, frankly, personal vendettas being pursued.
With respect to Agenda Item 21- Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy:
I attended the meetings held several years ago. And I thought this idea was put to bed and acknowledged that:
1. Although good-intentioned, this idea would not increase the use of green energy, but simply transfer the
certificates of purchase from one agency to another.
2. CCA would increase the size and scope of our city government at a time when you should be addressing many,
more pressing issues that require resources- both from a financial standpoint as well as an energy perspective.
Those more pressing issues, where your energy would be better spent include: infrastructure costs that are
unable to keep up with the needs, the failed purchase of a building to be used as a "Navigation" Center,the
Ascon toxic waste dump, the mitigation of which is causing many health related issues to your constituents in
Southeast Huntington Beach, The tank farm property, where a medium density, mixed use building project next
door- and separated simply by a chain link fence to the previously mentioned Ascon toxic waste site is being
pushed through our city at the speed of a bullet train.
And yet, several of you choose an item of great significance in which to invest your time, ignoring all the above. You
propose to have the city relieve Southern California Edison of their historical duty of billing your constituents for their
electricity use.
Which brings me to question, WHY? Why is it that several of you deem this as so important? I can think of no other
reason than to think that you are looking for additional sources of revenue for our city. And frankly, after the
"Navigation" Center fiasco, where none of you listened when Mayor Peterson at the meeting informed you of an
alternate solution that would have fulfilled our obligation to Judge Carter without spending OUR $2.7MM, I do not trust
your judgement currently with financial matters. I need to see this council begin making better financial decisions before
considering a system whereby you will have control over our energy billing. I apologize for being so blunt. But you need
to prove yourself more capable than you have.
Which segues perfectly into my opposition of the next agenda item-Agenda Item 22-Adopt Annual Work Plan for
Finance Commission.
At a time when our financial resources are stretched, partially as a result of the poor decision making of this council, the
proposal to "gut"the very commission charged with citizen review and oversight of our city's finances is brought
forward? Interesting timing.
1
At an Ascon meeting at Edison High School I took the time to speak with a council member that I have grown to greatly
respect. I expressed my concern that a city council would take ANY action to limit the voice of citizens in our city
government-especially when it relates to financial issues. This council member agreed and supported the idea of
increased citizen involvement- not less.The reality is that the citizen members of the Finance Commission act on behalf
of everyone in the city-council members and citizens alike-to create a city government that operates in a fiscally
responsible manner.They simply look for ways to save money and present those ideas to you seven. They understand
they have no policy-making role. I urge you not to limit their role at a time when we need to find ways to streamline our
operations and spend our money in responsible ways.
Additionally, I am greatly concerned what message this action will send to the citizen participants on every other board
and commission. Why would anyone want to be nominated to a board or commission if they knew their actions would
be limited and their opinions not considered. No, this is not the message you should be sending- now or ever.
Lastly, I am greatly concerned that this issue has become simply a personality issue. As elected members of our city you
are leaders. Leaders should rise above pettiness and personality conflicts- not create or inflame them. If you disagree
with a member of a commission your job should not be to succumb to that pettiness- but be a leader and rise above it. I
encourage all of you to work with the Finance Commission and make the citizen oversight and transparency stronger-
not weaker.
Respectfully,
Rob Pool
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: F/5 f/`7
Agenda Item No.- :�I (/ $as
z
Switzer, Donna
From: Cari Swan <cswanie@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 9:53 AM
To: cswanie@aol.com
Cc: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: ACTION NEEDED!!! SEND EMAILS TO HB City Council OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS 2 nd
—22
Hi Friends,
I sent the follow email to city council and need your help to send emails OPPOSING two very
dangerous agenda items!!
Send emails to: city.council@surfcity-hb.org
Feel free to use any of the info from my email, or simply state: "I urge you to oppose Agenda Items
21 and 22. Both items will cause irreparable harm to the citizens of Huntington Beach".
Feel free to email or call if you have questions....thank you to all SUPPLEWWAL
Carl Swan COMMUNICATION
Mee"g Data: Y.5./9 -
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members, Agenda bm No.: 12 l �� -
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and 22 and will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently "died" a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it was exposed
that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. Since the time of that Study Session, I have
been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one success among cities who have
attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad idea especially
knowing that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course,
Southern California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who
adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council
should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no positive reason to shift the
current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council unless the end-goal is seeking a new"Slush
Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due
diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be afforded
additional expansion or responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens
of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 -Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to believe that we have
arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS transparency and LESS oversight. As someone
who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is apparent that there is simply NO WAY to articulate
1
an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this commission! If we are truly interested, as a city, in
operating efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be "on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given
council choses to look at the material coming from Finance Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-
identify a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should
be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of any government entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS
DANGEROUS PRECIDENT.
Respectfully,
Cari Swan
2
Switzer, Donna
From: Ray Scrafield <octoolguy@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 1:49 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL-
Subject: Anti-Agenda items 8t-2-2-
We are sending this letter in the hopes that you folks will take notice of our dislike for these items. We have copied Cari
Swan's letter but added our names to it. Thank you for taking the time to think about this.
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and-22-end will provide more information below.
AGENDA ITEM 21 - Feasibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently"died"a couple years ago when, following a Study Session, it was exposed
that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. Since the time of that Study Session, I have
been following this topic very closely and can report that there is yet to be even one success among cities who have
attempted this massive city-government-expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad idea especially
knowing that the only winners in the newest cottage industry of CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course,
Southern California Edison who conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who
adopt CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from one agency to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
But perhaps the single most important reason to oppose even the mere idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council
should given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES.....PERIOD! There is absolutely no positive reason to shift the
current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council unless the end-goal is seeking a new"Slush
Fund". May I remind all of you that the recent council majority vote to purchase the Pipeline building, without proper due
diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit.....I think it is safe to say that neither City Council nor staff should be afforded
additional expansion or responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone something that could permanently jeopardize the citizens
of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT.
AGENDA ITEM 22 -Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
As I previous wrote to you after the last attempt to destroy the Finance Commission, I find it hard to believe that we have
arrived at a point where certain council would be advocating for LESS transparency and LESS oversight. As someone
who attends most Finance Commission and many other meetings, it is apparent that there is simply NO WAY to articulate
an annual work plan unless the goal is to neuter and silence this commission! If we are truly interested, as a city, in
operating efficiently and transparently, all options for oversight must be"on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given
council chooses to look at the material coming from Finance Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-
identify, a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the finances of our city which should
be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of any government entity. 1 URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
Respectfully,
SUPPLEMENTAL
Ray and Barbara Scrafield COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: �/5-/17
Agenda Item No..
i
® Virus-free. www.avast.com
2
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 8:03 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject Community Choice Energy -Agenda Item#21
Name Claire Shepherd
Email cvsfieldhockey@gmail.com
Comments
I'm writing to support Community Choice Energy for our city. I think we should look into how this
could help our residents.
Thank you.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
tee:
Agenda Item No.•
Switzer, Donna
From: Gary Tarkington <garytarkington@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 11:07 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: NO ON AGENDA 21!
Importance: High
Hello
I am asking you to PLEASE VOTE NO on agenda 21.
Why you may ask, this is why...
1. City Council would have the ability to RAISE power rates anytime they need a new "slush fund".
2. Statewide, not one CCA has succeeded and, in fact, have cost their cities incredible up-front
investment....FOR NO GOOD REASON.
3. Who are the winners? Consultants, Attorneys and SC Edison.
4. Very risky and could easily bankrupt the city if failed.
Do we want City staff or any 4 members of council responsible for our power bill?? Holy cow!!! Recall
that this city council just landed us in a lawsuit after a poorly managed purchase of a commercial
building for a Homeless Shelter ($3million), supported by staff that FAILED to do due diligence....for a
building that was NEVER NEEDED!!! Good Lord....we need to REDUCE city hall....NOT EXPAND
IT!!!
This is NOT right for our city and it's citizens!
Ann Tarkington
Huntington Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Dom:
Agenda Item No.•
Switzer, Donna
From: Linda Wentzel <lindamarieofhb@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 1:55 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL "
Subject: Please OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 nd-z2
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 end-22.
Agenda Item 21 - Feasibility Study of Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I don't believe that we want any City Council that changes every two - four years have the ability to raise our
utility rates. I also don't believe that there should bean expansion of government jobs with the current state of
pensions. Please OPPOSE this item!
Agenda Item 22 - Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
The commission does research and then provides information for City Council members to consider. The
Council does not need to act on recommendations from the commission. Why would the Council want to
restrict the commission right from the start? Please OPPOSE this item!
Kind Regards,
Linda Wentzel
lindamarieofhbna gmail.com
(c) 714.951.7463
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting pate:
Agenda hem No.:
Switzer, Donna
From: Dee Wood <dwood9119@gmai1.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2019 9:41 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Oppose Agent7!1 �23'
Dear City Council of Huntington Beach,
We are writing to oppose two very dangerous agenda items.
We urge you to oppose Agenda Items 21 and 22.
In reading and learning about these agenda items they are a bad approach for our
City.
We do not need more government control - and we don't want our City Council to
have the ability to raise our utility rates.
We feel that his would jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach - just based on
too many variables.
Re: Agenda Item #22
We do not want less transparency & oversight ... we do not want to neuter the
Finance Commission.
Why do we need to pre-identify a Work Plan?
Please oppose.
Thank you for your service.
Respectfully yours,
Kurt and Dee Wood
Huntington Harbour Residents
Dee Wood
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATIC)N
Meeting Date: 5'/S//
Agenda Item No: �21
Work Order: #178851 08/05/2019 Closed:
8/06 201
9
This isstw i", resolved Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By KC Fockler
Email kcsurfhb@aol.com
SUB TYPE Phone 714-747-3184
City Council Meeting Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mee"Date: � - �j' 6?10
COMMENTS&ADDITIONAL NOTES
Agenda Item 21 CCE on the August 5th agenda.I am asking that the HBCC approve agenda
item 21 at tonight's council meeting.CCE gives more local control to the community while
providing citizen options for their energy source.The item on the agenda reads as follows:21.
19-825 Submitted by Councilmembers Delgleize and Carr-Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study Recommended Action:Direct the City Manager and the Public Works
Director to complete a Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and report back to the City
Council within six(6)months.This feasibility study could save citizens and city enormous
amounts of capital in the upcoming years,while giving everyone a chance to opt in for cleaner
energy providers.I believe due diligence is in order to at least look at the viability of this as an
option for Huntington Beach if cost savings is an option.Sincerely,KC Fockler
Status Changed:08/05/2019 2:12 PM Donna Switzer
Work Order#178851 status has changed from new to resolved.
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 1:57 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL ,
Subject: FW:Agenda items 21 and 22
AGENDA COMMENT
From:Sherry Daniels<sherryd628@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 1:54 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Agenda items 21 and 22
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to Agenda items 21 and-221or the
August 5th city council meeting. Residents have spoken before, opposing these
issues and it is clear that not all council members are listening to the residents of
Huntington Beach, because here we are again, with these agenda items. We do not need
more government, we need less!
I oppose Agenda item 21 because certain council members have proven time and time
again that they are not working in the best interests of the residents, but rather in their
special interest donors' best interests, and I cannot afford to have those council
members now in charge of my electric bill, with the ability to raise my bill when they
want to. This would add a whole new layer of bureaucracy to our city government, and
we barely afford what we already have. This would create pensions, benefits, etc, for
which we are already greatly in debt with our current unfunded liabilities.
I am in even stronger opposition to Agenda item 22 because our city needs resident
oversight and MORE transparency with our finances and this Agenda item makes the
Finance Committee the Council's puppet, removing transparency and oversight. Why
wouldn't we want the Finance Committee to always be on the lookout for ways to save
our city money? Saving money is a good thing! The Finance Committee needs to be able
to work independently and NOT just when the council wants to submit a Work Plan. I am
GRAVELY concerned that Mr. Posey continues to attempt to pull the wool over the
residents' eyes by trying to dismantle the Finance Commission with the support of Ms.
Carr. The residents of HB are watching all of you!! !
REJECT Agenda items 21 and 22 by voting NO!
SUPPLEMENTAL
Thank you, COMMUNICATION
Sherry Daniels Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:05 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject Agenda Item 21
Name KC Fockler
Email kcsurfhb@aol.com
Comments
I am asking that the HBCC approve agenda item 21 at tonight's council meeting. CCE gives
more local control to the community while providing citizen options for their energy source. The
item on the agenda reads as follows:
21. 19-825 Submitted by Councilmembers Delgleize and Carr- Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study Recommended Action:
Direct the City Manager and the Public Works Director to complete a Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study and report back to the City Council within six (6) months.
This feasibility study could save citizens and city enormous amounts of capital in the upcoming
years, while giving everyone a chance to opt in for cleaner energy providers. I believe due
diligence is in order to at least look at the viability of this as an option for Huntington Beach if
cost savings is an option.
Sincerely,
KC Fockler
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
M Date:�s�
Agenda fteWn III.- a-I
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 1:39 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: Fwd: City Council Meeting:Item #21 - Forming a Community Choice Aggregation...
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Michael Gioan <michael@digithings.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 1:28 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: City Council Meeting: Item #21 - Forming a Community Choice Aggregation...
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am concerned that this item has not undergone thorough vetting and risk assessment. Here are a few question I'd like to see
answered.
Have you considered the legal risks and exposure? PG&E was bankrupted by the consequences of the fires they caused last year.
The fires killed 85 people and destroyed entire cities.The damages will be in the billions. How would HB fare if/when, as a "deep
pocket" customer having influence, it is named in a multi-billion dollar settlement because SCE, God forbid caused a similar disaster?
Guess who would be on the hook then for the bill?Yep,you guessed right: HB residents. Did you consider that SCE would love to
offload the costs of billing to HB for pennies on the dollar? HB will have to:
• Integrate power billing into its own accounting and billing systems, complete with transfer of account history information
(for commercial customers and customers who have for example solar re-purchasing agreements)- Re-route SCE electric
counter information to HB billing systems
• Who will provide customer support?HB?There's another system to integrate
• How will outage notification and maintenance requests be forwarded to SCE?
And this is just a beginning. I am an IT expert and can tell you this will not be cheap. Do you have a budget for that? If you do, could
you publish an estimate?Who will pay for the conversion project?HB taxpayers,of course, here's our first rate hike!
Which other cities do you plan on recruiting for the venture?
With 200K residents, HB by itself does not "weigh" enough to secure competitive rates from large utilities. It looks big from a drone
off the pier, but HB is merely 1.4%of SCE customer base. Yep,a "major influencer"we'd be;-)
More City employees will need to be hired,with a long-term impact on our budget: Do you really think it's a good idea to basically
help SCE to reduce their workforce and shift the burden on our City? Do you have a budget for that, or it going to be the cause of the
second rate hike? Perpetual Clause: Will you commit to a perpetual clause that all money coming in from power billing will only be
used to pay SCE (or other power supplying utilities)and processing expenses? If you do not,you are basically creating a political
slush fund. In my humble opinion:You want SCE to provide "greener" power? Pressure the CPUC to have them follow the minimum
guidelines set by the state of California.
Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Michael M. Gioan-HB resident since 1999 �15_11�
Nleettng Date: -
i Agendla Ism No.;- d0 L�— pi25
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:56 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject Community Choice Energy for Huntington Beach
Name Roger Gloss
Email rogergloss@gmail.com
Comments
Mayor and members of the Council: Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs are now
serving about 25% of California residents and businesses. With CCE, the city will have direct
control of what kind of electricity it purchases, and from where. CCE, where it has been
implemented, has generally saved residents money on their monthly electric bills, and is
accelerating California's transition to renewable energy sources. Many CCE entities have also
used CCE revenues to incentivize purchase of electric vehicles, build out local sources for solar
power, etc. Orange County is generally behind the rest of the state in embracing CCE, however,
the City of Irvine has completed its feasibility study and will hopefully be the first OC city to
implement CCE. I urge Huntington Beach and other OC cities to follow. CCE is a win for
everyone.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
),ems Date:
Agenda Item► o.:
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:00 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY CQbWqL
Subject: FW:Agenda Items#21
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Michael Hoskinson<mikehosk@me.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 1:03 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: RE:Agenda Items#21&
Huntington Beach City Council Monday, August 5, 2019
RE: Agenda Items #2�12-
Honorable Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
In regards to Item L#21A'Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study.
In 2017 the HBCC had an extensive study session regarding a potential CCA and
wisely chose to not move forward. In the intervening 2 years many things have
changed for CCAs, all of them bad.
1. Renewable energy subsidization. CCAs rely solely on subsidized renewable
energy to compete with fossil fuel power. The Trump administration is
moving quickly to end many subsidies; should he win in 2020 it's likely that
subsidization may end. In this case CCAs will not be able to buy competitive
power and ratepayers bills will skyrocket. CCAs can not compete on a level
playing ground with coal, natural gas or other fossil fuels.
2. CCAs claim to "deliver green energy. The physical reality of the grid
precludes delivery of one type of energy over another. The grid is essentially a
"pool" of energy that customers tap into, there is no physical way to direct
"green" energy to the end user.
3. Choice. CCA customers are told they have a "choice" in the levels of green
energy they can purchase, this is simply a lie. As mentioned previously CCAs
1
cannot direct different volumes of green energy to the end user. This is
fraudulent.
4. Startup costs and Bureaucracy. Before one dollar of customer money is taken
in starting a CCA will require tens of millions in seed money and the creation
of a costly bureaucracy to manage it. As HB has significant long-term debt
from payroll and pensions adding to that burden would unwise in the extreme.
5. CCA failure. Many cities and municipalities are reversing or voting down
CCAs, including 5 cities in the Ventura CCA, Redondo Beach and SLO
County.
Please vote no on Item #21
In regards to Item'#2 -Adopting an Annual Work Plan for the Finance Commission
1) It is imperative that the Finance Committee be able to choose their work without
council direction as the entire reason for the FC is oversight.
Please vote no on Itemz# -
Yours truly,
Michael Hoskinson
SUppLE MENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Agends hem
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 4:39 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:I strongly Oppose Agenda Items 21 anpr
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Frank Jacinto<fmjacinto@msn.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 4:37 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: I strongly Oppose Agenda Items 21 an9z,
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members,
I am writing to urge that you OPPOSE Agenda Items 21 and?�
AGENDA ITEM 21 - sibility Study for Community Choice Energy (aka CCA)
I had hoped this item would have permanently "died" following a Study Session, it was exposed
that CCA's are not only a BAD idea for cities, but frankly very dangerous. There is yet to be
even one success among cities who have attempted this massive city-government-
expansion. Cities continue to expose and reject this bad idea knowing that the only winners of
CCA's are the Consultants, Attorneys and, of course, Southern California Edison who
conveniently get out of all their bad contracts and transfers the bad-contracts to cities who adopt
CCA's. At the end of the day, cities who adopt CCA's are left with:
1. A whole new EXPANDED layer of city government.
2. No additional "green" energy (since CCA's are merely a transfer of paper-certificates from
one agency to another).
3. Potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of start up funding and bad contracts.
The most important reason to oppose the idea of a CCA is the fact that NO City Council should
given more ability to RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES! There is no positive reason to shift
the current Southern California Edison responsibility to city staff and City Council unless the
end-goal is seeking a new "Slush Fund". The recent council majority vote to purchase the
Pipeline building, without proper due diligence has landed the city in a lawsuit, City Council nor
staff should be given additional responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone something that could
permanently jeopardize the citizens of Huntington Beach. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO
OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS CONCEPT
i
AGENDA ITEM 22 - Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance Commission
At a time when our financial resources are stretched,partially as a result of the poor decision
making of this council,the proposal to "gut"the very commission charged with citizen review
and oversight of our city's finances is brought forward? Interesting timing.
If we are truly interested, as a city, in operating efficiently and transparently, all options for
oversight must be "on the table" at all times! Whether or not a given council choses to look at
the material coming from Finance Commission is and always has been optional, but to pre-
identify a Work Plan is the complete removal of citizen oversight and participation in the
finances of our city which should be the MOST TRANSPARENT aspect of any government
entity. I URGE ALL OF YOUR TO OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS PRECIDENT.
Respectfully,
Frank Jacinto
2
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 3:23 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject AGENDA#21 CCE
Name Greg Kordich
Email Ilk2@mac.com
Comments
Honorable Mayor & Council Members, I urge all of you to support agenda item #21 cce. If the
study proves to be feasiable and beneficial for the city that will draw new business and income.
We will have a competitive advantage over other cities. City business and residence will be
paying less for electrical power needs. WIN WIN WIN THANKS Greg Kordich
SUPPLEMENTAL.
COMMUNICATION
MeeKng Date: O/5-//6
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:Agenda item 21- August 5th, 2019 City Council Agenda
AGENDA COMMENT
From: EVENT EXPOS<eventexpos@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:10 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:Agenda item 21-22 August 5th, 2019 City Council Agenda
Mayor Peterson and Council...
I, along with many other residents have already made our position clear in regard to I e_m—&...I'm
not going through it again ..Please vote NO..
Do not make yet another major financial blunder ....... item 21 .vote NO.
Sincerely
Yvonne Mauro
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mewing Date:_ /Sl�G7
Agenda Item No.•
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 5:20 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:I am writing this as opposition to City Council Agenda Item 21 lease vote NO
on both agenda items.
AGENDA COMMENT
From: larry mcneely<Imwater@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 5:16 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: I am writing this as opposition to City Council Agenda Ite 21 2�please vote NO on both agenda items.
1
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 4:39 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: NO ON AGENDA ITEM 21 AND ITEN�22 PLEASE
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Rob Ott<motoott@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 4:30 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Fwd: NO ON AGENDA ITEM 21 AND ITEM 22 PLEASE
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council:
I am writing today to express my opposition and ask for your"No"vote on two agenda items on Monday's city council meeting:
Agenda Item 21 and Agenda Itet-
Both these items have been discussed before and,I thought,deemed not worthy of future consideration.And yet,here we are again,
with ag=anersonalvendettas being pursued.
With reasibility Study for Community Choice Energy:
I attended the meetings held several years ago.And I thought this idea was put to bed and acknowledged that:
1.Although good-intentioned,this idea would not increase the use of green energy,but simply transfer the certificates of purchase
from one agency to another.
2.CCA would increase the size and scope of our city government at a time when you should be addressing many,more pressing
issues that require resources-both from a financial standpoint as well as an energy perspective.Those more pressing issues,where
your energy would be better spent include: infrastructure costs that are unable to keep up with the needs,the failed purchase of a
building to be used as a"Navigation"Center,the Ascon toxic waste dump,the mitigation of which is causing many health related
issues to your constituents in Southeast Huntington Beach,The tank farm property,where a medium density,mixed use building
project next door-and separated simply by a chain link fence to the previously mentioned Ascon toxic waste site is being pushed
through our city at the speed of a bullet train.
And yet,several of you choose an item of great significance in which to invest your time,ignoring all the above.You propose to have
the city relieve Southern California Edison of their historical duty of billing your constituents for their electricity use.
Which brings me to question, WHY?Why is it that several of you deem this as so important?I can think of no other reason than to
think that you are looking for additional sources of revenue for our city.And frankly,after the"Navigation"Center fiasco,where none
of you listened when Mayor Peterson at the meeting informed you of an alternate solution that would have fulfilled our obligation to
Judge Carter without spending OUR$2.7MM,I do not trust your judgement currently with financial matters. I need to see this council
begin making better financial decisions before considering a system whereby you will have control over our energy billing. I
apologize for being so blunt. But you need to prove yourself more capable than you have.
Which segues perfectly into my opposition of the next agenda item-Agenda Item 22-Adopt Annual Work Plan for Finance
Commission.
At a time when our financial resources are stretched,partially as a result of the poor decision making of this council,the proposal to
"gut"the very commission charged with citizen review and oversight of our city's finances is brought forward?Interesting timing.
At an Ascon meeting at Edison High School I took the time to speak with a council member that I have grown to greatly respect. I
expressed my concern that a city council would take ANY action to limit the voice of citizens in our city government-especially when
it relates to financial issues.This council member agreed and supported the idea of increased citizen involvement-not less.The reality
1
is that the citizen members of the Finance Commission act on behalf of everyone in the city-council members and citizens alike-to
create a city government that operates in a fiscally responsible manner.They simply look for ways to save money and present those
ideas to you seven.They understand they have no policy-making role. I urge you not to limit their role at a time when we need to find
ways to streamline our operations and spend our money in responsible ways.
Additionally,I am greatly concerned what message this action will send to the citizen participants on every other board and
commission. Why would anyone want to be nominated to a board or commission if they knew their actions would be limited and their
opinions not considered.No,this is not the message you should be sending-now or ever.
Lastly,I am greatly concerned that this issue has become simply a personality issue.As elected members of our city you are leaders.
Leaders should rise above pettiness and personality conflicts-not create or inflame them. If you disagree with a member of a
commission your job should not be to succumb to that pettiness-but be a leader and rise above it. I encourage all of you to work with
the Finance Commission and make the citizen oversight and transparency stronger-not weaker.
Regards,
Rob Ott
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meetng Date:
Agenda�,No.: � iI— V�sl
2
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:36 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy;CrFY-C CIL
Subject: FW: oppose items 21
AGENDA COMMENT
From: ROSE, BLAKE<brose@cfiemail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:31 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:oppose items 21 and 22
1 am a HB citizen and I oppose agenda items 21 ands-2"
Sincerely,
Blake Rose, (.FP®
Pinnacle Strategies Insurance and Financial Services
Registered Representative
Centaurus Financial, Inc.
3211 West Warner Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Phone: 714-263-0301 Ex. 119
Fax: 714-263-0392
CA Insurance License # OD06078
www.rollovegourira.com
Securities offered through Centaurus Financial,Inc.a registered broker/dealer and registered investment advisor,a member FINRA and SIPC.This is not an offer to
sell securities,which maybe done only after proper delivery of a prospectus and client suitability is reviewed and determined.Information relating to securities is
intended for use by individuals residing in CA and KY.
This e-mail and attachment(s)may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copy of this message is strictly prohibited.If received in error,
please notes the sender immediately and delete/destroy the message and any copies thereof.
This e-mail was sent in accordance with US Code 47.5.11,section 227.
We respect your privacy and pledge not to abuse this privilege. To stop future mailings,please respond by typing"remove"in your reply.
CFP®and CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNERTm are certification marks owned by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards,Inc. These marks are
awarded to individuals who successfully complete the CFP Board's initial and ongoing certification requirements.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: � �5 /2
Agenda Item No.._ / 1 - 4•�5
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo, Johanna
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 4:39 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW: Opposition to proposed CCA
AGENDA COMMENT
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <dsullivan@socal.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 3:56 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject: Opposition to proposed CCA
CCAs are a proven taxpayer rip off. Vote NO!
Dave Sullivan
Sent from my iPad
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date.
Agenda Clam No..*
i
Work Order: #178829 08/05/2019 Closed:
8/06 2201
9
This issue is resolved Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Steven Shepherd
Email steve@shepherdarchite
cts.com
SUB TYPE
Phone 714-785-9404
City Council Meeting
Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
meebg Date: 8/5/0
Agenda teem NO.:_
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
I support the City of Huntington Beach moving forward with a Community Choice Energy
Feasibility Study
Notes Added By staff:08/06/2019 8:16 AM Donna Switzer
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES
Status Changed:08/06/2019 7:46 AM Johanna Dombo
Work Order#178829 status has changed from new to resolved.
Share with Citizen:YES
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/06/2019 7:46 AM Johanna Dombo
Workorder*178829 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
Work Order: #178873 Opened: Closed:
08/06/201
9
ResolutionThis issue is resolved Est. Date:
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Tony Soriano
Email aosacs2@aol.com
SUB TYPE Phone 949-355-4571
City Council Meeting Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
❑x
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
Regarding tonight's Board Meeting:I am asking that the HBCC approve agenda item 21 at
tonight's council meeting.CCE gives more local control to the community while providing
citizen options for their energy source.The item on the agenda reads as follows:21. 19-825
Submitted by Councilmembers Delgleize and Carr-Community Choice Energy Feasibility
Study Recommended Action:Direct the City Manager and the Public Works Director to
complete a Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and report back to the City Council
within six(6)months.This feasibility study could save citizens and city enormous amounts of
capital in the upcoming years,while giving everyone a chance to opt in for cleaner energy
providers.I believe due diligence is in order to at least look at the viability of this as an option
for Huntington Beach if cost savings is an option.Sincerely,Tony Soriano
Notes Added By staff:08/06/2019 8:12 AM Donna Switzer
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item. SUPPLEMENTAL
Share with Citizen:YES COMMUNICATION
Status Changed:08/06/2019 7:45 AM Johanna Dombo Date: /S//-/
Work Order#178873 status has changed from new to resolved.
Share with Citizen:Xfotlda ngm NO.'
Tom,.,.,.T....,,ic„t,+., -01. ---,4.nn ina11n1n 1.Ar ANN r,.l.......�n.....1.,.
Workorder*178873 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO
Switzer, Donna
From: Dombo,Johanna
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: FW:
AGENDA COMMENT
From: Ken Johnson<maintken@aol.com>
Sent: Monday,August 05, 2019 10:40 PM
To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>
Subject:
To Whom It May COncem,
r--�
I oppose agenda Items 21 dy2.. There is ample evidence and data reflecting poorly to date on all government run energy programs
and only adds layers of addi joonal government and unnessary unchecked tax burdens for tax payers. Lack of oversite is also not in the
citizens best interest when it comes to financial planning and Im deeply troubled by both these items being brought forward in some
cases repeadedly in an obvious effort to force or circumvent poorly drafted plans.
I implore you all to vote both items down AGAIN and for good.
Respectfully,
Kenneth W.Johnson
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
MeWft DMS: IFS//9
�i
Aida Nam No.,
Community Choice Energy Report—South Orange County
Written by Victoria Mendez
M.S. Candidate in Earth Systems with minor in Economics at Stanford University
San Clemente High School Alumnus
Background
In 2002, California allowed for the formation of Community Choice Aggregation /Community
Choice Energy (CCA/CCE) programs with the passage of AB 117. Legislation allowing for CCA
programs has also been passed in Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, and Virginia.I By forming a CCA program, local governments can aggregate residents'
and businesses' buying power and purchase energy on their behalf, bypassing the investor-
owned utility (IOU) with regard to energy procurement. This allows communities to directly
choose their own energy sources.
Scope of Existing CCA's in CA
While CCA programs exist in six different states, they are most widespread in California, where
19 different CCA programs currently serve over 10 million customers.2 According to the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), CCA's are estimated to serve about 20% of
California's electrical load by the end of 2019.1 The CPUC has also estimated that CCA's, along
with direct access providers and rooftop solar, could serve up to 85% of California's electrical
load by 2025.4 This signifies that California's energy landscape is changing quickly.
Notably in Southern California, LA County's Clean Power Alliance began serving over 900,000
customers on February I" of 2019, following Phase I of its rollout to commercial and industrial
customers in 2018.5 Additionally, the City of San Diego announced that it would form a CCA
program in October of 2018, becoming the largest city in the U.S. to do so. The program is
expected to begin in 2022 and is projected to lower electricity rates for customers by up to 5
percent.6
1 http://Ieanenergyus.org/cca-by-state/
z https:/Ical-cca.org/
I hitp::'docs.cl)uc.c�i.gov./Publ isliedDocsiPuhlished:`GOOO,"N12p9!K77 1 1209 7 7 1 fi90.PQ
4http:/Iwww.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedfiles cpuc public website/content/news room/news and updates/retail%20c
hoice%20white%20paper°t205%208%2017.pdf pg 3
5 https://cleanpowerexchange.org/the-new-kid-in-town-southern-caIifornia-edisons-competitor-is-up-and-
runnin
6 https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/san-diego-moves-ahead-with-100-clean-energy-community-
choice-program#xs.7gh358
C?�
aicE cha Emeay 1'Masa Pawsr ABianaeef ldG
J✓t+vw ru tzx�-a u`�ar ca+sse 1f�2.11Rkw1drMiA Qu•5'
-... �<vaww Y firMhwAWR�y7M1s
Barome Goan POW iRn6't°M�
5aaan�+antiesrw•,t c^awrc»+ 6anJweClnanIntmo:-
^ p lYn A hw C#aim Enwv m
* - Cyew/e�aelawfrmsiaaa
Pe kn ft Chan Ena*v) Ytit9FZQ24 Launch r mrt,n.art
winr.. a n c° ly Energy:.
. saKon Vs""than Bnaay
r
R40*"d Cons Emray Audwrky Chan P-A*—Bo CA
A°Ph VNhy Chm.Eneryy a; Ban Jose Chan Energy
C Wn Po AMwm of**~n CA z*'>Lu
t� mxn.arh exva• ..vr
B�inSo�tl�'
.Pa.eed( r°a
un y
M°aany Bay Chet Pa+wr
�.-vws- � 3.nr.cw_nbnn.eesrraera�rxea+• weci.rnoa+mm°nxxEneroyfwRcaa;v,
_.. .. .. ° rcomftd*Y y .€'"ear 0,
Bin J400M Pow(a) CBha ot, Counihe.of;
Rancho mrs"Row"Ammar r'$i Bsiwnn P.vk 8.4te
Carlsbad Fesrw
C Kin{I!
�. *Aoy Chen Enag,r Aahnee40 CotMr blaloc
steeaaeaaan»Care:Ln e.::orfxo San
E FMaa Jan—
,ea hvwwnu
Bohm 9aa4n Eehe,�Aeienn tt.: Nanfa(a $enl:l BMDara
Loa �fo 9Aan°
Pcmona
ry • Sa 9.ayc
Figure 1: Status of California CCE's as of June 2018.'
How Do CCE's Work?
While CCA programs allow for local control of energy supply, there are key differences between
CCA programs and municipal utilities. With a CCA, the incumbent IOU continues to be
responsible for safely delivering energy, operating and maintaining the grid, and handling all
aspects of customer service and billing. The CCA only takes overt.e initial procurement of
energy resources, and also administers supplemental customer-facing programs and rebates.
Investor-Owned CCA Municipal Utility
Utility(IOU)
IOU Ieurchase5 Power L CCA� PurchasesPower i Muni Purchas�e IIPower
II
I IOU Maintains
I�III i!III Ill IIII!IIII III O9 U Il11 I!VI g!III I I, MuniI�I IIII ICI I I I II II I III II
Transmission Lines Transmission L! Transmission Lines
l 4F
IOU Provides IOU Provides Muni Provides
Customer +e Customer Service iy!tomer Servicg
Figure 2: Roles and responsibilities under IOU's, CCA's, and municipal utility structures.$
A CCA can operate as either a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), or through a single city or county
enterprise fund. In the case that a CCA.operates as.a JPA,they are public not-for-profit entities
that procure energy on behalf of residents from participating municipalities. In this case, assets
7 http://Ieanenergyus.org/new/california/
8 https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/blog/posts/community-choice-aggregation-cca-helping-communities-
reach-renewable-energy-goals.html
and liabilities are kept separate from city and county general funds. If the CCA runs through a
single city or county enterprise fund, it operates as a separate program and fund within the
existing municipal or county structure. CCA's with both kinds of governance structures
successfully exist in California.'There is also proven potential for cities to join existing CCA's
rather than form a new CCA from scratch.10
CCA's do not use taxpayer funding to purchase energy. They simply collect revenue from
customers' electricity bills. That money would previously have gone to the IOU but is now
redirected to the CCA. The CCA uses this revenue to purchase energy on behalf of residents and
businesses. Unlike an IOU,the CCA has no obligation to return a profit to outside shareholders
and can thus reinvest funds via lower prices..and local projects. Some argue that this dynamic
also makes CCA's better positioned to take on beneficial projects that do not necessitate large
shareholder returns.
When a CCA is formed, it automatically becomes the default energy purchaser for all customers
within its jurisdiction. Customers are able to opt-out and return to the IOU at any time. To avoid
customer opt-out, it is important that CCA'9 offer prices that are competitive with the incumbent
utility.
Case Study: Peninsula Clean Energy
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is the second largest CCA in California, serving roughly 300,000
residential accounts in San Mateo County. All twenty cities of San Mateo County voted
unanimously to join the CCA, which.operates as a none profit Joint Powers Authority (JPA).12
PCE is governed by a 22-member board of directors, with one elected representative from each
city and two elected representatives from San Mateo County.13
Peninsula Clean Energy has successfully provided residents with lower electricity rates and a
higher portion of renewable energy than Pacific Gas & Electric, the local IOU. With the default
"ECOplus" option, customers receive 5% savings when compared with PG&E's rates.14 Of the
energy purchased on behalf of ECOplus customers, 50% is renewable and 90% is greenhouse
gas free." In comparison, PG&E's portfolio is 33%renewable and 80%greenhouse gas free.16
PCE customers can opt to move from ECOplus to ECO100. With ECO100, customers can
choose 100% renewable energy at a rate that is only $2.50 more per month than PG&E's rates
9 https://cal-cca.orp/resources!
io htto://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC, Public Website/Content/About Us/CCABackgroundPaperv2.odf
pg 6
11 httn:Hcleanpowerexchange.org/peninsula-clean-energy-now-serving-all-of-san-mateo-county-with-lower-cost-
cleaner-electricity/
12 1ittps:.0'www.1eninsulacleanenergy.com fag/
"https:/lwww.pen ill s Lilac]eanenergycom/wp-content/u Icp rads2018/1OiPCE-Fiscal-Year-2017-18-Audited-
Financial-Statements.ndf pg 3
14 https:/.`wWw.12en ill su lac]eanenergy.comi
15 [bid.
16https•/..'www pLe com/en/about..."newsroom/newsdetails/index l)aLe'title=20180220 pge clean energy deliveries a
Iready—m eet_tutu regoal s)
for the average household.17 Note that the CCE cannot direct specific electrons to each
household. Instead, the customer is choosing the portion of renewable energy that will be
purchased and added to the grid on their behalf. For example, for an ECO100 customer, 100% of
their share of energy that is added to the grid will be renewable. However, the customer will not
necessarily be using 100% renewable energy in their own household. The household will still
receive electricity at the same quality and safety as PG&E delivers throughout their grid.
In addition to switching from ECOplus to ECO100, customers can also choose to opt out of the
CCA program altogether and remain with PG&E as their energy provider. Peninsula Clean
Energy has seen a very low opt-out rate at 2.4%.18
Customer rate savings from this CCA program have totaled about $17 million annually.19
However, according to Rafael Reyes, PCE's Energy Programs Manager, some of the most
significant benefits of forming PCE have come from the opportunity to reinvest funds back into
the community. PCE has been able to reinvest revenue into community projects that are aimed at
decreasing greenhouse gas emissions,_supporting low-income customers, and electrifying
transportation.20 PCE will also be rolling out a program to provide incentives for electric vehicle
charging infrastructure this summer.21
PCE's Formation
Forming a CCA can be complicated, and PCE's formation can provide an idea of what this
process looks like. Much of the following information was provided by Carolyn Raider, who
works at San Mateo County Office of Sustaianabllity and was originally hired to help with PCE's
start-up process.22 While an overview of PCE's formation is provided here, Carolyn particularly
emphasized the importance of working with experienced consultants at every junction to help
navigate this process wherever it is undertaken.
In forming PCE, the County first started with careful background research to understand
potential benefits and challenges associated with CCA programs. In 2015, the County agreed to
provide initial seed funding for the development of the CCA.23 This included several operational
loans with a total principal of$2,980,900 as well as a collateral loan with a principal of
$1,500,000.24 All loans were repaid in full by PCE in"December of 2017.21 All loans had accrued
interest based on the county's investment pool rate with the exception of the very first loan for
litips:,`/www.peninsulacleanenergy.cnm/
18 littps:/hvww.pen insulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/20l 8/10/PCE-.Fiscal-Year-2017-18-A udited-
Financial-Statements.pdfpg 3
19 Ibid.
20 https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/community-pilots/
21 https:Hwww.peninsulacleanenergy.com/ev-charging-incentives/
22 Phone communication with Carolyn Raider. February 41h,2019-.- -
23 https://www.peninsuIacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/PCE-Fiscal-Year-2017-18-Audited-
Financial-Statements.pdf pg 3
24 E-mail communication with Carolyn Raider.April 171h,2019.
25 Ibid
$300,000.21 According to Carolyn, the use of County seed funding was helpful in allowing cities
to jump on board without much cost from their end.
One of the first steps toward forming a CCA is a technicalleasibility study. For PCE, this was
funded by the County and completed by an energy consulting firm. The County coordinated with
participating cities, who made their PG&E data available for the study. The study projected that
the County could have a viable CCA program that was anticipated to yield both customer rate
savings and environmental benefits.
In moving forward, the County established PCE as a JPA.This involved developing bylaws and
making various legal filings with the state. Each city had to pass an ordinance in order to join the
JPA. From there, PCE established a Board of Directors that met monthly and also hired a CEO.
PCE then created and submitted an implementation plan to the CPUC, which had to be certified
prior to launching service. Finally, outreach and marketing efforts were undertaken to ensure that
residents were aware of and understood the upcoming change.
Potential Benefits & Challenges Associated with CCA's
Benefits �l'1^ (/lam S at 1 CIL
• Greater consumer choice. Consumers have the ability to choose between the IOU and
CCA's service, as well as between'different packages that the CCA might be able to
offer.
• Introduction of competition where a monopoly was previously held. This can benefit
iOU customers as well, because competition for customers incentivizes the IOU to try to
set lower prices.
• Local control over decisions about energy supply. The types and locations of
generation resources, as well as locally distributed energy and efficiency programs, can
all be directed by local governance and community priorities.
• Potential to provide lower energy rates with a higher mix of renewable sources. In
part, this is because renewable energy is much cheaper now than it was several years
ago. CCA's can take advantage of this without being beholden to older energy contracts
as many IOU's are, with the exception of the payment of exit fees which are discussed
below. Additionally, CCA's are not obligated to return a profit to outside shareholders,
as previously mentioned.
• Alignment with community climate goals. CCA programs can help cities meet
greenhouse gas reduction goals, such as those outlined in the City of San Clemente's
Climate Action Plan, by procuring renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency.
• Generates revenue that can be reinvested in community projects. While these often
include projects related to clean energy and energy efficiency, CCA's have broad
jurisdiction over reinvestment of funds. They may also choose to invest in programs
without direct energy outcomes, such as workforce development and educational
programs.
16 Ibid
,
- n
Challenges
• Must maintain a rate competitive with the incumbent IOU for viability. Otherwise,
customers are likely to opt-out.
• The need to maintain a competitive rate implies some associated risk. This includes risk
having to do with energy markets and prices, as well as regulatory and legislative risk.
o The exit fee has been one-source of regulatory and legislative risk. The exit fee,
which is called the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), is a charge
paid by CCA customers to compensate the IOU for past energy contracts and
investments that it obtained with the expectation of serving those customers in the
future. The stated purpose of the exit fee is to ensure that remaining IOU
customers are not saddled with higher rates when other customers leave.
Historically, California CCA's have been able to offer lower rates than incumbent
IOU's even after the exit fee is included. The CPUC adopted a new formula for
calculating exit fees in October 2018.27 The new formula is more favorable to
IOU's and has raised exit fees throughout the state. However, the exact magnitude
of this increase is not yet finalized, as the CPUC recently entered Phase 2 of the
PCIA proceedings.28
• Political barriers. CCA programs might face difficulty garnering support from local
governments, although this was not the case for PCE. Often a lead city or agency will
start the process, which will allow other municipalities or counties to add on later. For
example, the City of Fairfax led the charge in the formation of Marin Clean Energy
(MCE), which started operations in 2010. MCE has since expanded to include all areas of
Marin and Napa Counties, unincorp,,rated Contra Costa and`i4 contra Costa
municipalities. Similarly, Monterey Bay Community started in 2013 serving Monterey,
San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties, and just announced in December 2018 that it is
expanding to serve the cities of San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay.
• Seed funding necessary for start-up process. Without established funds and borrowing
capacity, the CCA will require sponsor agencies to get off the ground. However, as in the
case with PCE, this can be reimbursed once the CCA is operational.
Acknowledgements
• Carolyn Raider at San Mateo County Office of Sustainability for providing relevant
information about PCE's formation
• Rafael Reyes at Peninsula Clean Energy for providing relevant information about PCE's
programs
• Barbara Borkowski (CWR Energy), Luke Mawhinney (CWR Energy), and Terry Otsuki
for providing comments and edits on.this report
21 https://cleanpowerexchange.org/how-does-t ie-newly-passed-power-charge-indifference-adjustment-affect-
california-community-choice-agencies/
28 ibid.
i
SURFRIDER
r3UNUAT iON
QM Y F O E L L SOUTH ORANGE CON"
CHAIR
COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY CAMPAIGN
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION
(4151305-2219 SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
AFOELL@GMAIL.COM 34145 PACIFIC COAST HWY.,4619
SOUTHOC.SURFRIDER.ORG DANA POINT,CA 92629-2808
Switzer, Donna
From: agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 1:28 PM
To: Agenda Comment
Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comments on Council Agenda Items
AGENDA COMMENT
Subject communty choice
Name Armida Brashears
Email armidahb@verizon.net
Comments
Please support Item 21 It is important to our citizens and the survival of future generations
Thankyou
I am a 53 year resident.
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Mee" Date:
Agenda Item No.,
Work Order: #179191 Opened:/ 19 Closed:// 01
9
This ISSLW IS' 1-('S01V('(1 Est. Resolution Date: Not Yet Set
Agenda & Public Hearing Comments By Patty Tutor
Email petutor53@gmail.com
SUB TYPE Phone
City Council Meeting Device
STREET ADDRESS
Media Submitted
None
a
COMMENTS &ADDITIONAL NOTES
I support agenda item#21 and ask that Huntington Beach City Council support immediate
action to follow through and complete a feasibility study for Community Choice Aggregation in
Huntington Beach.
Notes Added By staff:08/07/2019 2:52 PM Donna Switzer
Thank you for sharing your concerns.Your email will be included as a Supplemental Communication to
this City Council agenda item.
Share with Citizen:YES
Status Changed:08/07/2019 1:14 PM Johanna Dombo
Work Order#179191 status has changed from new to resolved.
Share with Citizen:YES
Issue Type/Subtype Changed:08/07/2019 1:14 PM Johanna Dombo
Workorder#179191 Issue type changed from City Council to Agenda&Public Hearing Comments and
subtype City Council Meeting.
Share with Citizen:NO